Defining the alt-right

[caulfield12]

After all the discussion recently about "are those who voted for Donald Trump implicitly racist or members of the ALT-RIGHT by association" this seems like a useful reference (and, fwiw, it's quite neutral and if anything "defends" Bannon/Breitbart in a way)

 

Of course, with the naming of Sessions as the AG nominee and some of the other defense/homeland security/law enforcement officers having a history of being almost rabidly "anti-immigrant," the lines get blurred even more and more by the day. One person's law and order, controlling the border, cracking down on illegal immigrants enjoying benefits that aren't going to hard-working/tax-paying Americans, citizenship by birth (Chinese/Mexican the most common now), cracking down on H1B visas, etc., THAT'S ANOTHER PERSON'S RACISM/DISCRIMINATION/PREJUDICE that's simply disguised in political terms.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp...bout-them/feed/

 

The term “alt-right” was born around 2008, coined by a young white nationalist (though he prefers the term identitarian) named Richard Spencer, and when the term was initially born, it seemed to be a fairly ecumenical term in that it really seemed to apply to just about anyone who was right-wing politically, but opposed to George W. Bush and especially to the neoconservative wing of the conservative movement. So, libertarians and paleoconservatives and the racial right all could be classified as alt-right, though, over time, the racial element became more explicit.

The alt-right has been able to successfully brand itself as an edgy and fun and ironic movement that takes pleasure in needling both liberals and conservatives, and it’s tongue-in-cheek and rebellious as opposed to just being motivated by [the] genocidal (racial) hatred that you would see from people like William Pierce.

 

At least if we’re talking about the really big-picture stuff and the most radical white-nationalist element, I don’t think there is a lot of support among ordinary conservatives. If you were to ask them, they would probably say that they reject that particular vision. A lot of ordinary conservatives are not in favor of multiculturalism, not in favor of immigration, not in favor of affirmative action, not in favor of a lot of the things that are happening in American society right now. But that’s different from actually supporting the creation of a white ethno-state.

 

This movement in particular is more appealing to men, particularly given the degree to which it is also a very outspoken anti-feminist movement. Traditional masculinity, they’ll argue, is undervalued in contemporary society. They’re very fond of describing mainstream conservatives as “cucks,” which is obviously an emasculating term. There’s a general sense that a more patriarchal society would be superior to the society we have now.

 

Should Bannon be considered part of the alt-right? I do not think Steve Bannon qualifies as part of the alt-right.

 

It’s true that Breitbart has flirted with the alt-right more than any other mainstream conservative publication, but its ultimate editorial line tends to be fairly generically conservative. It shares a lot of the alt-right style and tone, but not that much of its substance. Its main beef with the more mainstream conservatives, like those at the National Review or the Weekly Standard, is that they’re weak, and that they are not fighters willing to get their hands dirty, and that they capitulate too easily. But, ultimately, I think that the values, the editorial line of Breitbart, seem to be fairly generically conservative.

 

A lot of people who are on the alt-right read Breitbart and appreciate it, but Breitbart also maintains some plausible deniability that it’s not ultimately interested in race per se. I don’t think that that’s true of the alt-right.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp...bout-them/feed/

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-holocaust-muse...9--finance.html

 

 

Howard Dean calls Bannon a Nazi

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/21/politics/how...nazi/index.html

Edited November 22, 2016 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

breitbart has a tag for their site dedicated to "black crimes." There's no plausible deniability regarding race.

[caulfield12]

breitbart has a tag for their site dedicated to "black crimes." There's no plausible deniability regarding race.

 

Is it possibility a WaPo writer would do an in-depth article on the topic and still be unaware of that?

 

Or overlook it intentionally to give Bannon the proverbial "benefit of the doubt"?

[GoSox05]

Neo-Nazi scum.

[caulfield12]

Trump definitely is going to have to say something more pointed than his rather generic recent comments about the upcoming December 3rd North Carolina KKK March that David Duke will supposedly be attending.

[Balta1701]

Trump definitely is going to have to say something more pointed than his rather generic recent comments about the upcoming December 3rd North Carolina KKK March that David Duke will supposedly be attending.

No he won't.

[bmags]

Really against the all caps titles.

[StrangeSox]

A Very Against All-Caps Mod

[bmags]

I'm not about title case either.

[Buehrle>Wood]

It's a term largely used for fear mongering by the media and that's really it at this point. Even the places the media points to as alt-right breeding grounds such as the donald subreddit or 4chans pol the term is largely rejected and no one knows who Richard Spencer is. I don't even know why he's brought up other than that he plays into the fear mongering. Equating him with leading the alt-right movement is like saying Rick Santelli lead the Tea Party.

 

People like Ann Coulter, Milo, Lauren Southern and Breitbart are far more associated with the movement. And while you may find them all deplorable, I don't think anyone is going to associate them with Richard Spencer. He was dug up again to fear monger because the other ones weren't nazi enough to create that vibe despite the media's best efforts.

[bmags]

That's weird, here's Milo (or his pseudonym) mentioning spencer as one of the intellectuals of the Alt Right:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/a...-the-alt-right/

[bmags]

But you are right, Spencer himself doesn't view Milo as anything more than a fellow traveler:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/meet-the-alt-right-spokesman-thrilled-by-trumps-rise-w443902

 

OTOH, they are at a party together here at the RNC.

[Buehrle>Wood]

But you are right, Spencer himself doesn't view Milo as anything more than a fellow traveler:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/meet-the-alt-right-spokesman-thrilled-by-trumps-rise-w443902

 

OTOH, they are at a party together here at the RNC.

If the supposed leader doesn't consider a perceived leader true alt-right it's probably a pretty good tell there was a branch off somewhere down the road.

[bmags]

But they both support Trump, and both have a following. That milo's crew is more interested in posting penis pictures on twitter than meeting at a conference is irrelevant, both have a much bigger platform with possible influence to government.

 

Trump has shown heavy priority to his supporters at all cost, are we going to see Spencer's NPI as toxic, or getting meetings with federal reps?

 

It's not like Spencer was suddenly found to scaremonger, he's been reported on for months.

[Buehrle>Wood]

But they both support Trump, and both have a following. That milo's crew is more interested in posting penis pictures on twitter than meeting at a conference is irrelevant, both have a much bigger platform with possible influence to government.

 

Trump has shown heavy priority to his supporters at all cost, are we going to see Spencer's NPI as toxic, or getting meetings with federal reps?

 

It's not like Spencer was suddenly found to scaremonger, he's been reported on for months.

I would just disagree with comparing their potential sphere of influence. Obviously not a perfect metric, but Milo had close to 400k twitter followers compared to 15k of Spencer (although both are gone now). I don't think Spencer is going to influence much of anyone. Milo and the others I have mentioned potentially could and if that scares people, I get it. Talking to people or reading websites to be allegedly associated with the alt-right, nobody cares about Spencer and 95% of them don't know who he is. I do not understand the focus on Spencer other than he's scary, but there's so much else here to criticize that I don't see the help in going after someone with so little influence. Hell Alex Jones is still doing daily shows or whatever, and this same group eats him up.

 

The alt-right name on the whole I now see as an attempt to label the enemy, no different than those very same people naming everyone they don't like a sjw.

[StrangeSox]

I thought Alex Jones was more just bats*** conspiracy theorist in general than alt-right?

[Buehrle>Wood]

I thought Alex Jones was more just bats*** conspiracy theorist in general than alt-right?

I've never seen his show so I don't know if he himself identifies with the term, just that this circle of people eat him up. It makes sense, as far as anti-globalism he's about as mainstream as it gets. I originally thought he was "aliens killed jfk" tier but I think his show is presented in a nightly news format and is largely current events.

 

Edit: It appears his radio show is indeed the aliens stuff but his large online network is in line with what I said above.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Buehrle>Wood

[Soxbadger]

I dont really see the point of the term as there seems to be almost no cohesive ideology. The only real relevance they have is that "true" conservatives are in the process of selling out their ideals to "natural" conservatives.

[bmags]

I would just disagree with comparing their potential sphere of influence. Obviously not a perfect metric, but Milo had close to 400k twitter followers compared to 15k of Spencer (although both are gone now). I don't think Spencer is going to influence much of anyone. Milo and the others I have mentioned potentially could and if that scares people, I get it. Talking to people or reading websites to be allegedly associated with the alt-right, nobody cares about Spencer and 95% of them don't know who he is. I do not understand the focus on Spencer other than he's scary, but there's so much else here to criticize that I don't see the help in going after someone with so little influence. Hell Alex Jones is still doing daily shows or whatever, and this same group eats him up.

 

The alt-right name on the whole I now see as an attempt to label the enemy, no different than those very same people naming everyone they don't like a sjw.

 

I understand, I think what I am skiddish about here is that Trump has shown a tendency to not criticize anyone that praises him. There was no political benefit for him to continue to praise Putin in the election, but Putin said nice things about him. Same with David Duke, whom he begrudgingly condemned through spox.

 

You have groups like Occupy Wall Street that always have a splinter group of anarchists. If OWS got people elected (they didn't), there would be a cry to publicly distance yourself from the anarchists if they were celebrating you and talking about their influence in electing you - even if they aren't part of your policy or inner circle.

 

There is video of this conference in Washington DC praising Trumps election and talking about how it will bring US back to a European-white centric country.

 

The thing to do is to make clear that they have no part of his governing, no part of his ideology.

 

But that hasn't happened. It hasn't happened with Trump, and Trump has been very comfortable with Milo around as a de-facto surrogate, and Milo, as I showed, has not distanced himself from SPencer.

 

Those are degrees of separation. Trump indeed probably has no idea who Spencer is. But why the hell isn't anyone saying "We condemn Spencer's version of America, it has no place in my administration or in the republican party and I will work hard to ensure America is a place for all."

 

Ignoring this isn't going to cause it to whither and die. We are talking about neo-nazis doing Hitler salutes. It is insane.

[bmags]

Trump met with NYTimes, and had this to say:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/801126093776449537

 

I'm glad he said that. I wish he would have more press interviews where this can all be discussed instead of Twitter.

[Jenksismyhero]

Trump met with NYTimes, and had this to say:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/801126093776449537

 

I'm glad he said that. I wish he would have more press interviews where this can all be discussed instead of Twitter.

 

Don't you think part of that is unreasonable expectations of the guy a week after the election? Everyone i've seen has said he's way ahead of both Bush and Obama on his transition team/appointments and he's been more open and public about it. Yeah, he's made questionable choices for sure, but the constant, hourly criticism is getting silly.

 

And that leads to a problem someone pointed out the other day - if the media continues to focus on nonsense stories like the Hamilton response or the SNL response, they're creating a world in which Trump is criticized for literally everything and people will just tune out the legitimate criticisms like his actual, questionable appointments. Didn't we just learn that lesson through the campaign? Focus on every little thing he does and the big stuff gets lots in the haze.

[bmags]

He hadn't had a press conference since July.

[Jenksismyhero]

He hadn't had a press conference since July.

 

Fair, but he's done plenty of interviews. It's not as if the guy is hiding from the public is my point.

[Balta1701]

Trump met with NYTimes, and had this to say:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/801126093776449537

 

I'm glad he said that. I wish he would have more press interviews where this can all be discussed instead of Twitter.

Maybe all the times he retweeted them?