Dear Media: Please Stop Normalizing the Alt-Right

Two hundred white nationalists get more coverage than tens of thousands of pro-life demonstrators.


Why does the March for Life, a rally that attracts tens of thousands of anti-abortion Americans to Washington, D.C., every year get less prominent media coverage than a fringe neo-Nazi gathering? Because institutional media and white nationalists have formed a politically convenient symbiotic relationship.

For Jew-hating racists, the attention means they can playact as a viable and popular movement with pull in Washington. In return, many in the media get to confirm their own biases and treat white supremacy as if it were the secret ingredient to Republican success.

Meanwhile, this obsessive coverage of the alt-right not only helps mainstream a small movement but it's also exactly what the bigots need and want to grow.

Check out the coverage of this weekend's National Policy Institute conference in Washington. As far as I can tell, these pseudointellectual xenophobic bull sessions have been going on for years, featuring many of the same names. These people have generally been given the attention they deserve, which is to say exceptionally little. If you read this week's headlines, though, you would have thought the German American Bund had packed 22,000 cheering fascists into the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center.

A New York Times headline read, "Alt-Right Exults in Donald Trump's Election With a Salute: 'Heil Victory.'"

Politico's headline read, "Alt-right celebrates Trump's election at D.C. meeting."

NPR's read, "Energized By Trump's Win, White Nationalists Gather To 'Change The World.'"

Every major cable news network had a discussion about the importance of the Institute. But here's a little nugget from the NPR piece that asserts the election has given this "once fringe movement a jolt":

"About 300 people—split nearly evenly between conference attendees and protesters of the conference outside—were on hand at the downtown D.C. event."

About 300 people? Some jolt. To put that into context, there were well over 300 people at thousands of churches and temples across the Washington area this weekend praying for peace on Earth. In this country, you could pull together 300 people for a meeting about anything, actually. Thousands of UFO enthusiasts got together in the Arizona desert last year in hopes of not being mass abducted by space aliens.

A few years ago, I attended the Socialist convention in Chicago, where at least a thousand activists gathered to discuss how to end economic freedom. Since then, 43 percent of Democrat primary goers have given this extreme movement a jolt, I guess.

Then again, it's possible not every self-styled American "socialist" is an ideological purist about handing production of iPhones to the state. We'd be wise to view many on the alt-right with similar skepticism.

Still, it is indisputable that many of these people are odious—and not odious in the way liberals think of Republicans who worry about refugees from Syria, or in the way immigration laws are odious. We have a responsibility to use morally precise language when referring to this group (which, in this case, is the neo-Nazi group); contextualize their influence (which is little but more than it should be); and unequivocally call them out. We should never, ever glamorize them for political purposes.

Why do media obsessively cover the alt-right? I suppose it's the same reason every major publication gave former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke—who polled at 3 to 4 percent in the Louisiana Senate race all year—their undivided attention. (What am I talking about? We're still hearing about Duke on a daily basis.) It's to create the impression that they matter.

None of this is to say Trump shouldn't be called out for his vulgar rhetoric or ideas, some of which gave these people the space they needed. Nor does it absolve Republicans who look the other way when genuine bigotry appears. Yes, GOPers shouldn't normalize the alt-right, and neither should the media imbue the movement with an outsized importance to feed its preferred narrative regarding the election.

For some reporters, I imagine it's a matter of perception. Conservative critics of Trump were relentlessly attacked by astroturfing neo-Nazi types on social media during the primaries. After the primaries, when liberal journalists finally focused on Trump, they, too, became the target of harassment. The hate became a huge story because of these personal experiences.

But that's a generous reading of events. Another reading is that coverage is driven with the cynical purpose of exaggerating the importance of neo-Nazis to tie them to Republicans. The media will now demand the administration to denounce white supremacists every time they have a meeting—which itself intimates that there is a connection. Conflating these scary things can create the impression that conservatism is Donald Trump, which is Steve Bannon, which is David Duke, which is Richard Spencer.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. And attempting to make it that simple only weakens legitimate criticism of the president-elect—of which there is plenty.


NEXT: A Republican Ban on Internet Gambling Would Repeat a Costly Democratic Mistake

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is something I just can't bother to follow.

    Apparently, Trump picking Steve Bannon as chief strategist is the equivalent of hiring Joseph Goebbels.

    I can find a billion articles explaining that Steve Bannon is associated with Breitbart, which is alt-right, and that makes Trump white supremacy neo-nazi literally-Hitler.

    Why? I have no idea. I can just find people labeling it that way over and over again. And for the left, that's just part of the usual emotivism, so I have no idea what it objectively could mean.

    Does someone have a diagram of this stuff? Because, so far, I can't follow it. I don't even know what the alt-right stands for, or how racist/white-supremist/nazi Breitbart/Steve Bannon is. And I can't really be bothered to figure it out myself.

    1. We need to take over the leftist media organizations. Fire the progressives, and start going after the real enemy, globalist progressives.

      1. That you Alex Jones?

        1. The scariest part is Suicidy is serious.
          The guy's nuts.

          1. Nits for recognizing my enemies? Ok, asshole. Beats being some leftist shill, or a retard.

            1. My best friend's sister makes $92 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and click tech tab to start your work.. Now this web...

            2. My best friend's sister makes $92 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and click tech tab to start your work.. Now this web...

          2. Suicidy is far from mentally defective in any way; judging from his measured statement, he wisely recognizes that certain things, including the great movement to make our nation strong again, should be the focus of positive media attention, and that other things should be discreetly passed over in silence. One thing we would all agree on, is that America's leading criminal "satire" case should never become a topic of serious discussion. Surely no one here would dare to defend the outrageous "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge? See the documentation at:


        2. So globalist progressives like Hillary and Co. are NOT the enemy? Really?

    2. Alt-right emphasizes nationalism at the very least. Not all seems to be white nationalism specifically, a far as I can tell, but that does seem to be a thread.

      A lot of it comes from /pol/ over on 4chan. Which is one thing that always makes me question how mich of it is just trolling. What with Tila Tequila being a part of it and claiming she brings diversity to the white power movement.

      It's a strange amalgam, seems like Mike Cernobich is a big writer in the movement, but overall it seems pretty disjoint.

      1. It is primarily about weight lifting.

        1. The iron only has one color...

          1. Yeah, but the Jews are pretty much the same color as the rest of us, right? I mean, just saying'

      2. Asians are considered white for diversity purposes by the hardcore SJW types.

        1. Don't the alt-right award some sort of similar special status to Asians?

      3. The alt-right is far from ideologically uniform. Spencer's views are the most extreme I have seen. A lot of people just want Europe to accept fewer refugees and stuff like that.

        1. Also here's another reason why the media should stop covering Spencer:

    3. Liberals think of Hitler as the Kevin Bacon of the right; everyone who's ever voted Republican is no more than six degrees from Hitler.

      1. Very simple chain, lets work backwards from Hitler.

        Hitler was allied with Stalin early in the war.
        Stalin personally met with FDR on several verified occassions.
        FDR is an icon of the Democrat Party.
        Democrats and Republicans serve together in many legislatures across the country.

        A republican is no more than four degrees away (and a democrat no more than three)

        I'm sure someone can beat it.

        1. The commie party supported Hillary, if we want to go down the route of unasked-for and unwanted endorsements. And while the white nationalist fringe may want to spark a race war, commie ideology is the gloss painted over the murders of tens of millions of people. Hillary stands for mass murder.

          1. Perhaps the core problem is that Hitler crossed Stalin, a sin to never be forgiven.

            Now all the Stalinists, Progressives, whatever, view anybody who opposes them in any way to be Hitler.

            Put another way, if you are going to be a collectivist, you'd best be in their collective or there will be hell to pay.

      2. Liberals desperately need to tie the Right to that nasty Austrian, because they are genuinely tied to the likes of Castro, Mao, and Stalin. A small number of idiots on the Right admire the murderous paperhanger, but enough morons on the left carry a torch for Che (totrurer and mass murderer) to sell millions of posters and t-shirts with his face on them. They need people to connect the Right with the Nazis to distract,from their own long running romance with assorted violent mental defectives.

        1. because they are genuinely tied to the likes of Castro, Mao, and Stalin

          On their scorecard, those are plus points, not deductions.

          1. Perhaps, but they are uneasily aware that, for some odd reason, people lump their murderous psychotic heroes in with less reputable (read, not Communist) murderous psychotics.

            1. Castro, Che, Mao, and Stalin did it for the cause, because it was necessary and good. Everybody else did it out of meanness. See earlier comment about being the right collectivist.

              1. The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives (call them LIRPs) certainly feel this way. But they have to deal with how the rest of society sees it, and they are aware (if somewhat dimly) that The Cause doesn't cut it with a great many of their fellow citizens.

        2. The left has somehow dissociated themselves from national-socialism/fascism, despite the ideology having a firm home on their end of the spectrum.

          The result is groups of "anti-fascists" and "anarchists" rioting regularly in major European cities under the banner of wanting more government oversight of businesses and less free speech for the people. And it's coming here now.

          Strange times.

          1. The left has somehow dissociated themselves from national-socialism/fascism, despite the ideology having a firm home on their end of the spectrum.

            They spoke the magic words "polar opposite" to every schoolchild who was forced to listen, and everybody else whether they wanted to listen or not.

            In pleasant conversation with adults, I've even had it shouted at me that "Nazis were not Socialists, they were Fascists!" Pointing out that Fascist derived from the National Socialist party symbol (the fascio; plural fasci; i.e., a bundle of sticks) for Italian National Socialists merely repeat the same emphatic line they memorized for a history test, "Nazis were not Socialists, they were Fascists!"

            On one technical point they may be right, but I am not positive of this. I don't know of German National Socialists ever calling themselves Fascists. Nor the Spanish National Socialists, or even the Greek National Socialists.

            Not even sure that the Yellow Socialists of France, where the National Socialist were born, ever called themselves Fascists either.

            1. Fascism is merely "socialism+". It emphasizes nationalism and played aggressively with eugenics, but in just about every other respect is indistinguishable from socialism.

              So to place it on the right you would have to argue that nationalism is its defining characteristic and is a right-wing exclusive phenomenon. History makes this an untenable position.

              When compared to applied socialism throughout history it becomes even harder to tell the two apart. Most communist countries are fiercely nationalistic (a requirement for control), and even the most squishy socialist states have flirted with eugenics.

              Fascism seems to merely be a recombination of socialism and its off-shoot philosophy of progressivism.

              1. Social-democracies (the "good" kind of socialism) kept running compulsory sterilisation programs for the longest time.

                Between 1973 and 2012 sterilisation was a condition for sex change.

              2. Yes, Fascism is National Socialism, is Socialism.

        3. "but enough morons on the left carry a torch for Che (totrurer and mass murderer) to sell millions of posters and t-shirts with his face on them."

          As an aside, it makes me giddy with laughter to see apparel corporations making a fortune by selling Che shirts to dingus lefties. The lefties think they're making a bold statement of some kind, but really, they're just contributing to EVIL PROFITS.

    4. It is because Breitbart had an article on the alt right. So did The Daily Beast, but that was different.

    5. IDGAF. I supported GayJay. I hope that Jill Stein's recount fucks everything up.

      1. It already has. By giving people cover under which to continually deny the results, it makes it harder for people who are already too-hung up on the election to move on.

    6. If there is one thing Donald Trump is right about, it is that American deadstream media is leftist and dishonest.

      I suppose a progressive "reasons" that Steve Bannon is a Nazi as follows. Bannon is on the record as saying, "I'm not a white nationalist; I'm a nationalist." He's also white. So, he's a white nationalist. Hitler was German nationalist. Native Germans are white. So, Hitler was a white nationalist. Since both Bannon and Hitler were white and since both explicitly advocated nationalism, Bannon equals Hitler. Since Bannon equals Hitler, and since Hitler was a Nazi, Bannon is a Nazi.

      This sort of sophistry sounds sophististicated, so it appeals to dimwitted progressives.

      This is the same sort of sophistry that persuaded dimwitted conservatives that Obama is a Muslim. Obama has a Muslim father and a Muslim name. Islam dictates that the children of Muslims are born Muslim. Islam also dictates that "once a Muslim, always a Muslim", and the penalty for apostasy is death. Since Obama is alive, he must be a Muslim. Actually, the argument that Obama is a Muslim has more substance than the Bannon is a Nazi argument. A better comparison would be the argument that Obama was born in Kenya, which illustrates that fact that Donald Trump uses the same sort of propaganda techniques to trick dimwits as the Democrats do.

      1. Good post Cato.

        Harsanyi obviously missed Barton Hinkle's article "The Fake Epidemic of Fake News; The outrage over fake news is based on fake news about fake news". the-fake-epidemic-of-fake-news
        (links split due to reason's 50 character limit).

        He also missed the fact, that liberals are creating fake news meant to look like alt-right propaganda, so they can point to ti and say the alt-right is making stuff up. 11/23/the-man-behind-denver-guardian which states:

        "Meet Jestin Coler, a registered Democrat, the 40-year-old founder and CEO of Disinfomedia and the creator of (among many other fake sites).
        The NPR News story goes deep into his web of fake news, as well as his motivations."

        And since the liberal Denver Post cares not to explain his motivation, one goes to the NPR site (CPR which is a subsidiary of NPR) to get this quote from Mr. Coler:

        "'The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction,' Coler says." This wasn't Coler's only web site, that his company Disinfomedia, owns. covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

        1. And the professor whose paper started the whole fake news discussion withdrew that paper over a week ago.

      2. good point.

    7. Progressives are generally obsessed with appearances and how things are portrayed in the media, but Bannon is unusual for being a media guy that led a campaign (rather than a fundraiser or pollster) who really gets it--and that's got the progressives quaking in their boots.

      Bannon just got Trump elected while spending hardly any money and in defiance of the polls. To my mind, they're right to go after him. . . . and Bannon won in spite of almost all the media being against them and without any money? He completely kicked their asses.

      They tried to bully Bannon into giving them his lunch money. Instead, he took their money, followed them home, and banged their moms.

      1. Jeez Ken, you say "To my mind, they're right to go after him [Bannon]"

        The politics of personal destruction can only be "right" if it reflects back on those trying to destroy him by making stuff up about him, and still, it isn't right. The sin of bearing false witness is a favor of the progressives and Democrats. But it's partly a result of the fact (and I use that term accurately) that liberals have a mental deficit in that they don't understand conservatives while conservatives do understand liberals.

        Jonathan Haidt did simple research asking people a bunch of morality questions, then those same people answered the questions as they believe conservatives would answer, and also as they believe liberals would answer. And there's a fine and very interesting article here in Reason on it: which states:

        "The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as "very liberal.""

        Thus, given liberal's lack of understanding of conservatives, they use their moral matrix and conclude conservatives are evil. And say what they erroneously think. And their lack of moral courage to examine their beliefs because of the pain of cognitive dissonance, leads them to ignore these facts as well. It's still immoral what they do, IMHO.

        1. There's a quote that I vaguely recall hearing attributed to Larry Niven. It's going to be completely bastardized since I remember the gist but not the words and can't hope to properly find and attributed it.

          Basically it goes like this: "It is difficult for an intelligent and rational mind to imagine another mind, also intelligent and rational, that thinks differently." In the science fiction sense, this means creating an alien society that is different from humanity, and it has a completely different sense of reasoning and values that are alien to the author, but still based on rational thought. And this quote also recognizes the difficulty in imagining that people who disagree with you must be either complete idiots, evil, or tragically misinformed.

      2. ^THIS

        Bannon is following in Breitbart's footsteps. Breitbart unmasked the left and said it was time to quit being polite and respectful to people who believe their opponents are greedy, selfish, racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, cis-gendered, white-privileged fascists who vote against their interests because they are so incredibly stupid. The 2016 election was a watershed because the left openly expressed its opinion about this basket of deplorables. Breitbart understood that the left was uninterested with the facts of matters except to the extent that they could be used to support their preferred narrative. He understood that the right had to advocate a counter-narrative, that mere recitation of facts and the the application of reason to those facts are insufficient in the contest of ideas.

        1. He has also given us a real chance to continue hammer them into oblivion. A goal we should all share if we value our rights, which these monsters would take from us.

  2. Once the Donald gets his second millionth article accusing him of being Literally Hitler, he will be officially certified as "Double Nazi"

    1. Where have you been? He was crowned Double Nazi Supreme in August.

      1. What do they call a Double Nazi Supreme in countries with a metric system?

        1. A royale Nazi with cheese.

        2. Can I get my Double Nazi Supreme with sprinkles and foam?


        3. A bi-kilo-Nazi

    2. Doubleplusnazi

  3. So now "Alt-Right" is the same as "neo-nazi"?

    What you're implying is that Donald Trump picked a neo-nazi for his chief of staff. That Milo Yiannopolous (who's very gay and loves black penises exclusively) is a fan of Hitler.

    Really? REALLY??

    1. That Milo Yiannopolous (who's very gay and loves black penises exclusively) is a fan of Hitler. Really? REALLY??

      There are no gay fascists? Really? REALLY?

      1. If you'd like to make an argument that Nazi= gay people who love black guys go ahead.

        This is a good demonstration of this lunacy actually.

        "Alt right are Nazi's!"

        What about when they do the opposite of Nazi's?

        Alt right are just Nazi's who don't believe Nazi things!"

        All contrary evidence is useless because it's a the belief in a Nazi rise was created through evidence.

        1. Wasn't created through evidence.

        2. I believe he's referring to Ernst Rohm, one of the founding members of the Nazi Party, who wanted to make his white nationalist homosexual Sparta.

          As Gilmore has pointed out, there's a lot of homoeroticism in white nationalist sub-culture for some reason.

          The 'alt-right are Nazis' position largely comes from the fact that many of them are open fascists and racists. Milo's on the much more 'moderate' national populist/cultural supremacist side of the equation, and the actual 'old' alt-right specifically states that Milo is not representative of their movement.

          1. There is no actual or other alt right. Just people who claim to be this or that. Everything else you wrote was nonsense as well.

            1. There is no actual or other alt right. Just people who claim to be this or that.

              That's so deep man, but could you please pass the bong already?

              Everything else you wrote was nonsense as well.

              You know, in order to argue that you require actual arguments.

              1. Okay, Gilmore didn't post anything here. The white-nationalist homo-eroticism connection appears to be: One Nazi was gay- therefore White Nationalists are gay therefore ignore their persecution of gays and a white guy who likes black guys totally makes sense as a white nationalist even though white nationalist is pretty much defined by a dislike of black people. Wrap all that bullshit up and say it all ties up and equates to Milo could be a Nazi and Milo is alt right so the alt right Nazi connection is solid.

                Alt right is a newly minted boogey man where people are projecting their irrational fears onto "others". The white Nationalist or Nazi movement is the weakest of the race based movements and is utterly irrelevant and powerless in American politics despite people's desires for their opponents to be evil incarnate. The dizzying logical leaps employed to tie non-whites and other groups incompatible with Nazi's into this camp is simply evidence of how desperate people are to defend this implausible theory. Next we'll here how Jews are solid candidates for Nazi's because they both lived in Germany once.

                1. Alt right is a newly minted boogey man where people are projecting their irrational fears onto "others".

                  In the way Clinton or Dalmia use it, absolutely. But the alt-right certainly exist. Go read Radix or VDare, people there openly identify as 'alt-right' and it has been a movement that started popping up on the internet in the Bush administration. There's a subreddit. When Clinton started talking about them Radix made a 'What is the Alt-Right' video explaining their views. Numerous alt-righters identify as fascists and Nazi apologists. These connections are not imaginary, they are a product of actually listening to what people who support the alt-right say.

                  Gilmore didn't post on this thread, but he's covered examples of white nationalist culture that is very clearly homoerotic previously. No one is saying that 'white nationalists are gay' just that it is entirely possible to be homosexual and a white nationalist. Which is true by its very definition, nothing prevents a white nationalist from also being homosexual.

                  1. It should also be noted, however, that the racialist and fascist alt-right is indeed so small that it has no political influence. There are probably more Aryan Brotherhood members in the United States than alt-righters.

                  2. There's more than nothing preventing homosexuals from being white nationalists. Persecution of homosexuals is one thing preventing it. In reference to Milo get into someone into black dudes. I suppose nothing prevents black dudes from being white nationalists either (besides hostility towards them). There's nothing stopping people from shoehorning their alt right theories into places they don't fit either. Let's follow occam's Razor and say if Milo is one of the most popular characters of the alt-right then its connection to white nationalism doesn't pass the smell test.

                    You can either define the Alt Right to be so small it's defined by white nationalism or so large that it includes people like Milo and millions of Trump supporters making White nationalism an insignificant subgroup trying to tie their boat to it to appear more influential.

                    There's probably as many people who believe aliens are real in the alt right, but it doesn't make the alt right defined by alien believers.

                    It appears you've defined alt right as a small group. That's fine, but when democrats use the term to define Trump supporters they are defining it different, as are a significant amount of people self identifying. So you're really discussing something other than everyone else.

                    1. It appears you've defined alt right as a small group. That's fine, but when democrats use the term to define Trump supporters they are defining it different, as are a significant amount of people self identifying. So you're really discussing something other than everyone else.

                      When we are discussing the actual conference that the media (and this article) is currently focusing on, that IS the alt-right. You framed the alt-right as a boogeyman, I explained how they actually exist. The Democrats do not set the terms of the discussion, and discussing it in the framework they set up is how you lose.

                    2. There's more than nothing preventing homosexuals from being white nationalists. Persecution of homosexuals is one thing preventing it.

                      Except that's not white nationalist ideology, that's a homophobic response. Homosexuals can be white nationalists because white nationalism does not have an official stance on homosexuality. Persecution of homosexuals is not a central aspect of white nationalism because white nationalism is not about sexuality, it's about race. I'm explaining to you how the actual definition of white nationalism makes this fully possible and you're going "yeah, but I'm going to slap this entirely different ideological position onto white nationalism, and therefore they can't be".

        3. There are no gay fascists? Really? REALLY?

          If you'd like to make an argument that Nazi= gay people who love black guys go ahead.

          Umm, are you saying there are no gay fascists? REALLY?

          1. I'm saying you're claim that gay people that fuck black dudes can be aligned with Hitler is idiotic.

            1. And idiotic is suddenly impossible?

              I mean, look at your posts, it's clearly not impossible.

            2. There are no gay fascists? Really? REALLY?

              If you'd like to make an argument that Nazi= gay people who love black guys go ahead.

              Umm, are you saying there are no gay fascists? REALLY?

              I'm saying you're claim that gay people that fuck black dudes can be aligned with Hitler is idiotic.

              Umm, I never said that. Not even close. How many times must I repeat what I did say?
              Are you saying there are no gay fascists? REALLY?

      2. Yeah, of course there are.

        We tend to call them, "gay progressives".

    2. Milo just says whatever can get a rise out of people. Who knows what he really believes. I expect a book in a few years from Milo about how he lied his ass off and made a boatload of money doing what he's doing.

      1. Yes, he is a real-life troll. Yes, he gets attention by being as shocking as he can.

        It's the things being said between those moments that, regardless of motivation, still have some truth to them.

        (I personally despise the man, and hate the fact that I've ended up on the same side of the argument as him. Then I look at the people I'm arguing against, and what they're arguing for. I can't really afford to be picky about who happens to be on the same side at the moment)

        1. Yeah, Milo is an asshole, but he is a disruptive asshole. It reminds me of those MTV freakouts over Madonna videos back in the day.

        2. Milo is a rebel. He walks towards whatever fire is burning with both middle fingers in the air.

          I don't agree with everything he says, I just love that we actually have a rebel among our weak minded, cookie-cutter, millennial generation.

          1. Ben Shapiro makes more substantive arguments I think and is more quick witted; I've never seen him debate a leftist he didn't run circles around, which just speaks to how badly their bubbles have caused their minds to atrophy.

            Shapiro of course is something of SoCon but has some libertarian leanings, e.g. Supports pot legalization.

            1. "Ben Shapiro makes more substantive arguments I think and is more quick witted"

              Which really misses the point of Milo.

              1. Not entirely. Shapiro sort of does the same thing: goes to universities, leftist echo chambers, and gets everyone ruled up. I would argue Shapiro is more effective. He has much better comebacks. He's also not a shill for Trump.

                1. "Not entirely"

                  Yes entirely.

                  ". Shapiro sort of does the same thing: "


                  1. " I would argue Shapiro is more effective"

                    Nobody even knows who he is.

    3. That swastika ain't going to tattoo itself..

    4. The "logic" goes like this:

      I'm in the left. The opposite of the left is the right.

      This doesn't look quite like what others tell me the right is, so it must be the alt-right.

      Everything that isn't left or right is alt-right. So Nazis, racists, nationalists, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and unicorn riders are all alt-right.

      Then they just mess up modus ponens and think:

      If A, then B
      Therefore A

      So this proves that alt-right are Nazis, and libertarians are alt-right, so libertarians are Nazis. Simple.

      Remember, they are on the left and studies show that they have very little concept as to how anyone else's mind works.

    5. Funny, but just days ago Ralph Fucetola (you can look him up in "It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand") told me, "I guess we're considered part of the alt.right now." Meaning libertarians & many of libertarians' associates.

      BTW, am I the only one spelling it "alt.right" like a Usenet alt group? I assumed that's what the term's modeled on. But I see it w a hyphen instead of a period.

  4. Harsanyi misses the point. Trump legitimizes the alt-right mentality. The alt-right protesters are openly Hitlerian, not in denial like Harsanyi and the others. The political right has been morally and intellectually bankrupt for decades. Most of the "independents" so praised by Reason have rejected the GOP's growing bigotry and authoritarianism for decades.

    Trump followed Ron Paul's playbook with one tactical exception. Donald ignored the 5% of Americans who identify as libertarians, to appeal more strongly to the majority of Ron's "liberty coalition" - bigots and authoritarians who confuse Federalism with the States Rights of southern racists,

    The political establishment has been collapsing for 16 years under Bush and Obama. Johnson/Weld could have walked away with the Presidency -- if the libertarian establishment had even one policy solution, instead of platitudes and sound bites. When truth has no voice, bullshit wins.

    Beware the man on a white horse. Trump's own followers don't support a single issue he campaigned on. 70% of Americans even support a path to legalization for illegals! Trump has already abandoned every major issue he campaigned on. And only Monty Python would have Trump give a Thanksgiving speech on unifying the same America he'd so badly divided with hatred.

    The Johnson campaign exposed the total rejection of anti-gummint libertarianism. Can liberty regain its rightful voice now?

    1. Trump openly campaigned as a fascist - nationalism, militarism, closed, purer Aryan, Protestant, anti-intellectual, and corporatist.

      1. Unless you actually paid attention to what he said.

        1. I can back every item up.

          I am one of those classic liberal free-trade globalists that the Trumptards hate so much.

          1. You keep using those words, I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

          2. Free Trade and Globalism are incompatible. Globalism depends on super national organizations to regulate international trade.
            You full of shit PB.

            1. STFU. Globalism just means cooperation instead of conflict between nations. You nationalists just want to protect US jobs with high tariffs (which never work).

              1. Please regale us with stories about the EU, UN, African Union, and how various trade deals do not regulate international trade PB. =D

              2. No.

                I'm not a nationalist or a globalist.

                Problem is that us libertarians do ourselves no service when we conflate Free Trade with whatever the fuck we have going on right now. We also do ourselves a disservice when we conflate Free Markets with whatever the fuck we have going on now. We also do ourselves a disservice when we base our Open Borders ideas on the last two ideas being true, when they are obviously not.

                The reason libertarians fail is because we fail to point out the problems with ideas that sound like they are pro-libertarian when they are not even close to being so.

        2. Unless you actually paid attention to what he said.

          Are you confused on how he campaigned? Or in sever denial of what you are?

          1. Trump campaigned for Aryan Protestantism?

            1. Are you confused on how he campaigned? Or in sever denial of what you are?

              Trump campaigned for Aryan Protestantism?

              Now you've distorted the entire issue. Read it again here:

              1. You accuse someone ELSE of "distorting the issue"? Too. Fucking. Funny.

      2. Shut the fuck up and walk away.

        1. Shut the fuck up and walk away.

          Yeah, FUCK free speech..
          Or thinking for one's self.

      3. purer Aryan

        I already hate myself for asking this, but: What??

        You sound like AddictionMyth. You're a better class of troll than he is, don't be that guy, asshole.

        1. They are the same person.

      4. Nothing says 'purer Aryan' like "hey, check out my Jewish daughter."

        1. I'll make his argument for him:

          Racists are, naturally, logically inconsistent. Richard Wagner had Jewish friends, some Southerners used to say of certain black people, "He/she's one of the good ones", etc. Trump is just making allowances for "one of the good ones" in that case.

          1. But he specifically said it in the context of his campaigning. I don't think you get a 'purer Aryan' position out of "my Jewish daughter is now going to give a speech about what's important to me."

            1. Well, it's PB. I made that argument before he came back and said something much, much stupider. He should be thanking me.

            2. And he keeps fcking slavs

      5. Hey what about me!

    2. I'm new here. Is John Galt Jr. the Tulpa I've heard so much about?

      1. He's certainly starting to look like a Tulpa. I will leave it to more experienced Tulpa spotters.

        1. The Johnson campaign exposed the total rejection of anti-gummint libertarianism. Can liberty regain its rightful voice now?

          I don't think its Tulpa. I think its this douchebag, or at least someone who's read his garbage.

          1. Not to compliment him, but he sounds like a slightly more coherent version of Hihn. Perhaps it's Michael Hihn Jr.

          2. Pro-Liberty vs Anti-Government libertarianism has been a conflict since the 1970s.
            To associate it with one or two individuals is ... ignorant (at best)

      2. I'm pretty sure he outed himself one night as Michael Hihn, a non-tulpa, but still insane.

        1. Oh sure...Michael Hihn. I remember that asshole

        2. He's nowhere near crazy enough to be Hihn. He sounds like addiction Myth to me, but, I've seen his handle before. Maybe that really just his (slightly strange) opinion.

      3. It's all a conspiracy. Only one person on the entire planet refuses to join your mindless conformity.

        1. Didn't you get the memo - We're all Tulpa here.

        2. This place is probably in the running for the least amount of conformity.

          1. I disagree!

            (I should be too young to be quoting Newhart, but here I am.)

            1. Hopefully no one is ever too young to quote Newhart. He was a comedic genius.

          2. Conforming to something that most people don't conform to is still conformity.

            1. The truth of the matter is, if you wish to be part of society there are numerous ways in which you must conform. And all of us (unless you live in the wilderness completely shunning society) willingly conform in many ways every day.

      4. I'm new here.

        Fantastic. STEVE SMITH will be by shortly to provide you with a 'gift basket'.

        1. I've been around long enough to learn to fear the STEVE SMITH. I have set up motion activated cameras all around my property to give me enough time to escape through my newly built escape tunnel.

          1. Perfect. STEVE SMITH loves the chase.

          2. We all tried to run the first time Mike, and then we learned that it only makes him harder.

          3. "I've been around long enough to learn to fear the STEVE SMITH"

            Then you should know who Tulpa is.

            1. "Then you should know who Tulpa is."

              Why? What does one have to do with the other? Tulpa disappeared. STEVE SMITH still has surrogates posting for him.

              1. No, sorry, if you've been here long enough to see discussions of one, you've seen the other.

                "Tulpa disappeared"

                If only.

                1. The only explanation: Mike Schmidt IS tulpa!!!

        2. and by "gift basket", STEVE SMITH MEAN RAPE.

    3. White horse? +1 Bull Halsey

    4. the majority of Ron's "liberty coalition" - bigots and authoritarians


    5. Johnson/Weld could have walked away with the Presidency


  5. The media have gone full Don Quixote.

    1. Not quite, they're still tilting for windmills.

  6. The local bronie meet up had ~3000 members. The White power meet up had maybe 300 people if we're being generous. Let's have some perspective.

    1. You're right. KILL THE HORSE FUCKERS.

      1. I was wondering if there was cause to spare them, then I remembered the crossover fanworks that smeared the unholy taint of their drivel over more respectable fandoms.


        1. Any hobby involving the words "fandom" or "crossover" or "shipping" is an unholy blight on respectable culture and should be driven deeper underground even than the sewers of deviantart or Tumblr.

          1. *shoots commodious*

            I got confused as to what he was saying, so the only safe route was summary execution for heresy.

            1. You've done your Imperial duty, UnCivil, the Inquisition would be proud.

              "Doubt in the face of heresy is heresy itself."

            2. All I'm saying is that when I google "GoT recap gratuitous nudity scenes only," I don't want to see some amateur artist's rendition of the Stark girls emulating the Lannister twins.

              1. You can't go "I want smut" and then go "whoa, that's too much smut." Such is the fate of the Smut Seekers.

                1. Sweet.

    2. But what does it look like on a Venn diagram?

  7. The March for Life is a known quantity. Same people saying and doing the same things.

    1. The nightly murders in Chicago are a known quantity. Same people doing the same killings.

    2. That's not a real difference. Pretty sure most neo-Nazis and white supremacists have been at it for decades as well.

      1. "Pretty sure"

        I love rank speculation!

        1. No more speculative than the comment I was responding to.

          1. Uh, no, stupid fucking retard.

            "The March for Life is a known quantity. Same people saying and doing the same things."

            Quantifiable and verifiable.

            Your post? Pure uncut stupid assertion.

  8. "About 300 people?split nearly evenly between conference attendees and protesters of the conference outside?were on hand at the downtown D.C. event."

    About 300 people? Some jolt.

    Actually, about half of those people were protesting the gathering of the other half, so that makes about 150 people the 'White Nationalists' NPR was hyperventilating about.

    1. 300 people. A typical party at my (non) frat house at Penn State.

    2. I think 50 of those 150 were reporters 🙂

      1. Another 50 were probably FBI or other law enforcement.

        1. "After an audit of undercover operations, we have discovered that the entire organization consisted of law enforcement infiltrators. The last actual member died in 1979."

        2. Plus one of them is Tila Tequila. She will say and do anything that draws more attention to her. Almost literally anything. I would say that she has some mental disorder if I didn't know she was somehow monetizing this insanity.

  9. you would have thought the German American Bund had packed 22,000 cheering fascists into the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center

    Sounds just like every Trump campaign rally I watched on Fox News.

    1. Poor little scumbag Dave Weigel; still hammering on that same message that completely, totally, and utterly failed you Journolists.

      The biggest disadvantage you losers have going is that you (laughably) think you already know everything, so you never learn anything.

    2. It's FAUX NEWS bro!!!

    3. But WHAT ABOUT ME!

  10. Alt right is just the people on the right who found the current leaders detestable. Paul Ryan republicans and leftists are scrambling to give them a label do try to bring more people back.

    Enough ink has been wasted on this already.

    1. Absolutely that is how the media uses the term alt right, broadly so as to be all encompassing.

  11. What's wrong with normalizing some of the alt right? Peter Brimelow spoke at the conference. You can view it on YouTube. He seems smart, well-spoken, and non-threatening. Spencer however is a nutball, but maybe it's always the nutballs who put together conferences?

    1. You have to be crazy to want to organize a conference.

      1. Agree and amplify.

  12. To be fair, Trump's rhetoric during the campaign only emboldened the ale-right, still, the reaction and demands on him give a speech denouncing the KKK is absurd.

    That being said, two things. 1) The media and the left don't care the KKK hate Jews and Catholics. They only care about the focus on blacks. 2) The the millions of progressive leftist/socialist are far more problematic/dangerous than a bunch of yahoos numbering in the low thousands.

    1. alt

    2. The 'ale-right' is that one of those fuedal priviledges that brewers had?

      1. Yes. But only if you strictly adhere to the Reinheitsgebot.

      2. The lord gets the first mug of each batch of ale.

    3. Of course the media and left don't care about Jew hatred anymore.

      Democrats and their media acolytes are celebrating the elevation of a former Nation of Islam member, Keith Ellison-Muhammad, to lead the Democrat Party. The Nation of Islam preaches that all white people are in innately evil, descendants of a selective breeding project of the evil Dr. Yakub thousands of years ago. The evil Dr. Yakub is also known as Jacob, a patriarch of the Jews, and this makes them particularly evil. Anti-Semitism is a fundamental belief of the NOI.

      You may ask where did I read such arrant nonsense; some alt-right website or some anti-Muslim screed. Nope. I learned about this from Malcolm X's Autobiography. I accept his credentials as an authority on the Nation of Islam.

      That American Jews would any longer have anything to do with a Democrat Party led by Ellison is just one more demonstration that progressivism is a mental disorder.

      1. The Nation of Islam's hateful religion has a history inspiring violence against Jews and whites. Check out the Wiki article on the "zebra murders", just one example of NOI inspired murders. Then check out the article on the KKK, and compare the body counts.

      2. Had not heard of this guy before but considering the fact that Trump just handed the DNC their ass I can only say WTF?

  13. No comments on the death of Carol Brady?

      1. Is Carol Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?!

        Wait, wrong Brady...

        1. Tom Brady choked Gisele?

          1. No, no. He GETS choked by Eli.

    1. She'll be remembered long after Lou Reed is forgotten.

      1. Luckily, we'll have to wait a few more years before Lou Reed gives up the ghost. I hear he's working on a new album. I can't wait.

    2. Why, was it the fault of the alt right?

      1. It was the fault of George Glass.

    3. Didn't Greg grab her pussy?

      I know. I know. Poor taste. RIP.

    4. I would have preferred to give my meat to Alice.

      1. There's something terribly, terribly wrong with you.

        1. Like Sam the butcher bringing Alice the meat
          Like Fred Flintstone driving around on bald feet
          Should I have another sip? Nah skip it
          In the back of the ride and bust with the whippets

  14. Continue ignoring the alt left, Cosmos.

    They're only turning out tens of thousands of people to participate in organized political violence all across the country, and receive moral and financial support front the mainstream left. But as everyone who's ever attended a beltway cocktail party knows, beating Trump voters (or those merely suspected of that crime) and calling for the overturning of an election is what democracy looks like. And in no way the threat posed by a few hundred NRO-Nazi kooks.

    1. Do you have evidence for this?

    2. Isn't it the Ctrl-Left? Not kidding, I read that's what they call themselves, as a pune or play on words.

      There were and continue to be plenty of stories in the mainstream media and Progressive outlets like HuffPo about the threat of possible Trumpian violence. Meanwhile, actual anti-Trump and general Progressive violence goes un- or under-reported. The msm ignores the fringe of the left while focusing on the alt-right and portraying it as this massive vanguard of Trump's upcoming fascist regime.

      I don't think it's even collusion or conspiracy at this point, not on the larger scale. I think that the Progs have so utterly won the culture war that the older generation of "serious" journalists just take for granted that the left represents the hard-working, honest, common American while the right represents a cabal of wealth, power, and privilege, with libertarians just being a different flavor of radical Republican. The younger generation sees themselves as agents of change, not reporters of facts, and seem willing to sell whatever story helps Progressive objectives, truth and objectivity be damned.

  15. You don't think the new White House Strategist's connections are newsworthy? These guys are openly Nazis. They are as anti-American as it's possible to be, and one of their heroes and mouthpieces is the President-elect's best friend and advisor. How on Earth is this NOT important?

    1. You have very interesting views and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Breitbart 'alt-right' and Radix/VDare 'alt-right' are two very different things. National populism vs. mostly racialist fascism. Not the same thing, unless you want to argue that farmer populism is also fascism. Somehow.

    3. Van Jones was a true blue patriot though, amirite comarade ?

    4. Because everyone doesn't care what the law says?


    6. Do you know who else was openly Nazi?

    7. Who at Breitbart is openly a Nazi? Or even has nazi inclinations for that matter?

    8. "These guys are openly Nazis."

      [citation needed]

  16. Because institutional media and white nationalists have formed a politically convenient symbiotic relationship.

    It's not just the actual racialist alt-right that serves as a politically convenient target, it's the use of the term 'alt-right' to refer to any right-leaning ideology outside of the Overton window. In the same way neocon has been used in such a utterly broad and meaningless way, alt-right is used to construct an other. Dalmia on this very site is guilty of it. When you try to suggest that Pamela Geller, a Jew, is a member of an alt-right coalition, you have no goddamn idea what you're talking about.

    1. I never heard the term alt-right until a couple of months ago. Now it's a thing. The media needs its boogey man. Here's the latest incarnation.
      One of the early "what is the alt right" pieces had someone explaining Ron Paul and people who think like him are alt right. So now they can taint right-thinking ideas with the smear of alt right. It's a twofer.
      Did anyone expect media manipulation to end after its most recent comeuppance?

      1. Didn't Ron Paul write some fairly racist newsletters way back when?

        1. Nope.

    2. But I think Bannon made the mistake of saying Breitbart was
      a home for the alt-right or something like that. I think he wanted
      to use the term in a broader sense and not as neo-nazi.

      1. That's absolutely true, and it's definitely muddied the definition. The 'old' alt right specifically state that Milo does not represent them.

    3. It's not just the actual racialist alt-right that serves as a politically convenient target, it's the use of the term 'alt-right' to refer to any right-leaning ideology outside of the Overton window.

      I think that's correct.

      They fulminate about these small narrow segment of "identitarians" in order to demonize ANYONE who disagrees with progressive dogma;

      Which is funny, because no one very few* in the media really said a peep about the prevalence of the Socialist Parties being so prevalent in the BLM and Anti-Trump protests so far.

      *you either have to read some 'right-media' like the Daily Caller, or UK papers , who probably don't realize its uncool to point out that most of the protests are organized by Socialist groups.

  17. Eat my cock.

  18. Conservative critics of Trump

    "normalized" the alt-right by tying them to the eventual Republican nominee and president-elect.

    As you sow so shall you reap.

    Chickens comin' home to roost

    1. SIV - do you ever read Taki's? If so, how would you evaluate the quality of Taki's commentariat vs. H & R's?

      1. how would you evaluate the quality of Taki's commentariat vs. H & R's?

        They would probably be 'not so bad' if it werent for the 30% batshit-racists

        i don't think i've ever read any thread that didn't devolve to "complaining about Teh Joos" in one form or another

        1. Yeah, the "Joooooos" obsession is the worst thing about Taki comments and the alt-right in general.

  19. Damn tje Reason staff is stupid and the commentariat lazy. Vox Day has his 16 points if the alt-right in a binch of different languages. None of which i find crazy. Id link but Reasons shiity comment service is too stupid to allow words over 50 and i am too lazy to do an html link.

    Im not going to take any Reaon artcle seriously about thr alt right until it addesses those 16 points. Or even take the time to like fuck talk to some alt-righters

    1. Btw. A lot of alt-righters come from libertariansim. But they recognize that stupid shit like open borders is a just a utopion dream. It isnt ever going to happen. And the utopionism of libertarianism is no different than the utopionism of communism. A pipe dream that can have dangerous consequnces. So they grow up a deal with the real world. Shit like how most black men are killed by black men. And how black men seem to bat way outside thwir league when it comes to pwrpetuating violence. then rationally deduce...hey i dont want to live around black men.

      1. But they recognize that stupid shit like open borders is a just a utopion dream. It isnt ever going to happen.

        ...And then immediately start to talk about how we need a Pinochet to take care of the leftists.

      2. A libertarian who becomes a vicious collectivist never was a libertarian.

        Racism is a particularly vile form of collectivism.

        1. some of them completely hate libertarianism and specifically go out of their way to demonize and reject it

          others, not so much. the point that "they're not all the same" is something that seems to get repeated a lot.

        2. Libertarianism is solely about under what circumstances coercion is justified. Personal beliefs, thought patterns, and personal choices are outside of its domain.

          There's no contradiction between racism and libertarianism. Having the same attitude and beliefs about all members of a group is stupid, but it's not "collectivism". Collectivism is where you groups of people rights rather than individuals.

          1. There is a lot of ideological simplification and blindness about what "collectivizing" means. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging statistics, and as awkward as it may be, different religions, ethnicities, and even races are, on average, somewhat different in various ways. That doesn't mean "all individuals in group X are the same," but it may mean that group X, on average, may have different characteristics than group Y.

      3. And the utopionism of libertarianism is no different than the utopionism of communism

        Libertarianism is not utopianism.

        The fundamental difference is this: the utopian communist wants a particular outcome and believes that violence can make that outcome a reality.

        The libertarian wants a particular framework that minimizes the ability of people to craft outcomes through violence. Whatever outcome that produces is not the point, but what makes a libertarian is the belief that this reduction in the ability of people to manipulate outcomes through violence would make the world a better place, not a perfect place.

        1. The idea that open borders makes the world a better, more peaceful place is distinctly utopian.

          1. Something tells me that your definition of open borders means any easing of immigration restrictions whatsoever.

            I think borders are only really useful in weeding out known violent criminals. Anyone who isn't one and can hold a job gets to be a citizen. I expect that makes me a utopian. I'd say it's pretty practical. For practical reasons I'd rather get surgery from a brilliant Lebanese born doctor than the American born douche bag who resents him for 'takin his jerb.'

            1. You don't have to be a criminal to be an immigrant who makes the country worse. All it takes is for them (or their descendants) to vote for statism, be on welfare, support sharia law, or add to social divisiveness. It's also established that increased diversity lowers social trust.

      4. Well, your post actually makes me appreciate auto correct, so I guess it accomplished something.

    2. Alt-right principle #2: "The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism."

    3. Or even take the time to like fuck talk to some alt-righters

      Yes, this.

      ENB wrote that awful "Cultural Libertarians" piece back in the spring which was mostly attempting to push the "not so bad"-ones (milo, et al) to further-than-arms-length... saying that they dont deserve any respect from libertarians.

      Most of the people she reached out to get quotes from were of the "left-libertarian" strain. Which seems odd given that the subject of the piece was mostly 'right-libertarians'. "Not talking to the people you criticize" - or not even *quoting them in full* anywhere - is a red flag for intellectual-dishonesty.

    4. I read that. Not much there I can agree with but it's pretty hard to make the case that these guys are Nazis or white supremacists. It would appear they're a disorganized group of political eccentrics whose influence is being wildly exaggerated by the MSM in their ongoing service to progressives and the Democratic party. Why am I not surprised?

      " The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses,
      The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation."
      "The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy."
      "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children."

      While these ideas are clearly not politically correct, I don't see anything particularly extreme about them. The left is continually lecturing us about the superiority of various cultures and protecting "people of color" and "marginalized" groups of all descriptions. I don't understand why this shit is controversial and frankly I find both sides tedious.

      1. Vox Day is not the Alt-Right Pope however. I've mentioned this before, but the alt-right is still pretty 'diverse' in its arguments. Day may claim that the alt-right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, but plenty of alt-righters do argue that (the most general being the superiority of the East Asians and Europeans over blacks and everybody else at forming functional societies). He values Christianity, but some hate Christianity and see it as a Middle Eastern Jewish cancer that destroyed Germanic paganism. He said they value peace, other alt-righters claim North Africa is white territory to be conquered because of the Roman Empire. Day may hold those positions and argue that they're the alt-right, but in reality the alt-right is more a general coalition of different perspectives on racial tribalism and 'race realism'.

        There is no singular spokesperson for the alt-right.

        1. Like I said, a disorganized group of political eccentrics. Undoubtedly some are crazy racists, others I assume are good people. All obviously have too much time on their hands. A lot like Reason commenters. Havin a hard time givin a shit. But thanks for trying to further my education.

        2. It occurs to me that the "alt-right" is the "Tea Party" redux, but now with some genuine racists claiming to be the vanguard. Eight years ago progressives claimed the Tea Party movement was racist despite the absence of any evidence and repudiation of racism by all involved. This time around the progressive media have searched the continent and managed to find a hundred or so card-carrying racists who refer to themselves as "alt-right". Progressive media can then use them and the term "alt-right" to create a narrative that maligns a much larger and more diverse movement that is opposed to the progressive agenda.

          It would be helpful if writers would use clear language and eschew using such ambiguous terms. They would, if they were interested in reporting the truth.

        3. I love how the East Asians are now considered one of the "superior races", when 120 years ago they were the first group to be barred access to the country.

      2. Last weekend a bunch of so-called "alt-right" guys met separately in DC.

        Over the past couple of weeks, Donald Trump has been conducting meetings in New York and New Jersey with a bunch of people who will shortly become DC movers and shakers.

        Does anybody really believe that any of the attendees at the Trump meetings cares one whit about what the people in the "alt-right" think?

        The simple fact is that everybody that Trump taps for his Administration will have a job whose competent execution will allow the sort of bigotry that so many people seem to fear.

  20. These guys are openly Nazis. They are as anti-American as it's possible to be

    Unlike, say, Bernie "The business model of Wall Street is fraud!" Sanders?

    1. The US has never fought a war against Sanders' type of socialism.

      1. I'd thought wars in Vietnam and Korea, and invasion of Grenada were all about that. Huh. I guess Sanders is that Other Type of Socialist, Totally Reasonable Once He Gets Into Power We Swear!

      2. We wouldn't have to, since it's a fairy tale.

        Sanders' type of socialism would either fall apart almost immediately or evolve into authoritarian dictatorship which "successful" socialism inevitably does.

      3. Sanders has praised monstrous regimes and revolutionaries, including calling for the release of a man who murdered four people in a terrorist bombing.

        Sanders is not the kind of person who rules in a socialist system, he's the person who is removed by the clever and devious man who claws his way up. Sanders is the useful idiot who would find himself in front of a firing squad surrounded by corpses screaming "NOT THIS, I NEVER MEANT IT TO BE LIKE THIS."

        1. The dude is a multi-millionaire "socialist". He has deviously fooled you into thinking he was a true believer. He would lead and he would happily send out the firing squads.

      4. Please start talking about Scandinavia, and how Sanders totally isn't pushing the Venezuela-model.

        1. Damn, is Venezuela on the list of "not real socialism" now ?
          I need an update.

  21. All those stories about Jeffrey Dahmer merely served to normalize cannibalism.

    1. *quietly tucks tibia away*

      Why, whatever do you mean?


    2. So it was a "The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and Her Lover" thanksgiving at your house too?

      1. We watched Centipede.

  22. For just a moment there, I thought I accidentally clicked on a NYT or Huffpost link.

  23. The media has been using small groups of people as representive of larger groups for a while.

    1. The Alt Right is just the new Westboro Baptist Church. The Alt Right wants to pretend it is the reason Trump won. It is of course not the reason Trump won. But the media wants to go along with the lie because it furthers the bigger lie that Trump is an illegitimate president who won because of racism not because Obama's Presidency has largely been a failure and Hillary Clinton was a corrupt candidate that he country didn't trust to be President.

      1. Obama's presidency was one of abject, unapologetic racism. Clinton attempted to follow on his heels, largely because her own political incompetence and ideological agnosticism left her with little else to offer. And the electorate, in at least a narrow margin, rejected Obama's bigoted bumfuckery. Trump won despite, not because of, racists on both sides: those trying to drag him down to represent their execrable racialist nationalism, and those who have practiced racialist politics for decades projecting on to him their typical bigotries.

        1. I agree. Nothing Trump ever says is racist. And the racist on both sides just pretend otherwise to suit their agendas.

    2. I remember one election cycle there was a presidential debate and immediately afterward one of the network's interviewed some tiny group of insane leftest college students and they were treated as it they represented half the country.

      1. Yeah me too. Humphry vs. Nixon right?

  24. Is there a generally-accepted meaning of the term "alt right"?

    I know more or less what neo-Nazis or Aryan Nations are, I know a little bit about the various attempts to revive the Klan, I've seen lots of apparently uncoordinated racist comments on comment sections (I mean *real* racist comments, not just anti-leftism like we have here).

    I used to be familiar with the VDARE crowd.

    I've talked to neo-Confederates, and sometimes they'll say something that's racist, believe it or not.

    But what is an "alt-right"? Is it a term whose meaning varies with the speaker? Is it a devil-term to smear anyone who isn't part of the establishment consensus? Is it a term some racists have appropriated for themselves to show that they're Proud to be Honkies?

    1. If the left can smear anyone from Bill Maher to an-caps with the word "libertarian," it's only fair they can deride everyone from GOP-separatists to avowed white supremacists with the term "alt-right."

    2. I was wondering the same thing. I had found and posted this article a few days ago in an ENB post. Yes, I know it's Breitbart.

      1. "Needless to say, natural conservatives' concern with the flourishing of their own culture comes up against an intractable nemesis in the regressive left, which is currently intent on tearing down statues of Cecil Rhodes and Queen Victoria in the UK, and erasing the name of Woodrow Wilson from Princeton in the U.S. These attempts to scrub western history of its great figures are particularly galling to the alt-right, who in addition to the preservation of western culture, care deeply about heroes and heroic virtues."

        Ha ha ha ha, Wilson was a lefty racist, an early neocon trying to democratize the world, the signer of the Federal Reserve Act, and now he's one of the "great figures" of Western history?

        1. "Great" is not the same as "Positive".

        2. It's the scrubbing of history that is being objected to in Wilson's case, more than what he represents.

      2. My takeaway from that article is that there are essentially three types of alt-rightists: 1) 1488ers who like Nazi regalia and tattoos, 2) a hundred or so fairly educated people who advance an ideology of white nationalism, and 3) trolls.

        1. This might help explain some of the trolls

    3. It's a bit like neo-con. It might have once meant something, but now it means "people I don't like very much."

    4. You can go to Grand Wizard Master himself and his 16 points.

      And yeah, weasel as they will, they are racists. And cowardly ones, too - they use Mote-and-Bailey tactics just like feminists to backpaddle when pressed.

      1. OK, if *that's* what it is, what with their pure "genetic nations" and their resistance to dominance by (((non-native ethnic groups))), then it's just recycled racism.

        No wonder the CTRL-left wants to link every non-leftist to this movement.

      2. So basically people who aren't the Left, aren't the conservative establishment, and aren't libertarians.

        Motte and bailey is an excellent term by the way, I hadn't heard that one before.

        1. Look at the references to genetic purity and the oh-so-coy Jew-baiting.

          1. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

            Yup, that's exactly where motte-and-bailey come in.
            "Arr, we hates (((non-native))) influence, arr!"
            "Do you mean Jews?"
            "My, oh no, no. How could you even think that. You must be a (((prog))) agitator."

            I do love "any other means" - it also covers working hard, not getting into trouble and being smart.

            1. The anti-Jew part of the alt-right is the most distressing aspect from my point of view, but I don't think it's the core of the ideology nor does it discredit the whole, any more than lesbian man-haters are the discrediting core of feminism.

              1. That's what I mean by "motte-and-bailey". Yes, man-hating is discredit to feminism, because feminism is women's advocacy movement. They argue for equality only when it suits them, and cheerfully defend every privilege of gender they have.
                If male/female suicide ration was inverse of what it is, you'd hear it blared everywhere as Great Crisis Of Our Age. There would be pressure groups, rallies, politicians posturing, regulation written in copious amounts to correct this "silent genocide." Since it's not, they cry about ratio of women in Engineering (but never in Social Sciences, for example).

                Likewise, Jew-hatred is a key part of alt-right, if it's to mean anything. If you think Whitey is under attack in his own land by Johnny Foreigner, who better to hate than everyone's favorite punching bag for the last couple millennia? Let Jews off the hook and whole "White race in white lands" collapses.

                Disclaimer: coming from an ethnic group that's "white" when it's "fuck Whitey" time, and "Asiatic sub-humans" when Aryans get itchy trigger fingers does make me less tolerant of alt-right morons.

                1. I would agree with your assessment, and I think it's a strong analogy there between feminism and "alt-rightism".

                  Funny thing, I was reading about Elizabeth Cady Stanton, godmother of feminism. She believed men were inferior to women, but also, despite being an abolitionist, was a huge bigot, far beyond what was common among the elite of the day. She not only thought blacks and Asians were inferior, but even Irish and Germans (warmed my hear to finally see us Krauts listed as an inferior race. I want my reparations!) and she mocked these groups mercilessly; she also opposed the 15th amendment.

                  So, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, first alt right feminist? Intellectual harbinger of Mussolini's granddaughter?

                2. I am by nature an anti-purist when it comes to ideology. All ideologies are maps, and maps are never the territory. So I am OK with being largely libertarian, but realizing that borders and language and culture matter. I can also see that the alt-right emphasis on those things is valid, while rejecting the Jew-hatred, which I don't consider "key."

        2. "Motte and bailey is an excellent term by the way, I hadn't heard that one before."

          I had not heard that before either. I agree, that is a great metaphor.

  25. Meanwhile, this obsessive coverage of the alt-right not only helps mainstream a small movement but it's also exactly what the bigots need and want to grow.

    Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

    Did you ever consider that? Give a fringe group a national spotlight in order to blame the growth of it on Trump.

    It's not even subtle.

    1. For some of them that is the intent.

      The first goal of extremists is to get rid of the moderates, to clear the field between them and the opposite extremists.

  26. Trump now says Mitt Romney is his leading candidate for SoS. Seems refreshing when a president isn't hung up on settling political scores.

    1. Too bad he can't pick for competence now.

  27. Speaking of derangement...

    The flood of "fake news" this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

    Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery ? including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human "trolls," and networks of websites and social-media accounts ? echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.

    Holy shit.

    What fools we were. We played right into Putin's hands. Naught but doom awaits.

      1. Are the Putin-bots who occasionally appear on H&R typical of this slick Russian PR offensive?

        If so, it needs work, because it seems to elicit giggles more than conversions.

        "heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia."

        I saw the debate where a "journalist" egged on Hillary to commit to resisting Russia in Syria. Were Hillary and the "journalist" Russian agents?

      2. "He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right.

        ""The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction," Coler says....

        "Coler, a registered Democrat, says he has no regrets about his fake news empire. He doesn't think fake news swayed the election.

        ""There are many factors as to why Trump won that don't involve fake news," he says. "As much as I like Hillary, she was a poor candidate. She brought in a lot of baggage.""

        1. Of course these fake stories wouldn't sway the election, because the people who believe this are those who are predisposed to think the very worst of the target.

          "I was going to vote for Hillary until someone forwarded this article about how she drinks the blood of goats."

    1. Hey expert independent researchers have reached this conclusion. They're never wrong.

      1. Top.

    2. I (foolishly) went to the Washington Post link and read some of the comments.

      OMG, if that's the level of intelligence displayed by the average person regardless of political stripe, the SMOD can't come fast enough.


    3. Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems

      Which turned out to be true.

  28. Obama's presidency was one of abject, unapologetic racism.

    "Divide and conquer" is not a foolproof scheme, apparently.

  29. The US has never fought a war against Sanders' type of socialism.

    Ho Chi Minh might disagree.

    1. Sander's is a complete idiot. It's like someone found some crazy old angry homeless man wondering around with no clue and put a suit on him and ran him for president. The fact that the left flock to him is both hilarious and terrifying.

      1. When people talk about what a horrible candidate Hillary was, I agree with them but am reminded of Micheal Bloomberg. Bloomberg was a horrible mayor of New York in many ways. But, I knew a couple of pretty conservative people in New York who liked him, no because he was a good mayor but because being more familiar with NYC politics knew how much worse everyone else in the NYC Democratic party was. Bloomberg sucked but he was by far the best the NYC Democrats were every going to produce. And as we have found out with DiBlasio, who is much worse than Bloomberg, they were right.

        It is the same with Hillary. As bad as she was, she was better than anyone else the Democrats had. And whomever they nominate in 2020 is likely to be much worse than Hillary. It is why I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary ran and got the nomination in 2020, if her health somehow manages to hold out. They have no one else.

        1. It is the same with Hillary. As bad as she was, she was better than anyone else the Democrats had.

          No way. Sanders would have had his own issues in the general, but any of the other primary candidates (Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chaffee, or Jim Webb) would have mopped the floor with Trump. Not saying that any of them is a good politician, but they didn't have the closet full of skeletons that Hillary did. If we bring Liz Warren into the picture, who didn't run solely because she was afraid of retribution for providing an alternate vagina, or even Joe Biden, it would have been a landslide over Trump.

          1. The others you mention are further left than Hillary. They are all like DiBlasio. They would have lost even worse than Hillary. Hillary at least pretends to support the capitalist system. The others you mention don't even do that.

            1. Hillary is not left or right of anyone, she is wherever she thinks she needs to be at the time to get votes. While O'Malley and Warren are liberals, they're no more left wing than Hillary made herself out to be in the primaries in an attempt to defuse Sanders.

              And Jim Webb is fairly moderate. Lincoln Chaffee even used to be a Republican.

              1. Right. We should remember that there were 2 demagogues running for president, not one.

        2. Elizabeth Warren 2020!

          -This message approved by Jill Stein

        3. Absolutely no way Hillary runs in 2020. Her health is clearly terrible, and she seems to have a drinking problem as well. I would be surprised if she lives that long.

        4. As bad as she was, she was better than anyone else the Democrats had.

          They could have had better. Ron Wyden and Tulsi Gabbard are two who come to mind. If Team Blue wanted to encourage them to run, they could have actually represented real change for them.

          1. Democrats didn't really want change. They wanted a Big Name, and they didn't really have any others who checked off the right boxes and didn't have huge negatives.

            And I doubt if they would have done better. It was a change election. The same party rarely wins the White House three times in a row.

            1. I think in both the cases I named, they could have easily sold themselves as change, despite the Team colors- they had solid records of bucking their party and calling out the Obama administration on intervention issues and police state/surveillance.

              1. The tricky part with that gambit is that running on that record means pointing out that the last Democrat to run as a privacy-minded non-interventionist did a complete 180 once elected.

              2. What makes you think the Democrats would nominate someone who would run against the Democratic Party and the Obama administration...?

  30. There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders.

    Good grief, WaPo. The most effective sowers of distrust and resentment against "U S democracy and its leaders" are card carrying members of the American political establishment, and 99.762% of the people who collect government paychecks.

    1. researchers portray it as

      And who are these 'researchers'? Why, your friends in some super-lefty think-tank? Let me get my shocked face.

      1. Foreign Policy Research Institute, and some group called "PropOrNot" founded in 2016 and whose executive director won't reveal his name for fear of being targeted by Putin.

        1. Foreign Policy Research Institute

          Well, they're far from "Super lefty".

          Quite the opposite. More like the foreign policy establishment. Who obviously have as much of an interest in Russian boogeymen as the DNC.

          If we weren't pants-shitting about Iran and Russia near-continually, how could we possibly justify the half-trillion we spend on the military annually?

          1. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.

            What it sounds like to me is that the WaPo and others on the left are taking the FPRI's general points about Russian intelligence motivations, and expanding it into the idea that they're specifically trying to undermine *democrats*.

            And i swear i can't read another one of these fucking idiotic hand-wringers about "attacks on democracy" without a sidebar pointing out that the US has been doing exactly this kind of shit FOREVER

            1. Right, it's the Russian's fault that election officials were downloading free porn on their computers.

    2. That's certainly been my experience but I haven't done the research. These guys are experts after all.

  31. About 300 people? That seems about right- the alt-right is composed of about 300 reddit trolls.

  32. the alt-right is composed of about 300 reddit trolls.

    Based on the Mythology of the Divine Tulpa, that breaks down as 1 troll and 299 sockpuppets.

    1. I find your lack of faith disturbing.

  33. Alright, it's officially noon communist coast time and still no Morning Linx. Since I'm in Central, I'll give Robby's hair one more hour to make right on this travesty otherwise I'ma stick my dick in the mashed potatoes.

  34. | "Why does the March for Life, a rally that attracts tens of thousands of anti-abortion Americans to Washington, D.C., every year get less prominent media coverage than a fringe neo-Nazi gathering?"

    Because the left has spent decades trying to credibly tie the Republican party to the nazi* movement, and now that day is finally here?

    * After first spending decades trying to credibly expel the national socialists from their home on the left.

    1. I've just finished Three Hearts and Three Lions (because I'm an idiot who left it this long) and I salute your handle, sir! Be it inspired by the novel, or original Charlemagnic legends.

      1. Never heard of it but Paul Anderson is not a bad writer, so will give it a read.

        1. "Poul," please!

          1. WHERE'S MY EDIT BUTTON!

  35. When we're talking about the Alt-Right, we're really talking about a bunch of internet trolls, amirite?

    These are more or less the same people who did the Habbo Raid in 2007, amirite?

    "Nevar Forget!"

    Dicks Out for Harambe!

    Taking this shit so seriously is Pythonesque level hilarious. Never in their wildest dreams did the 4chan trolls think their work would be taken so seriously--and how funny must that be to them?

    Yeah, the press is creating an Alt-Right that there wouldn't have been otherwise--and the two parties always strive to become the caricatures their opponents make them out to be.

    Latest evidence:

    1) The new DNC head is a Muslim who compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire.

    2) The Alt-Right is going from a meme generator for trolls to attracting actual antisemites, etc.

    If we could convince progressives today that rednecks are anti-gun and pro-Islam, they'd start turning pro-gun rights and anti-Islam tomorrow. Once the progressives started smearing rednecks for being anti-gun and pro-Islam, that's what many of the them would strive to be.

    The world would be a better place if we persuaded all the social justice warriors and all the social conservatives to move to Mars.

    1. Wait, how did the social conservatives get into this?

      1. You lot were treated correctly by the media, as per opening paragraph, and Harsanyi is lamenting that alt-right didn't get the same treatment. So you will be treated same as alt-right in Libertopia. If you don't like it, call the Pope.

        1. You organized words into sentences, but failed to convey much meaning to me.

          1. Libertarians don't like socons. Really, really don't like them. I thought you'd figure that by now. So they'll get a kick in passing no matter what topic.

            1. But libertarians should at least avoid scapegoating SoCons for everything under the sun, or using "SoCon" as a devil term for whatever is considered undesirable.

              "That damn SoCon light beer, it tastes awful!"

              "I stubbed my toe against a SoCon table leg!"

              1. "Ought"/"Is" dichotomy is a harsh mistress.

                I agree with you, but when you get tagged as a social circle's designated bitch, it's nigh-impossible to break free.

              2. But when you have a weak mind, hobgoblins are all that you can handle. Nothing says "libertarian" like the attempt to limit the Liberty to worship. Government approved recognition of personal relationships? Totally Libertarian. Respect for the Liberty to worship? Not Libertarian.

                Libertarians pathetic inability to deal with religion makes me, an atheist, want to become religious, the anti-religious are so vile. That ass wipe John Titor below it apparently the King of Collectivists, because all Christians are the same!! What an absolute turd.


          I've got my horse and Killing Saracens mixtape ready, let's do this! Crusader trait here I come!

          1. The current Pope is so far from promoting "Crusader mentality" (now an insult in higher Catholic circles), that he urges the West to resettle Muslim "migrants" in their countries.

            1. Well clearly you need an Anti-Pope, what good's a Pope if he won't let you take Jerusalem?

              1. Francis is the anti-pope and Benedict is still the real pope, and Dan Brown is responsible for organizing the this convoluted scheme to bring on the NEW Crusades!

            2. We know. I'm an atheist, and I want Benedict back. At least he acts like Church wasn't invented in 1945 by FDR's perception of St Francis of Assisi and the ghost of Rosa Luxemburg.

              1. Can voodoo John Paul II's corpse alive again?

                1. *Can we just voodoo John Paul II's corpse alive again?

              2. My preference is Pope Benedict as well - but at least with the current Pope, I have a chance to show that my belief in Papal authority is based on more than fanboyism.

      2. Speaking of socon violence, pro-life arsonist destroys Albuquerque abortion clinic.

        Oh, wait. No, it was a pregnancy clinic operated by a pro-life group. Oh, well, just go with "anti-abortionists involved in arson."

        1. It's gotten to the point that I'm assuming that all political violence in the country is perpetrated by the left, until it's been proven way beyond a reasonable doubt that some group on the right did it.

          We've had a massive slew of (1) false flags/false reports meant to be pinned on the right and (2) actual obvious violence perpetrated by the left in the last year or two.

          A running theme among non-communists is that "communism becomes bad when the communists start using violence to impose it." I think we may be stumbling toward that eventuality more quickly than many would like to believe. Someday soon one of these obviously professionally agitated/orchestrated "protests" might get *really* bad and it's going to be all downhill from there.

          1. Just to avoid any appearance of straw-manning, I should note that the big assumption I'm making is that pretty much all of the major activist organizations "on the left" are, at their core, communist.

            BLM is a good example of a movement that supposedly had justice-oriented goals, but is really just a bunch of socialist opportunists wielding the emotional power of the BLM narrative and catch phrases to enact their own agenda.

            1. BLM also has strong connections with gay activism, for some reason.

              1. Google united front tactics

        2. This (and the similar story linked in the article) must be some of that "fake news" we hear so much about.

          Or at the very least local news that doesn't merit any national attention..

      3. "Wait, how did the social conservatives get into this?

        The two sides strive to become the caricatures their opponents make them out to be.

        That's a big chunk of the inertia behind social conservatives. They're trying to be the caricatures the social justice warriors make them out to be.

        The social justice warriors are trying to become latte swilling . . .

        That's a big part of the reason why lumbersexual became a thing.

        They're each striving to become what the other side says they are.

        1. Humans are weird. Monocyphyte Christianity opposed orthodox for centuries in the Byzantine empire.

          There is not a really huge difference to modern eyes. But, it was a huge deal back then.

        2. But I haven't been feeling any wish to go to tractor pulls, when does the lure of acting in accord with the stereotype kick in?

          1. Would you wear heavy gold chains, visible to all?

            My wife comes from a culture where wearing such chains shows off your wealth.

            I had to explain to her that it would feel "wrong" for me to do that.

            Obviously, I have some WASP shit going on their in the background that is urging me not wear gaudy displays of wealth. You'd be surprised where this stuff pops up.

          2. Well, you're a pretty rational guy, and chances are your sense of identity isn't easily blown off course by the same things that drive a lot of other people's aesthetics and thinking.

            It doesn't have the same effect on everybody equally.

            In 1954, people thought Southerners were racists in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. Being accused of racism pissed a lot of Southerners off. Other Southerners changed the Georgia state flag so that most of it was composed of the Confederate battle flag. They embraced their caricature.

            Again, a lot of it is signaling, but for a substantial number of people, the aesthetics and the signaling are profoundly important--so they strive to become the caricatures their opponents make them out to be.

            In reality, we're all more complicated than that, but the social dynamic is there. How many people buy AR-15s just because the progressives want to ban them? I bet few will ever more than a hundred rounds fired through them.

            Same thing happens on the left. Convince people that rednecks drive big trucks, and they'll pay a premium to drive a hybrid.

            It's happened throughout history. Before the industrial revolution, the aristocracy wanted to look as pale as possible--because the unwashed masses worked out in the sun. When the unwashed masses started working in factories all day, suddenly it became fashionable to have a tan.

          3. Partisan of the two major seem to be affected by this dynamic more so than other people, maybe because whatever else being a Democrat means over a course of various election cycles, the one thing it always means is that you're not a Republican (and vice versa). People who identify as libertarian don't have that issue--in a system with single member districts, anyway, it probably doesn't matter as much to libertarians.

      4. Convince enough people on the right that the opposite of a social justice warrior is an antisemite, and more people on the right will embrace that.

        Convince social justice warriors that free speech protects racism, and they'll come out against free speech.

        This is the dynamic at work. It doesn't explain everybody, but it explains an awful lot of it.

        I feel the pull myself sometimes. The part of me that wanted Trump to win just so social justice warriors would cry is part of that dynamic. That wasn't the only reason I wanted Hillary to lose, but it was part of it.

        1. As someone who didn't grow up here, this is no more apparent than in the abortion issue.

          "These people don't like abortions at all, so we must support legal abortions up until the day of birth!"

          I never gave much thought to the issue and think it's OK to perform abortions early in the pregnancy, but this insanity basically makes me side with the pro-lifers. I'd rather err on the side of "life starts at conception" than "infanticide is totes fine!"

  36. I have a Mac, so I have to call them Option-Right.

    1. Your comment does not appear to be written in an English script. Please comment in English.


      1. Reason borrowed VDare's comment ingester.

  37. Here is my attempt on the Alt-Right:

    Its basically about Culture, not skin color, but those can be related due to historic coincidence.

    Classical Liberals don't really think culture matters that much - let people be free, and it will all work out.

    Classical lefty thinking is similar- its all about class warfare.

    Both of these focus on economics, and leave out culture. (Culture = shared understandings.)

    There is a lot wrapped up in culture, including hidebound tradition, Chesterton Gate tradition, political culture, etc. Its also explicitly collective. No wonder libertarians don't really want to mess with it.

    OK, so in the past the So-Cons were the big culture warriors, but they have slowly lost.

    After the death of economic Marxism, the left invented cultural Marxism and SJWs sprouted up.

    This put the left on major offensives against traditional culture - and not just against so-con areas. It started leaching into areas where non-religious people start noticing, like ESPN or video games.

    Thus, the Alt-Right. Non-religious, defenders of "national" culture, springs up to fight this.

    My theory here also explain So-Con falling for Trump - they haven't much choice but to latch onto these new secular allies.

    Now, here's the uncomfortable truth: culture does matter. And once its been changed, good luck fixing it. As an economic classical liberal, I'm uneasy joining either side of this fight...and yet, its probably too important to not consider.

    1. By the way, culture is both collective, and also emergent order, thus annoying to both classical left and right in some ways.

      Annoys the right in being collective. Individuals have to knuckle under to cultural norms. Not always cool.

      Annoys the left in being emergent. Culture is not under central control of the elite. Not cool.

      1. Insightful comments.

    2. The "alt-right principles" Pan Zagloba linked to include references to genetic nations, the dangers of "genetic assimiliation," and separate and independent races and "sub-species."

      That sounds like they're going beyond culture.

      1. Yes, I think those kinds of people would like to add genetics to this, to try to hijack the movement.

        It makes sense: they think white race = white culture.

    3. But as for being brought up in a culture where you're pressed to succeed, there's nothing anti-liberty about that.

      The principle of liberty is preserved if, when you grow up and move out of the parental home, you are free to say "screw you Mom and Dad, I'm getting my nose pierced and moving to Portland to join an organic commune!"

      1. Yes. You can have a culture of liberty. A culture where being reliant on government is seen as negative.

        This is why the left works very hard to remove those aspects. I suspect its a reason why some "hate America."

        1. Let's not mistake the DemoGOP Kleptocracy for America.

    4. It's basically about forcing them bitches to squeeze out Christianable pups, jailing the hippies and brown dudes who might otherwise dose and impregnate the bitches first, and slipping McDonnell-Douglas a few billion extra to blow up sand naygurs for Jesus "Over There."

  38. Turning off the teevee and opening the National Socialist platform of 1920 would settle the issue in 8 minutes. In just over a thousand words Hitler declared Germany a nation of Positive Christianity dedicated to altruism, old-age pensions, government meddling in education, and making damn sure no foreigners or selfish Semitic peoples derived any benefit from his country's wonderfulness. God's Own Prohibitionists have copied the exact same ethical values, policies and ambitions from the Prohibition, Tea Party and Consta-to-shun party platforms and manifestoes into the 2016 GOP platform. Writers for the Ladies Home Journal, who were there and knew the difference, identified nationalsocialists as "of the left" in 1933. This "right" monicker is maybe a one-dimensional sweetener tacked on to make nationalsocialism palatable to a new breed of superstitious suckers or a sop thrown to the Soviets when they said they were on "our" side.

  39. Actually, in all fairness, Mencius Moldbug (perhaps the godfather of the alt-right) is worth reading (though not worth agreeing with, IMHO.) Until there was a kerfuffle over him presenting at a tech conference I only knew him from one of his quotes, which I quite like: "Cthulu swims slowly, but he always swims left." By trying to ban him from presenting a purely technical talk at a purely technical conference his adversaries rather predictably made him famous.

    Having read him, I don't agree with his conclusions- he's a sort of disillusioned libertarian who has decided that since libertarianism doesn't work we should divide the world into Singaporean states ruled with an iron hand by Sergei Brin, Peter Thiel, etc. On the other hand, I find it hard to understand the hysteria around him- Moldbug is a mild guy, interested only in theory, even if some of his ideas are repugnant.

    The rest of the alt-right (all 299 of them) is a bunch of reddit trolls. I mean really, the entire actual alt-right is a bunch of reddit trolls. I'm not sure covering them is normalizing them, but it sure is encouraging and aggrandizing them. I suppose we need a convenient and uncontroversial target for the latest 2-minute hate, but.. why not furries?

    1. The problem with trolls is that they only do it for attention. Any attention you give a troll, no matter how viciously you attack or demonize them, only encourages them. I can't agree that the literal entirety of the alt-right movement are literal trolls, but it's certainly a significant number. It also does contain actual neo-nazis, anti-semites, and just plain racist bigots.

      That's not to say that trolls aren't a fairly despicable representation of humanity themselves. They start to believe some of their own nonsense because it helps harden their ability to argue. But even ignoring that, the idea that they spend so much effort finding disagreeable things to say solely to garner attention is really kind of pathetic

      1. I can't agree that the literal entirety of the alt-right movement are literal trolls, but it's certainly a significant number. It also does contain actual neo-nazis, anti-semites, and just plain racist bigots.

        La Raza, BLM and the BDS fools are part of the alt-right?

  40. IMO:

    1) The alt-right is larger and more important than this article suggests.

    2) Like any political movement, it has its fringe elements. I try to resist judging groups by their fringes. But if we are to judge that way, let's be fair, and acknowledge the Communists connected to the Democratic Party and the "peace" movement, the man-haters among the feminists, the pedophiles among the gays, the large support for sharia law and even terrorism among Muslims, etc.

    3) The Jew-hating among the alt-right is its worst aspect.

    4) Only the alt-right seems to grasp the threat to American (and libertarian) values posed by unlimited Third World immigration, multiculturalism, and by Islam. Yes, culture matters, and that's not the same as race.

    1. The Jew-hating among the alt-right is its worst aspect.

      But not even close to the Left in this respect. Keith Ellison has a strong chance to be the next head of the DNC. Every top Donkey embraces Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Jimmy Carter is considered an eminence gris.

      The leftist moaning over a few dozen "alt-right" people meeting in DC is hilarious in its hypocrisy.

      1. Oh, don't start me on hypocrisy of the media and how much they all of a sudden give a fuck about Jews.

        BBC had a fainting-couch article about alt-right which included a reference to past-century conspiracy that rich Jews control the US Govt (Israeli lobby? Oh wait, that's not a conspiracy, they really run the US, right BBC?), and how Trump victory may lead to attacks on Jews.

        Lying about, say, Jenin massacre is however, A-OK. Or pretending that it was coincidence Jews in Mumbai were deliberately targeted by the terrorists. Or that attack on kosher supermarket is "randomly shooting a bunch of folks." No, no, only Pepe the Frog is an existential threat.

      2. Indeed, the Jew-hatred on the left (often in the form of concern for the poor, unlucky Palestinian Jew-haters) has been remarkable for several decades now.

      3. Keith Ellison as head of DNC.

        Formerly, a card-carrying anti-Semite who believed that Jews are the descendants of the evil Dr. Yakub. As every student of Nation of Islam history (or any reader of Malcolm X's Autobiography) knows, the evil Dr. Yakub defied God and was exiled from paradise. To get revenge against God, the evil Dr. Yakub used selective breeding techniques to create a purely evil white race. The direct descendants of Dr. Yakub, also known as Jacob, are the Jews, and they are a particularly evil race of white men.

        Ellison really believed that, and was a leader in the Nation of Islam. Now he's being tapped to lead the Democrats.

        But it's Trump who is anti-Semitic.

        1. Whey the past tense?

        2. The Nation of Islam is an insane cult that has managed to hang around long enough to be "respectable." (That, and some sort of affirmative-action-like reluctance to condemn a black cult.) You have got to believe that every Republican is praying that Keith Ellison gets the DNC post. The cognitive dissonance among Jewish DNC donors alone would make it hilarious.

    2. Would you care to elaborate on how multi-culturalism is a threat to libertarianism? To me, it seems that embracing whatever cultural values you treasure, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, is essentially free association. The only problem is when the PC crowd makes such a big deal of cultural appropriation that it makes certain actions only allowable for specific cultures.

      If muslims want to emigrate to the United States, join the workforce, and continue practicing their religion without wishing any harm on their neighbors, I'm not opposed, and I can think of no reasons why I would be. The only problem comes when they attempt to impose rules governing others' behavior, such as insisting that Charlie Hebdo cannot draw cartoons of Muhammad.

      1. California became a Democratic Party fiefdom in large part due to illegal immigration. The most common social/political values of Latin America and the Muslim world are distinctly anti-libertarian. Just look at their home countries, for heaven's sake. The people fleeing them are not necessarily leaving those values behind. It's like people fleeing high-tax states for low-tax states, and then voting for the same policies that created the high-tax states.

        Just look at heavily Latin American or Muslim enclaves in the US, or Muslim enclaves in Europe. They are less libertarian than their countries as a whole. This is not a coincidence.

        In addition, I believe libertarianism works better in high-trust environments, and multiculturalism lowers social trust.

        1. It's actually not hard to find anti-libertarian ideas wherever you look. There's plenty of support in culturally homogenous areas like where I used to live in Georgia that are in favor of the war on drugs, in favor of making "one-man, one-woman" the legal definition of marriage, and in favor of increased authoritarian measures for police.

          I have some issues also declaring that immigrants are very anti-libertarian as a whole. Gary Johnson polled better among Hispanic voters than he did among the general population (say what you will about GJ). They do vote heavily Democratic, but that's more representative of how different parties have appealed to their votes than specific policies. The number 1 issue among Hispanic voters, going into the election, was the economy.

          1. Of course, there are anti-libertarian beliefs everywhere. My point is that libertarianism is most common in the US, and bringing in anti-libertarian foreigners dilutes it. Not all immigrants, are, of course, but patterns can be seen. E.g. if you escape a communist country, you are less likely to be a fan of socialism.

            I think a lot of Hispanic voters have been influenced by both the political cultures of Latin America (largely "socialist," if only in name), and by the multiculturalist/"anti-racist" views of the left. For one example of the former, take a look at the views and power of the Mexican teacher's union.

        2. I will add that I agree with this statement: libertarianism works best in high-trust environments.

      2. People always attempt to impose.

        The nanny principle is very strong.

      3. Re: "To me, it seems that embracing whatever cultural values you treasure, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, is essentially free association."

        You are correct. The problem is that most cultures include it in their meme-plex to force their values upon others, through the ballot box as well as through other means. Islam is especially overt about its meme of conquering other competing meme-plexes.

        In other words, it is libertarian to be truly tolerant, but most non-libertarian cultures will immediately commit various aggressions against other cultures, including and especially libertarians.

        The challenge this article poses is similar to this thought experiment. Suppose you take Jesus' "turn the other cheek" teaching literally for a week, and you keep running into persons who insist upon slapping you. At what point do you stop turning the other cheek?

        Libertarians are dealing with this every day--invite in more illegal immigrants because open borders and being undocumented is truly a good ideal, but these same illegals will immediately vote to use the lethal force of the gov't to make you pay for their welfare programs.

        If we go to Richard Dawkins' hawk vs. dove examples, what are libertarians but doves being overrun by hawks?

  41. I must admit that I am amused that Papaya and I posted such different takes on the alt-right at about the same time.

    1. I agree that Moldbug is worth reading, and while I agree with many of the critiques of democracy, I am not a monarchist. I think that libertarianism with the right culture eliminates the need for monarchy. Culture is critical. For instance, you will never, ever have a libertarian state in a majority-Muslim country. In fact, the more Muslims your country has, the less libertarian it can be.

      I think that the umbrella label of "alt-right" encompasses more than 300 online trolls, though. Like libertarianism, it's an explicit label for a set of beliefs much larger than the number of people who are "officially" labeled that way. Remember those surveys we periodically see here, about how "libertarian attitudes" are much more widespread than the number of votes the Libertarian Party gets? The alt-right is like that. Large number of people (even a majority) know that all cultures and religions are not equal in every way. They know that being a Muslim is different than being a Seventh-Day Adventist. The traditional Enlightenment view of religions grew out of an attempt to stop intra-Christian religious wars. It was eventually extended to Jews, because only nuts think that Jews are trying to take over the world. Unfortunately, Muslims really are trying to take over the world. Oh, not every single individual Muslim, but it's a core tenet of their religion (unlike Judaism or Christianity).

      1. I think that your criticism of Muslims comes across as unnecessarily vitriolic and is counter-productive. Your concerns can be addressed, but some dissection is needed.

        Wahhabism is certainly incompatible with libertarian ideals. It's not exactly the same as extremism, but in some ways does contribute to favorable attitudes towards extremists. The outgrowth (Sharia law) should be fought tooth-and-nail in the west to prevent its expansion, but what we need most is a strategy of containment. Our foreign policy has been lancing cysts of nations practicing the religion with the power of states. This is an understandable impulse because, regardless of what you personally say about the religion, the vast majority of its adherents are peaceful people who are being brutalized at the hands of extremists. They adhere to religious law because they know no other life.

        That doesn't imply that the west should aim for total isolation. Regimes that attempt to maximize power and minimize freedom do produce people who agitate for something better. Some of those are able to become true believers in libertarian ideals if they are exposed to them. Identifying those and providing asylum is difficult, but it is still something which must be done.

        1. ?
          As for your comments about multiculturalism, you're not being particular enough about the problem. It can be compatible with libertarian ideals, but not in an anything-goes capacity, which is the brand that the proggies push as being "beautiful." The answer to that is naturalization. Achieving fluency in language, understanding of the nation's political structure, culture, etc. should be a requirement. The proggies' stilted policies encourage ghettoization where malcontents are bred and find a focus for their anger at their conditions. Of course that focus will be upon the host nation, which treats them (rightfully) as parasitic. They have trouble with those others, whose culture they do not understand, laws which seem foreign and wrong (returning to culture), and a language barrier which is insurmountable without assistance.

          As long as we continue to insist that there should be no national language, that all culture is universally good, that immigrants shall not be required to integrate, and that we should do nothing to help them to do so, we give the proggies everything they need to create ghettos of many different groups to whom they can pander for votes (and virtually always receive).

          You're hacking at the branches of Islamic extremism when you need to be attacking the roots: unmitigated immigration without naturalization.

          1. The answer to that is naturalization. Achieving fluency in language, understanding of the nation's political structure, culture, etc. should be a requirement.

            How is that different from assimilation/melting pot? Multiculturalism was set up in deliberate opposition to the American "melting pot" concept.

            1. I can't say that I agree that they're necessarily different things. Maybe some think that the "melting pot" concept needs to necessarily create indistinguishable homogeneity a la Scandinavian countries before they started trying the current round of proggy political nonsense. I don't think that should be the aim. I think It's OK if our culture is a gooey melting pot that's still a bit lumpy.

              Some of us are very steadfastly against the designation of a national language and a requirement to attain it. It doesn't sound very libertarian. I'd like to argue that it's an orthogonal concern to libertarian ideals and must be addressed as such. Resistance to language acquisition clearly inhibits the "melting pot" ideal. I'd argue that it is the prime driver of ghettoization. Without a common ground of communication, culture is difficult to exchange. A common concept of government can't be achieved if culture can't be exchanged. Proggies feed upon this with their coalition of multiculturalism goal. It's easily hijacked by socialists, and that is clearly what is happening. They can glue all these groups together with a very un-American view of politics. This is what happens when we fail to naturalize, when we fail to communicate an American civics. People attack this concept as "nationalistic" but that treats it as purely black-and-white instead of a spectrum at some point along which something approaching liberty could be achieved.

              1. This is a great comment. I hate that I can't say anything more in response because it's such a good observation that I'm still processing it. I don't even know if I 100% agree with what you're saying, at this point, but I still applaud you.

                I'll add this little tidbit: Hispanics who speak mostly Spanish skew extremely Democratic. The more they speak English, the more likely they are to vote Republican or Libertarian. It's been true in every poll I've seen on the subject in the past decade.

                1. I think speaking English should be a requirement for citizenship, and absurdities like multilingual ballots should be abolished.

        2. I think that your criticism of Muslims comes across as unnecessarily vitriolic and is counter-productive.

          Welcome to listening to Papaya.

          1. I'm trying to straddle a divide. It's not that I'm listening to him as far as his ability to influence my views is concerned. I do read what he writes because he's not entirely wrong about the dangers of that particular faith, or his complaints about what proggies really get by advocating their brand of multiculturalism.

            He does have a plank in his eye with regards to faith in general and the dangers it poses when entwined with government. There are several of the Republican persuasion who creep around here regularly who are similarly inclined. Freedom of what one thinks is right to maximize. Freedom of what one does is not. It is not impossible to have people who are free to believe lots of different things (even if none of us can agree upon whether any of them are right), and I think it is our obligation to try. It should be obvious why: We ask this freedom for ourselves in a culture that is determined to fight us, and we are losing. Do we have a libertarian society? We can find common ground with lot of people, but not if we're perpetually engaged in ideological warfare that is just as incompatible with libertarianism as what we already face. Religions make an absolute mess of everything, of that we can be certain, but if an atheist can find that common ground among lots of people with whom he disagrees, certainly the those of faith can try.

            1. I am a believer in separation of church and state. (A belief which is inherently contrary to Islam, by the way.) However, it is inevitable that the religion of a nation will have some influence on the government. And the simple fact is that all religions are not the same thing with some names and rituals changed. For doctrinal reasons I don't wish to take the time explaining now, Jesus was very person than Muhammad, the Bible is very different from the Quran, and Christian clergy (as a whole) are very different than Islamic clergy (as a whole).

              1. A belief which is inherently contrary to Islam, by the way.

                Absurd, as mentioned below.

                You religious types are very good at discarding the parts of your faith that your holy books require but are inconvenient to you. That applies to all religions. Not a single adherent of any faith is an exemplar of their faith, you included.

                We could start with a simple enough illustration: your obvious unwillingness to turn the other cheek. I'll leave you to ruminate on that.

                1. The Bible is a collection of writings, over hundreds of years, by dozens of people "inspired" by God, in a handful of different languages. It's acknowledged to be edited, and almost nobody reads it in the original. There's lots of room for interpretation.

                  The Quran was said to be dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. It is a perfect copy of the master copy in Heaven with Allah. Only Qurans in Arabic are "really" Qurans. The Quran is literally Allah's word in the language Allah speaks. There is much, much less room for interpretation.

                  Imagine how fundamentalist "fundamentalist Christians" would be if Jesus wrote the Bible himself, in English.

                  Of course, not everyone adheres to all teachings of their religion, but the Bible does not order death for apostates or blasphemers or Jews or gays. (Or if it does, it's some passage in the Old Testament that can be explained away.) It does not advocate conversion by the sword.

                  "Turning the other cheek" does not apply when someone is trying to reduce my liberty, much less kill me and destroy my culture.

          2. I think it's actually quite counter-productive to ignore the threat of Islam. And not just "extremist" Islam, because extremist Islam is a natural outgrowth of regular-old Islam. As history repeatedly shows.

            I find it odd that people around here are very quick to see all police as dangerous and problematic, because of the actions of some of them. I get called names for seeing the cop side of things, and trying to balance that with the rights of the people they have to deal with. And nobody thinks being a cop is a religion which teaches them that it's God's word that they should shoot dogs or young black males.

            But guess what? Islam really does teach that women should be oppressed, that Jews and apostates and blasphemers should be killed, and that all other religions are inferior. Of course every Muslim doesn't act on these teachings every day, but those are core teachings of Islam.

            I suspect that if 100,000 potential immigrants to the US were all police, the commentariat here would have qualms about that, at least. But if they were all Muslims, it seems clear to me that it would be much more problematic.

            1. I find it odd that people around here are very quick to see all police as dangerous and problematic,

              This would be interesting, if I actually believed that. I have a problem with bad cops, not cops.

              The problem is Papaya is that I've seen you defend oppressive behaviour towards Muslims for no other reason then they're Muslims. We talked about Burma a long ass time ago and you justified Burmese repression and abuse of Muslims under the context of "they're Muslims, they must be doing something wrong". Despite knowing nothing of the context of what was going on, you immediately tried to defend horrific statist behaviour (it's going well, by the way). That speaks more about you than it does Muslims.

              1. I see "Fuck the police" around here a lot. I have seen more nuanced views, but I don't think I've ever seen "Fuck the bad police."

                A lot (if not most) of the "oppressive behavior" toward Muslims is very much like the "oppressive behavior" of Israel toward Palestinians: aggressors getting payback. Perhaps the Burmese Muslims are the exception, and they are model citizens who are all unjustly persecuted. But it's hard to miss the fact that around the world, it's usually Muslims doing the persecuting. If they are getting the short end of the stick one time out of 50 or 100, yeah, it's hard for me to consider that to be anything other than an unusual exception.

                1. While it's undeniably true that the Burmese government persecutes the Rohingya (the Muslim ethnic group there), it's also the case that the Rohingya have not exactly been model citizens, either*. There's been bad behavior on both sides going back to the early 40s, when Rohingya 'militants' massacred several thousand Burmese Buddhists. The current 'militants' are also quite chummy with Al-Qaida and Pakistani terrorist groups. Doesn't excuse everything the Burmese government is doing to them, but the hard bed they're in is at least partly of their own making.

                  *they're not allowed to become citizens at all, which is part of the persecution, though on the flip side they've been trying for something like the past half century to not be part of Burma at all.

        3. Sharia law is not an "outgrowth" of Wahhabism. It's core to Islam. And extremism is not some small fringe of Islam, easily expunged. A religion grounded by a caravan robber, warlord, mass murderer, rapist, slaver, and pedophile is going to be different than one founded by a pacifist carpenter.

          How much is religion and how much is culture is hard to determine, but there sure are a lot of distinct patterns that are hard to explain away.

          This also deserves discussion: The Problem of Inbreeding in Islam

          1. Sharia law is not an "outgrowth" of Wahhabism. It's core to Islam.

            This is an absurd statement that betrays a disconnect from reality, one which you should try to heal.

            One needs only a single counter-example to show that this assertion is false on the face of it. My dental hygienist is a Muslim. She wears a hijab to work. She speaks fluent English and is fully integrated into an American view of civics (i.e. she would not be permitted to work, hold a certification to practice, etc.). She is on the high end of integration into American society and I have zero concern about her strapping on a suicide vest tomorrow and blowing people up. I have zero concern that she is out to institute Sharia law in our country. Clearly her faith is not incompatible with being an American. It is also not incompatible with free association, the NAP, self-ownership, free exchange, or other libertarian principles. She is not the only such person, and you are being foolish to imply such.

            Faith in general is incompatible with reality, in my personal opinion (I'm an unapologetic atheist), but I demur. I can work with the faithful so long as they keep their faith in-line with peaceful coexistence. I'm still alive and whole, so it seems to have worked out alright so far.

            1. All your example shows is that some Muslims don't follow all the teachings of their faith. Your dental hygienist may not be a threat, true. But her relatives, her children, or their children? We have no idea. France discovered that their first-generation Muslim immigrants in the '50s and '60s were not much to be concerned about. Unfortunately, their kids and grandkids are a huge problem.

              I think you need to read up on Islam. Sharia law comes from the original, core Islamic teachings. All the Wahhabis (and all the other fundamentalist Muslim groups) have done is discard the modernized, the decadent, the "shallow" versions of Islam, and get back to the real roots. Which is why your overall strategy is doomed: in essence, it consists of saying: "Your religion is fine, just don't take it literally or too seriously!"

              1. in essence, it consists of saying: "Your religion is fine, just don't take it literally or too seriously!"

                You mean exactly what modern Christians do?

                1. Oh, come on! Yes, Catholics and other Christians will often acknowledge science, as in this case. But Genesis is not a matter of life and death. Nobody is currently slaughtering anyone over how many days it supposedly took God to create the world. On the other hand, Muslims have been slaughtering people over Islamic doctrine for 1400 years, and you may have noticed, it's been getting worse for the last 50 years or so.

                  Dude, just look at history and the news. How many Christian groups are committing terror? How many Christian clerics are urging that gays be murdered? Do you know of a lot of Christian textbooks teaching kids to murder Jews? How often does someone, on becoming a more devout Christian, go out and kill someone? Etc., etc. There is simply no equivalency here. Christianity and other religions have their faults, but Islam is clearly the worst religion in the world, and the most anti-libertarian one.

                2. The Bible also contains violent stories like the Koran, however there is a huge difference. Usually in the Bible it's DESCRIBING some law that the Israelites HAD AT THE TIME. It's not meant to be a lesson to be followed, it's JUST PART OF A STORY. However, in the Koran, all the violent and Sharia shit is indeed MEANT to be an ADMONITION TO THE READER, i.e. you should follow these things as part of Islam.

                  And even if what you were implying were true, don't you think it matters that Christianity as it stands now is not violent in practice but Islam is?

                  1. Thank you, Edwin. Also note: Muhammad is the "perfect man" in Islam. Muslims are supposed to admire and emulate a very, very violent man. Rather different from "WWJD"....

                3. For an avowed "libertarian' you sure collectivize people a lot. You sure you are not simply a poser Leftard? I can't tell the difference.

                  1. Directed at the tit, not you Papaya.

    2. I must admit that I am amused that Papaya and I posted such different takes on the alt-right at about the same time.

      *Eureka Moment*


  42. The right wins an election, and the media tells us all about the new nazi threat, which in reality, may consist primarily of internet trolls.

    The left riots in protest of that election, but when they break stuff, the media tells us it wasn't the protesters, it was just anarchists, who bear no further mention.

    1. It's offensive to anarchists to label these DEMOCRAT rioters/looters as anarchists.

      These particular Democrats are extreme statists, and anarchists are their diametric opposites (believing in having no gov't at all).

      But of course the leftist media would never call the rioters/looters what they really are--Democrats--because they are on the same side.

  43. Since when is "alt-right" synonymous with "Nazi" or "white supremacy" or "violent extremists"? Wasn't the Tea Party slandered in the same way?

    The article you should have written:

    "Dear Media: Please Stop Calling Everyone Who Disagrees With Left-Wing Politics Neo-Nazis & Extremists"

    Last I heard, the alt-right includes Lauren Southern and other cultural libertarians, and if you want to call them Neo-Nazis, you can fuck right off.

    1. I agree. The author of this article and several commenters have made a few mistakes:

      1) Why should we continue to allow the leftist/progressive (statist) media to declare/control norms? Reason, as a libertarian media outlet, should combat the leftist media's dominance and set its own norms.

      2) Why should we accept the labels that the leftist media applies to certain groups? It's pretty clear from the Wikileaks and Project Veritas revelations that nearly all of the mainstream media (basically every large news org except Fox News) serves as the propaganda arm of the DNC.

      3) Is Breitbart really the platform of the alt-right? Not really--alt-right websites scoff at Breitbart and its following. But the leftist media is happy to label Breitbart as alt-right to harm Breitbart.

      4) Is the alt-right actually as bad as the mainstream media says it is? I would say no, and I am not white. It is clear that there is a difference between white supremacy and identitarian beliefs--as long as people on the outside fail to understand that, they will never properly consider that portion of the alt-right, and thus, they will continue to mislabel all of the alt-right by calling them white supremacists.

  44. I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,


  45. I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,


  46. I dislike the author's attempt to restrict the free flow of ideas.

    Libertarians are supposed to be able to follow the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" rule.

    To illustrate: Jihadists can talk all they want about bombing a mall. The instant they actually bomb the mall is where they cross the line from words into aggression.

    Another example: progressives can talk all they want about raising the minimum wage. The instant they use the gov't law enforcements' lethal force to coerce businesses into paying more than they are willing to pay, they have crossed the line from words into aggression.

    The alt-right is nowhere near the point of bombing their opponents, and yet this is a call to the leftist media gatekeepers to restrict their ideas/speech/free association. Even though I recognize the alt-right is a meme-plex that competes directly with the libertarian meme-plex, we have as a core ideal tolerance of others that have not yet violated the NAP.

  47. I Quit my office-job and now I am getting paid 99 USD hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after...I can say my life is changed-completely!

    Check it out what i do:===>

  48. The American Left created the "white" male - especially if he lives in the country - as their scapegoat. In the Leftist propaganda, evil itself originated with "white" men. The Alt-Right political movement is a collection of lost souls and misfits that serves the Left's narrative precisely. Leftist's think they can paint those "white" devils who oppose them with guilt-by-association. Their new slander against opposing views is the term "white" nationalist.

  49. Any such thing as "Alt left?" How about:
    "Staunch Democrat"
    "Racist Democrat"
    "Rabid Democrat"
    I could probably go on and on but I won't.

  50. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link


  51. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.