Alt-Right

Why It's a Mistake to Describe the Alt-Right as 'Neo-Nazis'

Backwards-looking attitudes about race, religion, and sex have been a hallmark of the Republican coalition for decades, and are hardly grounds for Hitler Youth comparisons.

|

Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

"Nazis. They are Nazis. Call them Nazis."

With slight variations, this has been a common refrain since the National Policy Institute (NPI), a white-nationalist think tank headed by alternativeright.com founder Richard Spencer, held a mid-November D.C. conference devoted to the alt-right's future. The event—which attracted a few hundred attendees, a few hundred protesters, and international media attention—has renewed debate over whether referring to the "alt-right" by its chosen moniker is an affront to decency and lapse in press ethics that risks "normalizing" hate.

Even the Associated Press, print-media's bastion of detached editorial authority, issued recent guidance that cautions against "using the term [alt-right] generically and without definition," as "it is not well known and the term may exist primarily as a public-relations device to make its supporters' actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience." In the past, AP stated, "we have called such beliefs racist, neo-Nazi or white supremacist." Reporters writing about those who claim the alt-right mantle should use quotation marks around the term of modify it with phrases such as "self-described" or "so-called alt-right," AP advised.

At ThinkProgress, editors announced last week that they would "no longer treat 'alt-right' as an accurate descriptor of either a movement or its members" and would "only use the name when quoting others." In its own coverage of "men like Spencer and groups like NPI, we will use terms we consider more accurate, such as 'white nationalist' or 'white supremacist," they stated, calling it a matter of editorial "clarity and accuracy," as there is very little that "distinguishes the alt-right from more hidebound racist movements such as the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan."

ThinkProgress is right that this is a matter of "clarity and accuracy." It's just hard to see how declaring a movement specific to our current cultural and political moment as synonymous with more broad and historical analogues actually serves the purpose of clarity or accuracy. As Julian Sanchez writes at The Washington Post, "The Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge are (or were) all violent racist movements — and using the specific names instead of referring to them as 'violent racists' does not seem to have been much of an obstacle to recognizing them as such. They're all also distinct historical phenomena, and our understanding of them would not be enhanced if we insisted on using the same generic description for all of them."

People worrying that the term "alt-right" sugarcoats the bad beliefs of those it describes ignore the way most people actually relate to language and mass communication. Alt-right isn't a term that previously meant something else in U.S. politics but got co-opted by racist extremists. It is a new term, and one still rapidly evolving and gaining meaning, which means alt-right is as alt-right does right now.

If those who self-identify as alt-right keep shouting "Heil Trump!" while throwing up Nazi salutes, blasting out hateful anti-Semitic memes, and espousing the dangers of race-mixing, people will get the picture. We don't need thought-leaders to say "this movement calls itself alt-right but they're really racists and anti-Semites!!!!" because the term alt-right itself will become synonymous with these beliefs. And it will do so in a way that's specific to our current context, rather than muddying the waters with poor historical analogies.

The term "Nazi" isn't a Kleenex or Xerox situation, where we just throw it around now to mean "all people with beliefs that skew nationalist or racist." Nazis (and groups like the KKK) are inextricably connected to their originating times and contexts, and all the socio-political pathologies that flourished in them. And while there are certainly some parallels between the alt-right and historical hate-groups, considering them all interchangeable isn't merely inaccurate, it also obfuscates the kind of real and meaningful differences that are crucial to understanding (and stopping) the alt-right's rise.

Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

There are currently varied swaths of people who identify as alt-right—an evolving and amorphous category currently in the midst of a "civil war" over who can rightfully claim to be its true progenitors and heirs. Some, and perhaps a large majority, hold somewhat racist, religiously-biased, or anti-immigrant views. But for every explicitly white-nationalist alt-righter of the NPI variety, there are several Breitbart-reading, Milo Yiannopoulos worshiping kids who believe the alt-right is simply about opposing "political correctness" and "social justice warriors"; dudes who dig Donald Trump and not-so-long-ago called themselves Tea Partiers; former "pick-up artists" and men's rights activists who had been apolitical, or fitting uncomfortably in the libertarian or Republican spheres; and fringe conservative intellectuals, like the neo-reactionaries, who care more about extolling the virtues of monarchy than making white-power great again.

One can argue that all of these alt-right factions share certain underlying and unsavory ideas when it comes to women, immigrants, and racial, religious, and ethnic minorities. The core of alt-right does seem to hinge on a sort of white, male "identity politics." But American exceptionalism that borders on bigotry and backwards-looking attitudes about race, religion, and sex have been a hallmark of the Republican coalition for decades, and are hardly grounds for Hitler Youth comparisons.

This isn't merely a matter of accuracy in journalism, or being "fair" to alt-right members. The exploitation-creep inherent in calls to call the alt-right "literal Nazis!!!" will ultimately work against their opposition, because it makes the media and chattering classes look hysterical and untrustworthy.

Consider someone with an average-American media diet upon hearing that "the alt-right are Nazis." Does the alt-right want to eradicate Jews, they might wonder, or to persecute sexual minorities? Do they advocate conquering foreign nations to make way for Aryan supremacy worldwide? Do they want to nationalize the means of production, destroy capitalism, enforce compulsory sterilization for certain classes, make people wear religious symbols on their clothing, and prohibit interracial marriage? To bring back segregation in U.S. public spheres, and ship certain people off to work camps? Does the alt-right idolize Hitler, or claim to endorse Nazi goals?

If the answer to all of the above questions is no—and, despite some in the alt-right's trolling use of things like "Hail Trump!" salutes, this seems to be the case—then I imagine your average American will find the Nazi comparison a bit inflated. And if the media, which most Americans already distrust immensely, is being hyperbolic about the Nazi thing, well… who's to say they're right at all about the alt-right being racist or dangerous? If the press seems willing to exaggerate to make a point about this group, why should folks believe anything we say about them?

That's the crux of the problem with mass-media endorsement for telling people the alt-right is definitely, irredeemably racist, rather than being content to show them racist or Nazi-like behavior on the alt-right's behalf. It puts the burden of proof on the media to back up its bold claims, rather than demanding the alt-right answer for actions everyone can plainly witness. Hence, we wind up discussing what's being told by the media about the alt-right and how it's being told, rather than what the alt-right actually does.

American trust in what media, politicians, and any authority tells them is already incredibly low. We're a culture that values skepticism and individual inquiry, trusting more in our own impressions and observations than those relayed from on high. Or, put another way, people are more likely to believe conclusions they come to themselves than ones force-fed to them in some orchestrated national paradigm. They're not passive vessels for what press feeds them, and when the press uses biased or biasing language that can easily be refuted, we merely increase potential for distrust. And in doing that, we give the alt-right an opening to question any negative characterization of them, no matter how truthful. Once we have set people up to find our "literal Nazis!' pose lacking, what's to make them believe any and all admonitions about the alt-right aren't just wolf-crying?

Right now, the respectable consensus seems to be that pundits, press, etc., have a responsibility not to report accurately on the alt-right but to describe them in certain language and, above all, tell readers and viewers outright how evil and dangerous the alt-right is. But there's a reason the biggest trope of persuasive writing is to show, don't tell. If the alt-right is really as racist and insidious as many people believe, audiences and readers will see that. And many will come to the same conclusions that the woke-class has about how to characterize the alt-right. Which puts alt-right leaders in the much less advantageous position of having to ask ordinary Americans, "Who do you believe, us or your own lying eyes?" rather than "us or the lying press?"

NEXT: No, you couldn't strip flag-burners of citizenship, even if flag-burning could be made a crime

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Anyone know who else was a Nazi?

    1. George Soros?

    2. Heinrich Himmler?

    3. Indiana Jones’s girlfriend?

      1. Dude, spoilers!

        1. Marion Cotillard?

          1. Did I say his babymama?

            1. Shit, do I have the wrong movie?

    4. Romney, McCain, Bush II, Dole, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon. Eisenhower was suspected

      1. I think you left one off of the list.

          1. No, the negro Nazi.

            Or, perhaps the cankled Nazi.

    5. Seinfeld and Costanza?

    6. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Hans Solo, Mr. Spock, Bugs Bunny, the Easter Bunny, Olive Oil, Tito, Claude Monet…I could go on, but I”m sure all of you know where I’m headed with this.

      1. Claude Rains?

        1. Claude Balls

          1. The famous lion tamer!

    7. Martin Heidegger

  2. “alt-right, alt-right, alt-right”

    Who knew McConnaghey was a racist?

    1. Ctrl-Alt-Right

  3. If they just reported on the Alt Right, people would realize it consists of like 300 people whose main function in life seems to be to troll something called 4Chan. They are not Nazis. They are losers.

    Backwards-looking attitudes about race, religion, and sex have been a hallmark of the Republican coalition for decades, and are hardly grounds for Hitler Youth comparisons.

    Really Elizabeth? Are you sure about that? You sure there are not some pretty backwards ideas about race and sex going on in some other coalitions out there? You sure you can’t think of another coalition like that?

    If there is a more backwards attitude about race than “black people can’t be trusted with guns”, or a more backwards attitude about sex than “everyone who charges for it is a victim of sex trafficking”, I would like to hear it. And those views exist in other places besides the Republican party.

    1. John, it’s well-known that the Republicans were devoted to slavery, and enforced Jim Crow laws, and filibustered against the CRA. Didn’t you realize that the Democrats freed the slaves?

    2. You sure there are not some pretty backwards ideas about race and sex going on in some other coalitions out there?
      Hey, saying they exist in Republican coalitions is not a) saying all or even most Republicans are these things, and b) denying that these things exist outside conservatism.

      1. I just don’t think the racist or sexist or reactionary or whatever you want to call it strain in current conservatism differs profoundly from the same-old same-old streak in such circles

        1. Don’t forget the “republican party” stole those racist bigots from the “democratic party” in the eighties (thanks to LBJ).

          1. “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”. ~ Lyndon B. Johnson

            1. You believe in a false historical narrative based entirely on this false quotation, don’t you?

              1. Tony, okay, I’ll bite:

                Please adduce the incontrovertible evidence that the quotation was false.

                1. I hate to defend Tony, but that’s just fucking stupid, Mike.

                  I’ve never been able to find any original source for that quote. I haven’t tried too hard, but it shouldn’t be that hard to dig up.

                  I’ve no doubt that Johnson was a massive bigot who probably thought things along those lines. But if you are going to cite something as a quotation, I think it is conventionally up to you to provide a citation of the source.

                  1. Zeb, it is in Bill Moyers’ memoirs. Go to a book store and look it up sometime.

                    1. Thanks, I will.

                      But try searching for that quote online. Even searching with “moyers” the closest I find is

                      When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come,” he said.

                      The quote itself pretty much only gives results at unreliable blogs and right-wing sites with dead links.

                      Have you seen it in the Moyers book, or is that just what you were told? I assumed the quote was real for a long time. I’d like it to be real. But when I started to try to find a source, I came up with nothing.

              2. False quote?!? Did he not say it to his chief of staff Bill Moyers, who then wrote about it in his memoirs? Also, I believe it is mentioned in Caro’s biography of LBJ. I’ll trust Moyers and Caro over a dumbshit like you every time.

        2. “Backward-looking” is an ignorant and insulting way to describe people who value traditions certai recent traditions and are skeptical of broad social movements claiming to speak on behalf of massive, diverse groups such as ‘women’ or ‘black people’ or ‘gays.’

          It has long been the case, for example, than women tend to be more pro-life than men. Seems pretty “backward” to claim that opposing institutionalized human abortion is therefore “anti-woman.” Yet this absurd claim is repeated as self-evident truth by Democrats ad nauseam.

          There were racially integrated societies that celebrated open homosexuality and worshipped women thousands of years before any of us were born. Hillary would not have been the first female head of a powerful nation in human history, believe it or not. Are Democrats “backwards” for wanting to bring back hereditary queens?

          1. …and you had to publish this silliness right when the ink was drying on my erstwhile forthcoming $10,000 check to The Reason Foundation too, I might add.

            *crumple*

            1. ..and then of course I had to bumblefuck the grammar and spelling of my own comment, cuz I’m so agitated.

              Fuckin bullshit. I’m going back to my room to finish my chicken nuggets.

              1. Um, is your handle taken from an old gospel song?

          2. I don’t see how “backward looking” is inherently insulting. Conservatives look to the past for values and examples. Isn’t that sort of the definition and the point?

      2. That is true Elizabeth. But if every coalition includes those things and it is fair to say about everyone does to some degree or another, then saying the Republican one does rather than “Political coalitions do” isn’t very meaningful.

      3. Claiming that these things have been a “hallmark” of “the Republican coalition for decades” (not “a” Republican coalition) is in fact saying that most Republicans either are these things or are at least fine with these things, and by omission dismisses the idea that these things hold any real sway outside of the Republican coalition.

        1. “Hallmark” may not be the right word.

          But “the” coalition is appropriate when you have a 2 party system.

      4. And what WTF said Elizabeth. the use of the word Hallmark is not accurate.

        1. Keerist in a bucket John, if you’re going to get all nit picky, then point at yourself for not understanding what she initially wrote and what she wrote in response, that she didn’t exclude others (Democrats, proggies, SJW, whomever you want).

          Live by the grammar nazi, die by the grammar nazi.

          1. Bullshit. By saying Republican rather than using a more general term and especially by saying it is the Hallmark, the implication clearly was that it is unique or different than other coalitions in that regard. She may not have intended to imply that but she clearly did.

            1. especially by saying it is the Hallmark

              Which she did not say. She said “a hallmark”. If you are going to split hairs, get it right. And you know damn well what she is talking about and it’s perfectly accurate.

              This is about “alt-right”, not every political coalition ever that has been racists or used race to their advantage.

              1. Definition of hallmark

                1
                a : an official mark stamped on gold and silver articles in England to attest their purity b : a mark or device placed or stamped on an article of trade to indicate origin, purity, or genuineness

                2
                : a distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature

                In other words, it is a distinguishing characteristic indicative of the thing being referred to. By using as she did, ENB is clearly claiming that racism, etc. are distinguishing characteristics indicative of the Republican coalition.

                1. I agree that “hallmark” was a poor word choice.

                  But do you really think that she meant exactly what it says in whatever dictionary you consulted, or that she meant that Republicans have often tolerated and even used to their advantage certain racist elements of society, which is a fairly widely held and well supported belief?

              2. Saying the Hallmark is not really much different than a Hallmark. Saying racism and crazy ideas bout sex are a Hallmark of the Republican coalition is just untrue. Moreover, it no less of a Hallmark for the Republicans than it is for the Democrats. So we are left with why say it? What does it illustrate?

                She could have said “Backwards-looking attitudes about race, religion, and sex have been a hallmark of the American political coalitions for decades, and are hardly grounds for Hitler Youth comparisons” and accomplished the same thing. Indeed, if you believe that there is nothing unique about this to Republicans, that is the more accurate statement. To single out Republicans is to imply that there is something unique about them not present in other coalitions.

                I get it Zeb. You never see a flaw in a Reason article. Reason has never published anything you have an issue with that I have ever seen. Some of us are a bit harder on them.

                1. Saying the Hallmark is not really much different than a Hallmark.

                  No, there’s a pretty large difference there. “The hallmark” implies that it is the main identifying feature. “A hallmark” means that it is one feature of many. The first is clearly incorrect in this context. The second (putting aside whether hallmark was a good word choice, I think we all know what she was trying to say) is fairly accurate.

                  I get it Zeb. You never see a flaw in a Reason article.

                  Nope.

                  You are just being stupid here. The Republicans are the party of the right. The subject is the “alt-right”, who many are claiming played a big role in electing a Republican as president. So why the fuck should she write about every political coalition ever when that isn’t the subject of the post?

              3. and the lp has some of this as well.

                1. It does?

                  I guess I need to get out more.

      5. Hey, saying they exist in Republican coalitions is not a) saying all or even most Republicans are these things,

        Your use of the phrase “a hallmark of the Republican coalition” implies otherwise.

        1. Thank you RC.

        2. I agree with RC.

          Another day, another accusation of racism. Yawn.

      6. You silly woman. The only thing that matters is your choice of words in the sub-headline (assuming you write those yourself), not the long and detailed article that follows.

        1. The nerve if it, expecting someone who writes for a living to communicate their thoughts with precision.

          1. Like she did in the actual article?

            But no, the word “hallmark” has apparently made the whole thing unintelligible to a large part of the audience. Which I think says more about them.

    3. +1 also… minorities aren’t capable enough to get into college by themselves, minorities don’t deserve to choose what public school they attend, women don’t get to choose anything but having an abortion, etc. So forward-thinking!

    4. +1 also… minorities aren’t capable enough to get into college by themselves, minorities don’t deserve to choose what public school they attend, women don’t get to choose anything but having an abortion, etc. So forward-thinking!

    5. But they do and have existed in the Republican party, which is all she claimed.

    6. You left women’s inability to consent off of the list. That one is pretty hard to beat.

  4. The reason the Buckley thing is falling to pieces is they invested all of their time slicing pieces off of the right side of their movement. The Birchers were easy, but before long they were slicing off vital parts. The reason the so-called alt-right exists is that so much of the Right had been purged, the fringe has become a majority.

    http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=9061

    1. Anyone who objects to foreign interventions in any form, open borders or foreign trade under any circumstance has been purged from the Conservative movement. This is why Trump won the nomination.

      1. Yep. The NR wing took Buckleyism to its logical end and became a rump party.

      2. Yep. The NR wing took Buckleyism to its logical end and became a rump party.

      3. Pretty much anyone who isn’t a circa-1985 Democrat was purged.

        1. They never once tried to co-opt Trump and give his supporters a reason to support someone else. They just kept insulting them and saying anyone who didn’t agree was not a “real conservative” as if that meant anything. A generation of shallow thinking morons inherited the conservative movement from Buckley and Reagan and Goldwater and the rest of the generation who built it.

      4. So NR has purged itself from the conservative movement? Quite a feat.

        1. In some ways yes. They have become that incoherent. NR isn’t quite sure what it believes anymore. They just know it is “Conservative” “Constitutional” and whatever it is they are in charge and people better know their place.

      5. Re: John,

        Anyone who objects to foreign interventions in any form, open borders or foreign trade under any circumstance has been purged from the Conservative movement.

        Good point on interventionism but anyone who still thinks Mercantilism and the American equivalent of Juche (i.e. Trumpism) are good things should be purged from society per se. They have been proven wrong too many times to count.

        1. and the American equivalent of Juche

          That is just fucking retarded. I am sorry but you are an idiot on this subject. This country’s economy was mostly built on protectionism in the 19th Century. You don’t like protectionism. And that is fine. There are good reasons to object to it. But to call it Juiche and think that every aspect of it is the same thing as mercantilism and Korean Fascism is retarded. It is you telling the reader than you are an emotional idiot on the subject and that nothing you say should be taken seriously.

          You are so far gone on this issue, I don’t see where to even start.

          1. I don’t see where to even start.

            John can’t even.

            1. I really can’t. Sometimes people are so ignorant and emotional about an issue there is no way to have a reasonable conversation with them about it. I don’t object to free trade. i actually am on Old Mexican’s side to a large degree. But, that doesn’t make it any easier to discuss the issue.

            2. Old Mex thinks that Conrad Adenauer and Pol Pot were morally equivalent and he couldn’t say which would be better to live under because their both STATISTS.

              John’s right. He’s an aspy retard.

    2. Sounds like what libertarians do. Why should I associate with people whose ideas I find abhorrent?

      1. It’s a label, so you don’t have to associate, people can do that for you and to you. Won’t be long until libertarians are labelled alt-right by the progs, if we aren’t already.

      2. The difference is libertarians aren’t a party with broad electoral support, and can afford to be more discriminating about who they associate with. Conservatism as we know it was largely a post-WW2 creation by globalist-minded Republicans who made “isolationism” into a perjorative rather than a legitimate statement of policy.

      3. Listen. Everyone else prefers to win, then hold purges. We got tired of waiting on the winning.

  5. If those who self-identify as alt-right keep shouting “Heil Trump!” while throwing up Nazi salutes, blasting out hateful anti-Semitic memes, and espousing the dangers of race-mixing, people will get the picture. We don’t need thought-leaders to say “this movement calls itself alt-right but they’re really racists and anti-Semites!!!!” because the term alt-right itself will become synonymous with these beliefs. And it will do so in a way that’s specific to our current context, rather than muddying the waters with poor historical analogies.

    This about sums it all up. Not much else needs to be said, IMO.

  6. If the alt-right is really as racist and insidious as many people believe, audiences and readers will see that. And many will come to the same conclusions that the woke-class has about how to characterize the alt-right.

    True. My question, though, is what does anyone think is going to happen if you promote the alt-right as a bunch of Illinois Nazis and the bulk of them turn out not to be? You can bet that audiences will see that too. I mean, the worst case of alt-right white supremacism pales in comparison to calling for the extinction of all the men in a race. Yet, pop culture seems to think that’s okay, or even titteringly funny. How long do you think people can call Bernie frigging Sanders a white supremacist without people starting to wonder if maybe the guys who think there’s a race war might have a point.

    1. Bret: So he wouldn’t serve us basically just because we’re from New Zealand.
      Jemaine: Is that the norm?
      Dave: Well, you guys are in America now, and there’s a lot of prejudism here. Especially towards people like you.
      Bret: What do you mean, people like us?
      Dave: You know, the English and what not, red coats, the oppressors…
      Jemaine: We’re not English.
      Dave: Be that as it may Jemaine, you’re pretty much the most disliked race in this whole country.
      Jemaine: What about black people?
      Dave They don’t like you either. Neither do the Chinese, the Asians, Polish, Russian, Croatians, even the Indians.
      Bret: Yeah, but Dave, you’re Indian. D’you hate us?
      Dave: Yeah, sometimes.
      Jemaine: But you’re our best friend.
      Dave: I know.

      1. I love the way he says the last line, like “I’m as surprised as anybody!”

    2. The problem with calling the Alt Right racists is that there are people in every other ethnic community who say the same things and are celebrated for it. So just calling the Alt Right racists does nothing but make their point for them.

      You can’t have a society where every ethnic group gets to play racial identity politics except one. You can, but it won’t last. Eventually that ethnic group will get tired of being the whipping boy and start practicing ethnic identity politics of its own. So if Elizabeth and Reason are worried about the alt right, they need to take it up with the left and the rest of the the people playing identity politics. If they are unwilling to do that, they need to get used to the alt right because there is nothing anyone is going to do to stop it.

      Lastly, white people have been playing identity politics long before the alt right. They just play a different type. Before the Alt right, white identity politics consisted of white Progressives wearing their political views as a show of tolerance and moral superiority to no Prog whites. The problem is that brand of identity politics depends upon their being a whites to feel superior to. And that group is starting to catch on.

      1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcDcgVx5apw

        Yep the Alt-Right is the Frankenstein’s monster of the Social Justice movement.

        1. Speaking of which, here’s how the Progressives really see Donald Trump
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VJflwsEkQ0

      2. The problem with calling the Alt Right racists is that there are people in every other ethnic community who say the same things and are celebrated for it.

        I’d say that’s more of a problem with not calling out the other groups for their racism.

        So if Elizabeth and Reason are worried about the alt right

        I’m pretty sure that Elizabeth and Reason are telling us that we shouldn’t be worried about the alt-right and that most of the media is being stupid and irresponsible in their coverage.

        1. I’d say that’s more of a problem with not calling out the other groups for their racism.

          Which is another way of saying exactly what I said. You either call them all racists or none of them. You can’t pick and choose. I am not really sure how you didn’t get that from my post but let me say it again for good measure.

          I’m pretty sure that Elizabeth and Reason are telling us that we shouldn’t be worried about the alt-right and that most of the media is being stupid and irresponsible in their coverage.

          I am pretty sure you need to read the rest of this sentence. And you also need to read this part more carefully. You seemed to have missed the work “If”. I wasn’t saying they are concerned. “If” as they say is a pretty big word.

          If you read the rest of the sentence, you will see that I am saying that the problem is you need to call out the other ethnic groups who engage in identity politics as well as the alt right or otherwise you are just confirming their complaints.

          1. I mostly agree with what you say here. But I think you are being very silly in insisting that in every article where you call anyone out as racist you also need to mention every other group that uses race or racism as a political tool. That’s just ridiculous.

            Let’s suppose someone at Reason wrote an article about how awful and racist parts of the left are. Would you really be complaining about how they didn’t mention how republicans sometimes have played off people’s racist tendencies to their advantage too?

            1. Or if a columnist wrote an article about how awful Hillary Clinton was without discussing how terrible Donald Trump was.

              ba-bump-tsh!

            2. No Zeb. The article is talking about how to deal with the Alt Right. And the point of the article is that you can’t just call them Nazis. ENB says that they should be shown to be the racists they are. My point is that it isn’t that simple. Elizabeth’s solution isn’t going to work. You can’t just call them racists. There has to be a rethinking about what is and is not acceptable among all ethnic groups not whites.

              Why you find that silly is frankly a mystery. It is an entirely reasonable response and critique of Elizabeth’s article. I guess you just didn’t understand or something because your response doesn’t make any sense.

              1. No, John, the article is talking about how the media deals with the alt-right and how they are getting it wrong. She doesn’t say they should be shown as the racists they are, but rather that they will be shown to be whatever they are without the media guiding us by making sure to use what they consider the proper terms.

    3. what does anyone think is going to happen if you promote the alt-right as a bunch of Illinois Nazis and the bulk of them turn out not to be?
      Yes, exactly, I think that’s a danger too, in case that didn’t come across

      1. If you expect people to read the articles before commenting on them then we are going to be here all day.

          1. In Trump’s Amerikkka? I think not!

            1. If only we were as literate as Cuba.


          2. ….

            It definitely sounds like you are implying that boys can’t dream, unless, of course they are boys who discovered they are really girls.

            1. Have you been taking lessons from John?

              1. He should be. And so should you but you seem to be a very hard case.

                1. Sorry, the ability to divine other people’s secret, unstated intentions based on a few lines of text still eludes me.

                  1. No Zeb. It is the ability to parse language and deductively reason the meaning of it. You actually do it yourself. You couldn’t read if you didn’t to some degree. What you also do is use it selectively so that the text means what you want it to rather than what it does or implies.

                    When you don’t like the logical implications of something, you just deny that any logical conclusions can ever be drawn and anyone who does so is just engaging in mind reading. it is sadly transparent. I assume you continue to do it just to troll me because you can’t actually believe that.

                    1. What you also do is use it selectively so that the text means what you want it to rather than what it does or implies.

                      You are absolutely precious.

                    2. Yes Zeb, you don’t do that at all. You are perfect. It is what it is. Your arguments always boil down to “it might not mean that and I prefer that it not”.

        1. I tend to stop reading when the headline calls me a racist. Just an idiosyncratic quirk of mine, I guess.

      2. I thought that was pretty clear.

        The left’s (and by extension the press’s) obsession with enforcing goodthink, is creating a reverse euphemism treadmill (dysphemism treadmill?).

        Semi-related fun Wikipedia pact:

        The word “shit” appears to have originally been a euphemism for defecation in Pre-Germanic, as the Proto-Indo-European root *skined-, from which it was derived, meant to cut off.

        1. The word “science” actually has the same root.

      3. You did make the same general point. But, I was going for a slightly different take. I was suggesting that the situation risks legitimizing the very claims of the actually race-oriented elements. Yes there is the deterioration in trust. But, also, when people making actually racist arguments (e.g. calling for the extinction of all the men in a race) are calling everyone who questions them a racist and you see the majority of the people they’re calling racist aren’t, you shouldn’t be too surprised when you see people start to take the elements of the group that are claiming a racial attack seriously.

        Sorry for any confusion.

        1. Who is more racist, the Alt Right or the SJW left? I am going with the SJW left by a mile and then some.

          1. Plausibly. But, noting the less racist while twittering with the more racist one is going to lead people to take their claims of injustice seriously, don’t you think?

            1. If I understand you, yes it will. Like I say elsewhere on this thread, the problem with calling the alt right racist is that so many people of other races and ethnicity are saying the same or worse things and no one is saying a word. So all calling them racists without also calling out the other groups, which is never going to happen, does is confirm their claims of victimhood.

              I don’t know what you do. I think they are best ignored at this point.

              1. Not when one of their head wranglers is Chief of Staff to the president. Nope. But that’s kind of why you want people to ignore them, isn’t it?

                1. Tony, someone as retarded as you might do well to stay quiet. You only demonstrate your ignorance.

                  The guy you’re talking about is Steve Bannon. He isn’t the Chief of Staff. Reince Priebus is the Chief of Staff. He has no connection to the alt right. Second of all, there’s no actual evidence that Steve Bannon is actually racist or a white supremacist.

                  1. My mistake, chief strategist.

                    And I’m aware that Steve Bannon clears the inch-high hurdle of providing a platform for white supremacists while possibly himself being merely cynical.

                    1. In other words, “No, Bill. No there isn’t any actual evidence that Steve Bannon is a racist or a white supemacist. That’s just something I lazily made up to tar someone who disagrees with my politics. What do you expect? I’m a progressive. That’s what I do.”

                    2. That he provides one of the world’s most visible platforms for racism and white supremacism is far more important than what might go on inside his head.

                    3. Okay. Pull me a racist or white supremacist story from Brietbart. Since it’s the “world’s most visible platforms for racism and white supremacism”, that should be something you should be able to do in short order.

                    4. “…world’s most visible platforms for racism and white supremacism…”

                      Bannon runs Stormfront now? Holy Mackerel, Tony you are fucking stupid.

      4. Good read ENB, very provocative.

  7. Does the alt-right …want to nationalize the means of production, destroy capitalism…? To bring back segregation in U.S. public spheres, and ship certain people off to work camps?

    The left does.

  8. Alt-Right: The Movement That Hi-Jacked Itself

    1. I’m not sure you can classify a few hundred nutters as a Movement.

      1. That only holds if you play around with the definition.

        If the “alt-right” is people coming down on the Trump side of the Trump vs. Establishment GOP, then it’s certainly more than a few hundred people.

        1. Well sure, you can make any group huge if you define it broadly enough. But then it kind of ceases to have any real meaning. It’s not like all of Trump’s supporters are neo-Nazis, or white supremacists, or whatever else the alt right is supposed to be.

          1. r/The_Donald has damn near taken over reddit and they have all the display attitudes of the alt-right and are more than a few hundred nutters.

            It depends on who is the tail and who is the dog. I don’t think the alt-right is a front for white nationalism, but white nationalism seems very comfortable treating it as one. And the alt-right doesn’t seem too eager to tell them to fuck off back to their egg-sac.

            1. The White nationalists want to take credit for Trump getting elected so they can feel important. The media and Trump’s critics want to help them do that so they can feel better about themselves. It is a real symbiotic relationship.

            2. But, I think what we’re seeing is a pretty clear bait and switch on the definition. It’s the white nationalists who are the alt right when asking whether the alt right is racist. And once that is established, it’s everyone who voted for Trump that is alt right.

              1. On the other hand, it’s hard for a movement to not be fairly labeled racist when their favorite insult is to suggest you like to watch your wife have sex with a black guy, as if that is the worse, most degrading thing possible.

                1. Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t “Cuck” a race neutral term? Does it only include the fetish for watching black men or i thought it was watching anyone?

                  And the irony of that slander is, that there are few more racist things than the whole “I want my wife with a black man fetish”. It is exactly and I mean exactly the same kind of fetish as getting off on seeing women with a dog. Why black men as opposed to Mexicans or white guys or Asians? The reason is that the people who have that fetish really do see black men as something less than human and that fact contributes to the kink.

                  So a bunch of racists are slandering people by in effect calling them racists. The whole thing is just fucked up.

                  1. No, if refers to interracial cuckholding. It was originally a term for immigration-friendly conservatives, a metaphor for what will happen to the country when the brown hordes are let in.

                    1. Its weird how people project their worst fear on the other people.

                    2. Worst fear or the desire they are most ashamed of?

                    3. Could it be both?

                    4. Too Freudian for me. Is everyone who worries over their kid being abducted a child molester at heart? Probably not. But I guess I don’t really care. It must suck to live in that kind of mind.

                    5. I am with you Brett. Sometimes really do loath things and are not compensating for anything. In fact, most times when someone says they hate something, they mean it.

                    6. From seeing it in the wild long before this election cycle, Cuckservative (a portmanteau of conservative and cuckold with cuckold used in its original, non-fetish pron, meaning – a man who is raising another man’s child) was coined to refer to conservatives who support ANY of the long list of progressive policies, of which immigration is only one. It was always ethnic clade-neutral until it started to hit the mainstream and the progressive media needed to demonize it using their go-to cry of “RAYCISS!1!“. Eerily presaging the rush to label alt-right as ethnic determinists.

      2. It might be a tad bigger in Europe…

  9. But for every explicitly white-nationalist alt-righter of the NPI variety, there are several Breitbart-reading, Milo Yiannopoulos worshiping kids who believe the alt-right is simply about opposing “political correctness” and “social justice warriors”…

    If the group refuses to define itself, then that definition vacuum is going to be filled, and it will be filled with some variation of Third Reich flavor. This is why you never join a group. You never know what your fellow members are going to do in your name. HEIL KITLER!

    1. Off to the Boncentration Bampf with you!

      1. Ja, mein Fuh…er,…Dickie old chum!

    2. That is true. But it is also true that the members of a group can define the group. And the members can do so in ways that the founders never wanted.

      If the Alt Right ever becomes anything more than a bunch of internet trolls and becomes a real mass movement, it is possible and I think likely that the people who make it a mass movement will make it into something entirely different than what the founding trolls intended. Whether they would make it into something better or worse is impossible to tell. But, I bet it would be something very different and I bet the founding Trolls wouldn’t be happy with it.

  10. Against Calling the ‘Alt-Right’ Neo-Nazis

    This passes for a headline around here?

    1. On Liberty

      You call that a title?

      1. I feel like this is more insulting to ENB than what I wrote.

        1. On, For and Against are common title opening for position essays historically. Elizabeth was trying to class the place up and you just had to drag her back in the muck.

          1. Says you. Preposition titles are notoriously/pointedly *un*common, IMO, and I say ENB’s definitive political and philosophical treatise has yet to be written.

            Your (one’s) magnum opus titled with a leading preposition shouldn’t be wasted on shallow and contemporary blog/op-ed chum like the ‘Alt-Right’ and Neo-Nazis.

    2. She changed it for you. Happy?

      1. I doubt it.

  11. Doesn’t seem to be more than a new term the left uses to demonize their opponents.

    1. You nailed it, Pink Thing, in one short sentence. Amazing that ENB, Reason, and the commentariat just wasted a few thousand words on it.

  12. This is the sort of sensible opinionizing that might tempt me to donate, if I had money and if Shikha/Chapman articles didn’t cancel it out. Trying to figure out what the alt-right believes makes about as much sense as trying to figure out what independents believe. It’s just a catch-all bucket for people that are outside of the Overton window to the right.

  13. Heil ENB!

    1. I call upon ENB to immediately denounce you in the strongest possible terms, or else she obviously approves of this!

      1. At the very least

    2. Why It’s a Mistake to Describe the Alt-Right as ‘Neo-Nazis’

      Thus sayth the clearly secret alt-right Aryan women with the most WASPy name on the site.

  14. The term “Nazi” isn’t a Kleenex or Xerox situation, where we just throw it around now to mean “all people with beliefs that skew nationalist or racist.”

    I guess you’re being prescriptive here – because “nazi” has been exactly that my entire life and a couple decades before that too. In fact, I would say it has even less meaning than you described. It now means basically “all people with beliefs I don’t like”.

  15. RE: Calling the Alt-Right ‘Neo-Nazis’ Is as Counterproductive as It Is Inaccurate
    Backwards-looking attitudes about race, religion, and sex have been a hallmark of the Republican coalition for decades, and are hardly grounds for Hitler Youth comparisons.

    The left has always called their opponents “fascists,” “nazis,” “neo-nazis,” for decades because the snowflakes on the left have such a hard time with logic, reasoning and employing common sense in their arguments. Name calling always suited their arguments because it appeals to their emotional immaturity. This is nothing new and will continue coming from the left as it always has.

  16. I was reading comments on a different forum and things got sidetracked by some idiot calling for a non-diverse white-only nation. Some saw the chance and jumped in with their own echoes. No way I was going to jump into that cesspool. What bugs me the most about those comments, the “alt-right is nazis” comments, and all similar such junk, is the open-ended, vague, fuzzy, unclear definitions.

    “White” race is a perfect example. It used to be, back in the early 1800s, where “white” meant northern Europe Protestant. No Catholics or Jews, and only the right kind of Protestants at that — none of those weird Quakers or Methodists or whatever. No Poles or other Slavs.

    Gradually other Protestants were included, then some eastern Europeans, then southern Europeans and Catholics and Jews. What would all these “white nation” clowns allow now?

    Politicians and their groupies love them some vague definitions, the better to twist later as needs require. It would be divine justice to force proggies to define themselves before attempting to define others. They’d be sending each other to the camps before the hour was out.

    1. The sin of the alt right is not that they are playing racial politics or even racists. Their real sin is that they have adopted and are furthering the bullshit leftist notion that American nationalism and American culture is some kind of exclusive thing for white people rather than the open ended ideology that anyone of any color or creed can adopt. That is what should infuriate people most about the Alt Right.

      1. The sad thing is that ship may have sailed a long time ago. The left have thoroughly poisoned the well of race relations in this country, that the idea of being American first, and black, white hispanic, whatever second might be gone forever.

        The Alt-Right are just a natural consequence of this, and their numbers might be small now, but if the left and the SJWs continue with their blame whitey racial identity politics, then I can guarantee you that they’ll eventually grow into a major force in politics, and the culture.

        1. If the left had started out 50 years ago with the goal of rekindling white supremacy and creating a white identity movement, the could not have come up with a better plan for achieving that than doing what they did.

          The one thing that hopefully will save us is intermarriage. The old time white supremacists were not fanatical about intermarriage because of their morals. They were fanatical about it because a racial spoils system of any kind only works if you can tell who is who. And intermarriage destroys that. Racial politics is already a joke when it is played by Hispanics. The Hispanic white intermarriage rate is huge. George Zimmerman being a “white Hispanic” is less of a joke than it seems. Hispanics are being absorbed into the white community just like the Italians and Irish were a generation ago. This is one of the reasons why the left is so desperate to import more Hispanics. Without a constant stream of new Hispanics the term gets more meaningless every year.

          White black racial politics has worked so well for so long because intermarriage was up until recently still fairly rare and mixed race kids still looked black and could be told they were black. But even that is starting to wear off, albeit slowly.

          1. The whole ‘White Hispanic’ thing on Zimmerman came about because the proglodytes, who had been praying and praying for some actual non-fictional skinhead to hang their American History X narrative on, saw the Germanic name before they saw his picture. By the time they realized their presumed Kluker was actually one of their Allies in Oppression, they were already in full Mk 7 Denunciation Mode and had to do some fast-stepping to cover.

      2. You’re talking about literal nazis and blaming the left for them. You just can’t help yourself, even if what you’re saying is a total contradiction.

        This is why we have Trump as president.

        1. Tony,

          The Alt right shares every single one of your assumptions about the inherent racism of America. You are closer to the alt right in your view of history and this country than anyone else on this board. You are just too stupid and ignorant to know it.

          1. Which part of your body does it hurt when you stretch this much?

            1. It is true. The only difference between you and the Alt Right is that you think the inherent racism of america should be purged by getting rid of every white person but you and they disagree. That is it. Their views of history and the country are exactly the same as yours.

              If you were nut so pig ignorant, you would know that the entire idea of a living Constitution and that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were racist documents created to benefit racist white men came from the Old South. Everything you believe about the constitution and the history and structure of this country is stolen from old Southern slave owners. The Alt Right are your intellectual cousins. You should be nicer to your cousins.

              1. So what’s your version of history? That a document that codified the involuntary servitude of an entire race of people is not in fact racist? Did we misread it?

                1. My version is a lot different. But thanks for admitting that you agree with the alt right on so much. I am glad I was able to enlighten you.

                  1. You’ll have done no such thing until you explain your alterna-history in which the founding of the USA had nothing to do with slavery.

                    1. And women couldn’t vote. Ancient Rome and Greece are held up as a leaps forward in self governance while acknowledging that they were very imperfect.

                      That slavery was not ended the signing of the DoI doesn’t mean that concepts such as Liberty, self governance, free speech etc are not contained therein. The fact that slavery has become an anathema to the Western world is lost in your guilt at having been born into such a fantastic time in history.

                    2. I don’t feel guilty about anything. I don’t think I’m the one living in denial about history.

                    3. What have I denied, you walking talking point?

                    4. Nothing. I’m waiting to hear back from John.

        2. You’re talking about literal nazis and blaming the left for them.

          The Nazis were literally the left.

          1. Paging Alex Jones. One of them got away.

            1. Pact with Stalin, National Socialism right there in the name, government directed industry…

              Tell you what: I’ll agree that Nazism has nothing to do with the broad modern American Left if you agree that Nazism has nothing to do with the broad modern American Right, and that nutcases pushing two state solutions in both camps are idiot losers.

    2. That’s the goofiest part of the alt-right to me, how goddamn internationalist they are. No more talk about the glorious Anglo-Saxon race. I mean, they treat the Irish like they’re people or something. And a ton of them openly admit that the Asians are a superior race. Then why the hell aren’t we making as many Asian-white halfbreeds as we can to get more superior? They can’t even eugenics right.

      1. I think they admit that Asians tend to have higher IQs than other groups, which is empirically true. Chalking that up to advocacy for Asians as a “master race” is something done by people who can’t bring themselves to acknowledging the existence of differences between racial groups, and regard any such thing as 1930’s style nazism. Simpler put, saying that Asians tend to be more intelligent is the same thing as calling them a master race is a gross oversimplification.

        1. I’ve also see arguments about how Asian societies are more efficiently managed on a collective basis, and one of the alt-right intellectual heads, don’t think it was Spencer or Taylor, can’t remember, talked about how they were clearly superior to whites.

          1. A lot of Americans would be shocked to see what goes on behind closed doors in pursuit of that “superiority”.

        2. Sorry, it was Taylor:

          I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn’t mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we’re talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter.

      2. they treat the Irish like they’re people or something

        I blame JFK.

      3. Then why the hell aren’t we making as many Asian-white halfbreeds as we can to get more superior? They can’t even eugenics right.

        Have you seen the majority of these morbidly obese neckbeards? After one whiff of their body-odor, even the most desperate of mail-order brides are writing “Return to Sender” on themselves.

        1. Goddammit alt-right, can you do anything? I want more Wasians!

  17. I think the alt-right smear is an attempt by the everyday-huffpo-undergrounds of the world to tie the whole of conservatives to Nazis. They can point and yell, “see the Alt-Right even has *right* in the name!!!1!!” therefore, Mitch McConnell equals David Duke equals Hitler, Q.E. fucking D.

    1. For evidence of that, see Tony.

  18. It’s an insult to the well-put-together original nazis to equate them to America’s hillbilly version. One would think being a claimant to the title “master race” requires some measure of plausibility.

    1. A great deal of the alt-right think Asians are the master race.

      1. Which Asians?

        1. East, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, etc. Mostly due to the whole bell curve intelligence thing. Richard Spencer himself is a fucking weeaboo.

          1. *Whole bell curve IQ thing, my mistake.

            1. clearly, you are not Asian.

              1. This is what race-mixing gets you people, a French-Metis-Dutchman who looks like an Eastern European, can’t write and has no alcohol tolerance.

          2. That’s actually hilarious. Their favorite insult comes from interracial porn. They’re cool with Asians because they grew up jerking off to hentai. Their sphere of experience is smaller than I thought.

          3. Jared Taylor is the O.G. alt-right weeaboo.

            Jus’ sayin’

            1. Right, I forgot, he’s the one who was raised in Japan. They all look the same to me.

    2. Much like your elitism, it is shallow and self-serving.

  19. What happened to the idea that you must use someone’s preferred nomenclature or it’s a hate crime? If some people self-identify as alt-right, that’s what you must call them.

  20. I asked for it and Liz delivers. I am liking it.

    I have a better idea now what alt-right means, namely a mish-mash of decidedly not-sane people. I still don’t see them as a threat.

    “If the alt-right is really as racist and insidious as many people believe, audiences and readers will see that.”

    Agreed. Those ideas have already been soundly rejected by average Americans. I would say they are far more likely to reject them today than the last time they shooed the lunatic fringe into the shadows.

    This rejection could be derailed by the left’s continued screaming about how deplorable and irredeemable white males are coupled with a few more peaceful-muslim knife-shootings.

    1. The left wants to hold up the “alt-right” as a boogeyman to scare people back onto the plantation. A lot of people who aren’t actually racist or sexist are getting tired of being accused of racism and sexism (and “white privilege” and whatever else) just because they aren’t keeping up with the latest SJW fad.

      1. Whatever the alt right is, and I think Suthenboy pretty much nails it, its existence is an enormous threat to the left because they are a group who don’t care what Progressives and polite society think of them and are willing to say things that are supposed to be unspeakable. Some of the things the Alt right is saying are bad things. Not all of PC prohibitions are against saying good or truthful things. But the fact that they are saying it and don’t care will mean other people will feel empowered to say such things if the Alt Right isn’t demonized and kicked out of society entirely.

        PC and thought policing only works if it is 100% effective. Once someone defies it and gets away with it, it is just a matter of time before someone else does and the whole thing collapses.

        1. Isn’t the real problem fat, pimply geeks who can’t get laid decide to spend their time being outraged over some Youtube video and are so disconnected from reality that they believe such anecdotes constitute not only a real threat, but the single biggest threat to civilization?

          If someone being annoying about pronouns is all you have to worry about, that’s some white fucking privilege. It’s just such a pity you haven’t taken that privilege and used it to avail yourself of some serious media consumption instead of the perpetual motion rightwing propaganda outlets that has you believing in such pathetic things.

          1. So they’re losers with no intellect who can’t grasp how the world actually works.

            … aka, you

            1. Unlike a lot of my fellow liberals I’m not going to concede that being annoyed over a Youtube video you saw constitutes the single most important political issue of our time. In fact, the dehumanization of so-called SJWs (an everpresent feature of the alt-right web) goes on only in slightly filtered form on just this site. I know for a fact that it’s a bunch of pussified manchildren, because I know perfectly well-adjusted straight white dudes who don’t get the vapors over increased visibility of minority rights issues.

              1. I didn’t ask you to prove you have no intellect, but please do continue offering evidence.

          2. NYC wants to put people in jail for using the “wrong” pronouns, but you knew that.

            1. Infowars and Breitbart rot the brain. But you… probably don’t know that, what with the brain rotting.

              1. My bad, it’s not jail, just a $250,000 fine. But no worries, the Gothamist promises us that it’s totally false – only meanies will get the fine, pinky swear.

                1. Fuck, that’s actually the law now? Thought it was still just a proposal.

          3. fat, pimply geeks who can’t get laid decide to spend their time being outraged over some Youtube video and are so disconnected from reality that they believe such anecdotes constitute not only a real threat, but the single biggest threat to civilization?

            Dave Weigal and Matt Y Glesias hardest hit.

        2. Alt-right != People fed up with PC/SJW bullshit

          The one might be a subset of the other, but a tiny and unrepresentative one.

          1. It doesn’t matter if they are motivated by PC. The point is they are breaking PCs rules and getting away with it. That is what destroys PC and makes them such a threat to the left. The actual motivations of the people doing it are irrelevant.

            1. Being rude does not destroy the concept of manners. It just makes people not want to be around you.

            2. That’s not my point. The people flouting PC are by and large not the “alt-right”. They’re just people, of various different backgrounds and beliefs, tired of being told what they can and can’t say, and moreso that what used to be acceptable is now verboten. The “alt-right” is just a small and coincidental subset of that group.

              1. Sorry I misunderstood. And I completely agree. the people showing up carrying Milo on a sedan chair into his events are not “Alt right”. They are just people who are sick of being told what to do and think and are happy to see Milo fuck with the people who are saying it.

                1. Yeah after centuries of white men telling everyone else what to do and think up to and including “get on your knees and suck my dick and pretend to like it, bitch,” and all of a sudden some skinny trans kid asks you meekly to please use her preferred pronoun, and it’s time for fucking WWIII.

                  Not all hetero white dudes are such pussies. You’re describing the whiny, pussified subset of them.

                  1. Yeah after centuries of white men telling everyone else

                    Much woke. So bae.

                    I am not one of those men. I didn’t oppress you and I don’t owe you jack shit for crimes I never committed.

                    1. So if your grandfather robs a bank and gives some of the loot to you, and you keep it, you’re not implicated in any way?

                    2. My grandfather didn’t rob any banks. He did bomb some Nazis, though, so if you’re feeling charitable you could send him a thank you letter.

                    3. Well how fun that on an article about Nazis, you’ve used Nazis as a red herring.

                    4. a red herring

                      What, like bank-robbing grandfathers?

                    5. That was an analogy. If you directly benefit from the misdeeds of your ancestors, your response to the rest of society is “tough shit, life isn’t fair”?

                      To which I would respond, I have this big gun, give me your stuff. Tough shit, life isn’t fair.

                    6. I’m still waiting for any misdeeds I or any of my ancestors have committed. I’m sure that dirt-poor Italian peasants and Icelandic farmers were responsible for all the world’s ills, but you’re gonna have to connect some of those dots for me.

                  2. Something I’ve never understood: if you think white people have spent centuries getting everything they wanted by force, do you think you’ll get “social justice” with persuasion? Clearly not, since Tony et al’s persuasion technique is to accuse reasonable people of being horrible then mocking them when they protest the characterization.

                    So that leaves force to achieve Social Justice. If so, is your strategy really to pick a real fight with the people who own everything and have all the guns?

                    1. I’ve long been critical of the strategies of the left, but they’re not remotely on a level playing field. One Youtube video gets played on a loop on FOX News, Limbaugh’s jowls get wind of some single incident floating around the internet, and suddenly the entire global liberalism movement is equated to a couple obnoxious anecdotes. Meanwhile, oh I dunno, Donald Trump is a pussy-grabbing ignoramus who the Right elected as their leader, yet they’re not responsible for any of his nonsense.

                      I may not be typical but I do actually believe that the only way to achieve progress along social justice lines is to get the dominant powers to go along with it, by whatever means that are required. Screeching and bullying are not normally very useful.

                      But you do have to admit that the backlash does take on a rather pathetic complexion. Nobody is as hysterical over other people’s language as the Right (they can’t even handle the phrase “happy holidays”). Through some genius Frank Luntz propaganda maneuvers, they aren’t perceived as the hypersensitive pussies, though.

                    2. I think all people get too worked up over words, including the right. And if it was simply a matter of two camps bitching about language it’d be tenable, but very generally the Right doesn’t use force (here meaning legislation, regulation, blocking access to buildings/roads) to rectify their hurt feelz. Maybe that changes under Trump, maybe not.

                    3. If we’re going to play the privilege game, I want to see some quantifiable data to support the arguments. Which means detailed genealogy studies and an actual extensive breakdown of historical ancestral influence.

                      If the majority of your family history is shitty peasants who didn’t have a last name, you’re clearly less historically privileged than, say, an Indian who’s noble family had connections to the British Raj. But because this is really just a game of race-baiting and accusing people of original sin it would never fly.

                    4. It’s not really about correcting past injustices, it’s about measuring current ones. All else being equal, are you less likely than someone else to be hired for a job because of the color of your skin?

                      The only position I hold is that this is a problem in society possibly worth addressing by some means. If your position is, tough shit, life isn’t fair, well that has all sorts of implications.

                    5. implications

                      Curiously, there are apparently no implications to punishing innocent people for the alleged sins of the forefathers.

                    6. And here we arrive at the main and irreconcilable point of difference in worldview: libertarians believe the bad implications of liberty are worth a free society, whereas statists believe the bad outcomes from subverting liberty are worth an ideologically homogeneous society.

                    7. You define “a free society” as one in which none of the bad implications fall on you. There’s a reason libertarianism is almost all white and almost all male: it’s “Give me what I want and you fuck off,” and then you call it freedom.

                    8. Since you can determine my skin color from internet comments, please tell me “what I want” from society that I don’t deserve.

                    9. Hey look, Tony make a childish strawman of libertarianism, what a surprise.

                      My turn. Your worldview is “give me what I want, and I’ll fuck you whenever I want.” Ideologically you’re the equivalent of a rape Tony.

                    10. The problem is when people think that losing relative privilege is a punishment on them. Are you saying the white guy should have a skin-color-based advantage in perpetuity?

                    11. Jim Crow is dead. Stop acting like it’s 1960. Move on.

                    12. How are you proposing to take away the relative privilege? Who gets to decide what is white privilege vs say, the advantages of being attractive or tall or young or having a great singing voice? How would you determine privilege in 99.9% white communities? What about the relative privileges of a Will Smith vs a white homeless vet? How do you handle mixed race people? What is your plan for light skinned latins? When will you declare mission accomplished?

                    13. All good questions. You’ve already declared mission accomplished, I gather?

                    14. I honestly don’t know why I tried engaging you in good faith.

                    15. I said they were good questions. The ideal is when you are not disadvantaged in practicing freedom because of how you were born. That equal rights are actualized in civic participation. Greater equality in social and economic spheres tends to flow naturally from political equality. Obviously there is such a thing as going to far, and everyone’s entitled to an opinion on where to draw the line. But I believe it is a mistake to assume that the status quo gets bonus points for being the status quo.

                    16. And saying that we’re going too far politically but that wonderful social progress has been made isn’t defending racism or the status quo.

                      Also, the reason I fear political force isn’t because of my privilege, but because of the immense danger in the actual nut and bolt answers to my questions.

                    17. It’s not really about correcting past injustices, it’s about measuring current ones

                      With a politically biased worldview where you scream racist at anyone who disagrees with your pre-determined conclusions.

                      All else being equal, are you less likely than someone else to be hired for a job because of the color of your skin?

                      Because non-whites never hire anyone.

                      The only position I hold is that this is a problem in society possibly worth addressing by some means.

                      By encouraging identity politics that only lead to further tribalization that in the long run will actively lead to discrimination. Good job.

      2. That is what I meant.

  21. from someone who has been called alt right. I don’t think the alt right even really has a good grasp on its own goals or ideals.

    1. Because it’s not a single movement, it has no center of gravity and no binding ideology. It’s more of a coalition of movements that agree on some core issues, namely they agree about who their enemies are and who the enemies of civilization are, and basically nothing else.

    2. 1) Fuck the people who say white people should have to come down for everyone else to come up
      2) Fuck the people who tell me to shut up because my opinions aren’t approved by them

      I think that’s the only three traits I see. The first is that it only exists oppositionally. Second, it is a “white power” movement if that means that 48% of the country doesn’t see why it should be their turn to take the shit end of the stick from the other 52% because they couldn’t be physically distinguished from the ruling class once upon a time*. And they are mostly united by a bunch of people who appear to do nothing but talk to each other and write books about what they talk to these other people about telling them to shut up, because their opinions aren’t worthy of consideration. For me, its kind of like Trump. Keep telling people that they don’t deserve a voice and watch and see if they don’t start breaking shit. But they can’t exist except in opposition. If their opponents would just listen to and engage with them, they’d have no power.

      *This argument comes in forms from true egalitarianism that wouldn’t be out of place in MLK’s “I have a dream speech” to white supremacist arguments that wouldn’t be out of place at a Klan rally of the same era.

      1. Most people who voted for Trump did so reluctantly. He has a core group of really devoted fans but they are a small minority of the people who voted for him. The public didn’t elect Trump to finally stand up for the white man. They elected Trump because Hillary was a crook and people didn’t want four more years of Obamanomics. Trump was elected to fix things primarily by rolling back the excesses of Obama.

        Whether he does that or not remains to be seen. If he doesn’t do that and things don’t change, eventually, probably in 2024, there will be someone much worse than Trump and the people voting for him won’t be doing so reluctantly. Anyone who hopes Trump fails or sells out his supporters is a fool. They all think that if Trump fails the forces that put him in the White House will go away and they go back to looting the country and building their version of paradise. They are tragically mistaken in that assumption.

        1. They elected Trump because Hillary

          went into the most economically depressed parts of the country and said she was going to make their lives worse.

          1. Yeah pretty much that. She told the entire upper Midwest to go fuck itself it is their duty to lose their economy and way of life for the cult of Global Warming. And these dumb asses are shocked they didn’t vote for her.

            1. I live in the MD-DC-VA area like you do. It’s such a fucking bubble here. All propped up by tax dollars taken from the rest of the country. Between here and tech centers like New England and California, who get rich from the least regulated sectors of the economy while constantly imposing new regulations on every other sector, and you’ve got a lot of people who think they’re better because of how enlightened they are and not because they’ve insulated themselves from the economic realities of their own policies. Then they sneer at everyone who hasn’t benefitted from this arrangement and wonder why they aren’t well liked.

              1. They have no clue how bad the rest of the country has it. It is the hunger games city.

                1. It’s just fucking galling to hear people talk sometimes.

                  “DC is a model city”

                  That makes nothing. What does DC offer that is so valuable to the rest of the country? Is it really that fucking complicated to address and stamp Social Security checks?

                  1. That’s why I roll my eyes every time I hear some DC city politician declare that DC ought to be a state. Their main exports are red tape and sewage.

                    1. DC ought to be a separate country. They can take the FedGov with them.

                  2. For those of us who live elsewhere, DC gives the politicians and their toadies somewhere else to go.

    3. Huh, Ben makes some sense there.

  22. George Orwell called it a long time ago: The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.”

  23. I can’t decide if there is anything to the current media kerfuffle about the alt-right other than the desire to conflate the entirety of the Republican electorate with racist fringe nuts. I don’t get the impression that the alt-right has any leverage, traction, or any ability to affect the real world any more than, say, the KKK has.

    Thus, I just keep coming back to – this is the DemOp media continuing their assault on anyone who doesn’t live in one of their enclaves and think like them. As their worldview comes under increasing pressure from reality, they are lashing out and trying to smear and delegitimize their enemies. What else explains all this attention all of a sudden to a completely inconsequential movement?

    Other than the smeary “hallmark of the Republicans” sub-head, a good article, really. I do have one question:

    It puts the burden of proof on the media to back up its bold claims, rather than demanding the alt-right answer for actions everyone can plainly witness.

    What actions would those be?

    1. I can’t decide if there is anything to the current media kerfuffle about the alt-right other than the desire to conflate the entirety of the Republican electorate with racist fringe nuts. I don’t get the impression that the alt-right has any leverage, traction, or any ability to affect the real world any more than, say, the KKK has.

      Everyone had a chin-stroking moment when they circulated the “you’re still crying wolf” story, then when right back to screaming “NAZI Wolves! TOTALLY NOT THE SAME THING”

    2. As their worldview comes under increasing pressure from reality, they are lashing out and trying to smear and delegitimize their enemies. What else explains all this attention all of a sudden to a completely inconsequential movement?

      This is purely anecdotal, but many of the leftists I know personally have expressed real fears over the election of Trump. Fear of what, I can’t really pin them down on. They seem to be acting out a horror-drama they’ve concocted in their minds, where they’re heroically fighting monsters who threaten to engulf the world. Such a screenplay needs an easily identifiable villain. So it’s Nazis, Nazis everywhere! They’ll get us any second! What, you don’t believe that these alt-right guys are Nazis? That’s how they’ll get us; because your guard is down! Remember Hitler was elected!

      1. I know leftists who think that too. I look at Trump and see another politician. The isn’t even really an ideologue much less a Nazi. And nothing he has proposed to do is anything that hasn’t been done before and often in even greater measure. But, people really do live in their own reality bubbles. I get why a liberal would not support Trump. I get why someone would think he is too loud or scattered or careless to be a good President. But I cannot understand how anyone could look at Trump and think the dark night of fascism has fallen on America.

        I really wonder what is going to happen when Trump doesn’t turn out to be the mad fascist dictator they are all convinced he is. What will they do? Will they face up to how wrong they were or will they create crazier and crazier hallucinations to justify their belief?

        1. I’m voting/hoping “crazier and crazier”.

        2. If Trump doesn’t turn out to be the mad fascist dictator they are all convinced he is, that will fit very neatly into the screenplay. He would have been the mad fascist dictator, but their heroic resistance saved the day! Greatest Generation, ha! Stand aside for the REAL heroes!

          1. The recounts in WI and PA are their personal Normandy Invasion

    3. Well, they sure as hell don’t want to talk about Trump Democrats.

  24. This guy is thrilled to see Reason living up to his expectations.

    1. That guy is begging to be ignored.

      How long has he been trolling us now?

      1. i think Ames & Levine first got into a bitch-fight with Nick in the early 2000s.

        then they went after Balko. then in 2014 they claimed Reason was full of Holocaust Deniers.

        they’ve been at it for a while. I’ve never fully understood their attitude. Ames book/retrospective was favorably reviewed by Reason.

        Brian gave them a bit of an asskicking in 2012 over an idiotic Koch-frothing piece at The Nation… which blamed criticism of the TSA on ‘billionaire astro-turfing’

        1. Ames book/retrospective was favorably reviewed by Reason.

          The book were Ames admits to raping a 15 year old Russian girl and then threatening to kill her and her unborn child after he impregnated her.

          That fact should be boilerplate with every mention of the thuggish-looking, gorilla-miened Mark Ames, kind of like what the Huffington Post did to Donald Trump.

          But accurate in this case.

    2. Nice to be reminded of Reason’s repeated defenses of apartheid. It’s also instructive to read current anti-democratic arguments from its columnists and commenters. Even applied to the US, it becomes rather clear that we can’t avoid the nasty implication that libertarianism is by and for white people–brown people being too disposed to socialism. Is that not an argument that remains, in so many words, tossed about to this day?

      1. Just wanted to remind you that democracy doesnt mean whatever tony wants is legitimate. Just in case you werent sure. Not all people are like you or even most of them arent

      2. In your constant struggle between mere-illiteracy and delusion, sometime both win, and you manage to say things like this.

      3. You don’t believe in democracy and you never have. You believe in rule by a cadre of soi-disant elites dressed with the veneer of popular support. “Democracy” to you is the right people getting what they want and the wrong people getting what they deserve. Somebody forgot to tell you that democracy means doing what wins elections, not what makes you feel good.

        1. I’m often the only one here defending democracy. Everyone else says its bad because it inevitably fails to lead to a libertarian society.

          I had forgotten that such a sentiment originated in pro-apartheid arguments. I do believe in democracy. You, however, don’t believe in freedom.

          1. I said nothing antithetical to freedom, your inability to read or comprehend notwithstanding.

            Yes, you have offered pathetic “defenses” of democracy. That doesn’t change the fact that you don’t actually believe in it. “Democracy” is just a means to an end for you; if the end is not being met, you’ll change the means.

            1. Well it’s not a suicide pact, but I do believe it tends to be a logical means of conferring legitimacy on collectively made decisions. And one that has few if any alternatives that aren’t tyranny or chaos.

              1. Yes, I’ve read your empty tripe before.

          2. originated in pro-apartheid arguments

            This is just moronic, to boot. Arguments about the relative merits of democracy date back to long before South Africa even existed as a glint in a Dutchman’s eye.

            1. But I bet they always came with an understanding of just which members of the population were to be excluded from their own governance. In modern libertarians’ case, it’s anyone who doesn’t believe in libertarianism. At least that’s what I gather. The conversation usually veers off course once I ask to explain what you prefer as an alternative to democracy. Usually some preschool semantic BS, hilarious BS about the constitution, or the convenient intrusion of lunchtime.

              1. You can vote all you want. You can’t vote to take away what’s not yours to have.

                1. What’s not mine to have according to whom?

                  1. Your attempt at sophistry is not amusing.

                    1. Are you saying I’m failing to commit sophistry?

                    2. Are you saying I’m failing to commit sophistry?

                      9/10 deep thought

          3. I’m often the only one here defending democracy

            Define ‘Democracy’

            1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

              1. Your trained-seal imitation is fascinating but copying and pasting from the dictionary doesn’t reflect what you believe.

                1. Sounds good to me. You certainly haven’t described what I believe.

                  1. I’m sure I missed some nuance that involves genuflecting to your genius but you’ll have to forgive me for forgoing the sacraments.

              2. And how is America currently failing to meet your requirement?

                1. I can think of one big way. A gathering of wise elders selected to choose the president does not come up with this shitshow.

                  1. A gathering of wise elders selected to choose the president does not come up with this shitshow.

                    Sorry, but your definition of democracy specified

                    “”eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.””

                    Our form of democracy requires winning each state’s electoral votes. There are no wise elders involved. As Obama said, “you need to go out and win the votes that matter”. Hillary didn’t. In fact, she lost states that her party has won for decades.

                    What you are saying is a contradiction – you say you ‘defend democracy’, but now you’re complaining when it produces results you don’t like

                    Join the club.

      4. So you aren’t Pakeha then?

  25. I can’t past the impression that what we’re talking about when we talk about the alt-right is bunch of trolls–who must be laughing themselves silly at the thought that anyone is taking them seriously.

    Bring up the alt-right long enough and often enough, and someone will come out of the woodwork to declare themselves that–and be the face of the movement.

    But if that hasn’t happened yet, could it be because, apart from Twitter trolls, Breitbartheads, and 4chan, there is no alt-right?

    We’re talking about a bunch of trolls!

    You don’t take trolls seriously. Everybody who knows anything about trolls knows that you don’t take trolls seriously.

  26. “The term “Nazi” isn’t a Kleenex or Xerox situation, where we just throw it around now to mean “all people with beliefs that skew nationalist or racist.” Nazis (and groups like the KKK) are inextricably connected to their originating times and contexts, and all the socio-political pathologies that flourished in them.”

    It seems like “Nazi” is already used even more broadly than that.

    Hasn’t Reason used “fascism” the same way as well?

  27. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
    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.
    The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
    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 is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
    The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

    1. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
      The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
      The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
      The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
      The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
      The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.
      The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
      The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

      1. 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, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
        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

        1. How do we know if the races are naturally not getting along or if alt-right is merely trying to prove itself correct? Also, what’s a human subspecies?

          1. This is just a copy-pasta project on my part. See Vox Day for more information on the “16 Declarations of the Alt-Right”.

            1. Say his name!

              His name is Theodore Beale.

              1. I thought his name was Robert Paulson?

                /confused

            2. I’m to gather than Native Americans are entitled to kick everyone else off this continent?

              1. They’re entitled to try.

              2. Entitled, but unlikely. If you’ve ever spent enough time on a reservation you know that the only thing Amerindians hate more than whitey is other tribes.

                1. “Entitled, but unlikely. If you’ve ever spent enough time on a reservation you know that the only thing Amerindians hate more than whitey is other tribes.”

                  At least they’ve preserved that part of their culture(s).

              3. “I’m to gather than Native Americans are entitled to kick everyone else off this continent?”

                Wouldn’t the concept of Indian reservations, especially were they given a little more autonomy, be more of a case study in what the alt-Right wants? Basically, they want to be allowed to establish little neo-pagan fascist enclaves with blackjack and hookers, and exclude outsiders without being sued?

          2. Also, what’s a human subspecies?

            Homo sapiens sapiens

            Genus-species-subspecies. You can’t expect 13-year-old Anime Nazis to understand that the word they were actually looking for was “variety“, in the classical Linnean scheme. “Ecotype” if we’re using clines and such.

          3. Also, what’s a human subspecies?

            It’s known as “evolution”, you ignorant fuckwit.

            How many people of “non sub-Saharan African descent” suffer from sickle-cell anemia?

            How many “non-Jews” are “carriers” of the Tay-Sachs genetic deformity? (Quick google says French Canadians and Louisiana Cajuns also are affected- Wiki calls them “genetically isolated populations”- Isn’t that both how and why Darwin fucking got the idea to write “On the Evolution of Species”)?

            How about “malignant melanoma”? Wiki says Aussies/NZeds, Europe and N. America are overwhelmingly more susceptable as compared to Africans, Arabs, and Asians. I wonder why that happens? Probably democracy, right?

    2. “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.”

      Didn’t the Alt-Right have a big schism a few years ago over Christianity? Several advocates think Christianity is inherently leftist and promote various forms of European paganism.

      1. I thought the alt-right detractors of Christianity opposed it because they view it as an alien-to-Europe religion that displaced the Indo-European paganism that had predominated in Europe up to that point.

        1. Yes, that works too, I’ve read both criticisms in the past. Not sure if a single writer picked both but the former is clearly from Nietzsche.

          1. They argue about Nietzsche too. Spencer is on the pro-Nietzsche side I believe.

            1. Who’s on the anti-Nietzsche side? The Evangelicals?

              Spencer has been citing Nietzsche forever, but he seems to be neutral on the religious question though. (I don’t know if the old Alt-Right podcast – with a picture of Nietzsche wearing headphones – still exists, but they must have talked about him and Spengler every episode)

        2. I didn’t know they were Pagans. That is funny as hell. They really are a mirror of the goofy SJWs they claim to despise. They really do deserve each other.

  28. It is a new term, and one still rapidly evolving and gaining meaning, which means alt-right is as alt-right does right now.

    Actually, its a term far more used by its detractors than anyone who claims it as their mantle.

    The press seems to have decided that the most-accurate definition is the one provided by Hillary Clinton during the election. It involves a racist frog.

    Pepe’s been almost entirely co-opted by the white supremacists who call themselves the “alt-right.” They’ve decided to take back Pepe by adding swastikas and other symbols of anti-semitism and white supremacy.

    Everything currently said about the term “alt-right” is mostly about the left. Because by this point there have been far more pearl-clutching editorials *about* the ‘alt-right’ than there are self-described members of it.

    Its about their need for a hideous, super-evil enemy. They can’t be satisfied with mere political opponents who are normal people with different points of view. They need to be some new version of Misogynaziservatives.

    And even if the people they disagree with can’t be proven to be ‘one of them’? they’ll just accuse them of “Normalizing” them. see above.

    1. The left plays its own form of white identity politics. The white left cherishes the idea that its politics makes them morally superior to no leftist whites. By being a Prog, a white person can wake up every day knowing they are tolerant and fighting the forces of racism. That idea is what keeps the left in the Democratic Party. All the Bernie Supporters voted for Hillary even though she stole the nomination from their guy and was everything they claim to hate. Why? Because voting for Hillary was how they showed they were not racist and were doing what they could to stop that racist Trump. And that matters more than anything else.

      The problem with that set up is its success becomes self defeating. As the country gets more tolerant about racial issues, you need to invent new issues and new enemies to feel superior. And that is all the Alt Right is. It is a new enemy to ensure that being Democrat and Progressive is still the brand of tolerance fighting the evils of racism to white leftists.

      1. Gilmore and John, I think that the two of you are underestimating both the size of the alt-right and the influence it wielded in the election.

        1. Really? How so? I don’t see it but maybe I am missing it. How did the alt right play such a big role in your view? Most people I know who voted for Trump don’t even know what it is.

          1. Perhaps I’ve been lurking too long at some of the alt-right sites and perhaps I have been influenced into thinking that the alt-right is not just a handful of wannabe Heil Hitlers by a dozen or so people consisting of clients, friends, and two relatives of mine, one being one of my two brothers and the other being a female cousin.

            None of the dozen or so people I mentioned are craving for a modern day Crystallnacht, but what they do have in common is the following:

            (1) They love that Trump pissed off all of the right people;

            (2) They love the fact that Trump refused to genuflect to political correctness;

            (3) They are sick and tired of the welfare state, at least as far as the Great Society and handouts for immigrants are concerned;

            (4) They are anti-BLM;

            (5) They think that free trade is just for the ruling class and coastal elites.

            My cousin used to be a progressive who loved her some Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug and Angela Davis. She is now a devotee of John Derbyshire as is one of my clients. The rest of them would not know of the Derb or Taki’s or what a cuck is.

            To a person, they think that my brand of anarcho-free enterprise-individualism would be fine if everybody were like me. IOW, they think my philosophy is a fantasy.

            1. I should hasten to add that they also want a wall and they generally favor a moratorium on legal immigration. Is some of that racially animated? Yes. Does that make them Simon Legree? Of course not.

            2. I agree with you about all of that. But I think most people who voted for Trump thought those things on their own and don’t even know what the Alt right is.

            3. But 1-4 casts a pretty damned wide net. I didn’t vote for Trump, but I can agree with varying levels of intensity with 1-4 while also being strongly against 5.

              1. Yeah, all things considered, you, John, and me would tend to agree with 1-4, whereas John would tend to differ with us on 5. However, like John, I am not in favor of free trade as defined by most of the Reason staff for many of the same reasons articulated by others, i.e., what passes for “free trade” is really managed trade and it doesn’t take a 5,000 page agreement to achieve.

                1. I don’t disagree with you on that. I do think that even what passes for “free trade” now is better than straight-up protectionism though.

            4. (1) They love that Trump pissed off all of the right people;

              (2) They love the fact that Trump refused to genuflect to political correctness;

              (3) They are sick and tired of the welfare state, at least as far as the Great Society and handouts for immigrants are concerned;

              (4) They are anti-BLM;

              (5) They think that free trade is just for the ruling class and coastal elites.

              These things, aside from the last point, is basically “common sense” that is the opinion of the majority of the country (*including many dems – BLM is not really that popular among older white people of any political persuasion)

        2. I think that the two of you are underestimating both the size of the alt-right and the influence it wielded in the election.

          No

          1. Mr. Alexander’s opinion piece is well written and thoughtful. He relies upon a plethora of polls and he draws inferences therefrom.

            Does he PROVE that Trump’s alt-right support was negligible? Hardly.

            1. Let’s analyze Mr. Alexander’s position on the alt-right’s influence:

              (1) He does not define the alt-right. That is a fatal flaw. The alt-right is not limited to the people who hold the views I set forth above. I did not so asseverate. In the interests of clarity and precision, a more comprehensive definition of the alt-right is in order. The author, without evidence, argues that “he alt-right is mostly an on-line movement.” If you are going to make such an assertion, prove it or at least support it with some hard evidence. Otherwise, pen something like the following: “I don’t know for sure, but it appears that the alt-right movement is primarily an on-line phenomenon.”

              (2) To his credit, he acknowledges that the size of the alt-right community is “hard to measure.” Given such an admission, perhaps he should have pumped the brakes on his thesis that Trump’s alt-right support was exiguous.

              (3) He limits the on-line alt-right community to “/r/altright, Stormfront, and 4chan’s politics board” which comprise “[t]he three main alt-right hubs that I know of.” Thus, he admits another spectacular defect in his argument. Anybody with even a modicum of cultural-political-social awareness and keen curiosity would know that the on-line alt-right community is not cabined by /r/altright, Stormfront and 4chan’s politics board. What about Taki’s, The Right Stuff, and Vox?

              1. Moreover, the alt-right community is not limited to the intertubez. It can’t be measured by polls asking white people if they would sell their house if Tyrone and Tameeka moved in next door – think Bradley effect. It can’t be measure by polls asking amorphous, generalized questions to white people about the CRA.

                If a white person would prefer to associate exclusively with white people, such a white person, in my view, is part of the alt-right.

                If a white person knows that blacks punch way over their weight with regard to crime and other anti-social behavior and is not afraid to articulate such facts, such a white person, in my view, is part of the alt-right.

                If a white person knows that the fact that there are more whites receiving welfare than blacks is a red herring because the percentage of blacks receiving some kind of handout dwarfs the percentage of whites getting welfare, and is not afraid to articulate this, such a white person, in my view, is part of the alt-right.

    2. “Actually, its a term far more used by its detractors than anyone who claims it as their mantle.”

      I’ve never seen anyone claim to be alt-right! Not on TV. Not anywhere.

      Accuse people of being it long enough, and someone will claim the title, I’m sure.

      Want to prank the media? One of us should claim to be the alt-right, we’ll fix up a website that this person controls and fill it with alt-right memes–and offer to do some interviews with whomever.

      And when they ask you a question, just answer “Dicks out for Harambe!” and shit like that.

      1. “Dicks out for Harambe!” is alt right?

        Damn, I just thought it was a funny response to people getting too worked up about an ape.

    3. They’ve decided to take back Pepe

      Dicks out for Pepe!

    4. swastikas and other symbols of anti-semitism and white supremacy.

      Hindus have a sad

  29. When the lefties aren’t freaking out about “Nazis”, they’re freaking out about the Russians. Christ, it’s like an episode of The Simpsons. “The Reverse Vampires, in alliance with…the Saucer People”

    1. Four years ago they were lampooning Romney for even suggesting the Russians could be a problem. They are insane.

      1. Are you suggesting that by meddling in the US presidential election to elect the guy you supported, Romney has been proven right?

        1. There is absolutely no proof that happened. None. And the people making that accusation know that. They are just doing it so useful idiots like you can console yourselves and not have to face the fact that you are totally out of power and are legitimately so. Moreover, if Russia is doing anything, it is likely paying Jill Stein and others in the media to make that accusation. Russia doesn’t care who wins the election. They just want to destabilize and weaken the country. And getting idiots like you to think they fixed the election will do that. Every time you repeat that lie, you are liking doing Russia’s bidding.

          Beyond that, there are few more stupid and reckless things than to accuse a nuclear Super Power of an act of war without any proof. If Russia really did that, the entire country has a big problem with Russia not Trump. You of course don’t understand that because you are a self absorbed moron who can’t see anything except your own neurotic political obsessions.

          1. So Romney was wrong? Or not?

            1. So do you have proof or not?

              One form of proof would be a senior Kremlin official admitting that Russia did, indeed meddle in the election or attempted to fix it. Kind of like John Sasso admitting that he had leaked the story regarding Joe Biden’s plagiarism all along and that it was not the Gephardt campaign as he had earlier suggested.

              You do know who John Sasso was, don’t you? His former boss is the type of guy about whom you would cream your jeans – arrogant, miserable, and insufferable.

              1. I’m just trying to get John to make a consistent point for once in his life. I understand how difficult it must be to frame one’s own entire existence around being a Republican buttboy.

            2. Romney said they were an adversary. That doesn’t mean they fixed the election you fucking half wit.

              1. John, a nice, but whacked, 80 year old lady who works part-time for an insurance agency near me, continues to insist that “the Russians fixed it, the Russians fixed it”.

                Earlier today, I went to the insurance agency for a meeting, and the old lady was working. I asked her, “where’s the beef, where’s the beef (she loves Walter Mondale)?” She responded, “Hillary said so” and “the intelligence agencies ALL (emphasis mine) said so.”

                LOL!

                Her boss doesn’t mind me needling her since I have referred business to them.

        2. Are you suggesting that the country so benign that Chocolate Nixon laughed at the notion that it was a threat interfered in an American election for nefarious reasons?

          You know, maybe I’ve misjudged you all this time – this is fun!

    2. Oh, it gets even more insane than that. The Washington Post hyped a study accusing Wikileaks, Drudge, the Ron Paul Institute, and Zero Hedge (as well as a number of lefty sites) of being secret Russian fronts.

  30. The alt right is everything, and the alt right is nothing.

    1. The alt right is the eggman.

      1. Then who is the walrus?

  31. The reasoning here makes the name “Reason” ironic. The sentence ” Alt-right isn’t a term that previously meant something else in U.S. politics…” ignores the fact that the term “right” is very common. Just adding “alt-” to the front makes it seem to be just another term for people on the right. It is not that at all. Alt-rock is just a sub genre of rock, but it’s still rock. Alt-right is not just a sub genre of conservatism. It’s just fascist white supremacy hiding behind a new “more accessible” name.

    1. Martinis after work it is!

    2. Do leftists no longer consider fascists to be right-wing?

  32. Nazi is the abbreviation for NAtional soZIalistische – National Socialist. The Nazi party’s full name is NAtional soZIalistische deutsche arbeiter partei – which literally translates from German to be the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

    Socialists hate the fact that the Nazi party was a socialist party with the same gun control agenda, the same strong social programs and the same emphasis on government jobs and worker’s rights as modern socialists. So they frequently try to mislead (lie) by referring to Nazi as right-wing whereas in truth Nazi is actually liberal left-wing and socialist…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.