Alt-Right

I Interviewed the Sage of the Alt-Right. No, It's Not Ben Shapiro.

The Economist corrects a massive error.

|

The Economist recently profiled the well-known conservative pundit Ben Shapiro. The article itself was inoffensive, but the headline initially described Shapiro as "the alt-right sage without the rage."

Shapiro
Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Press/Newscom

That is simply wrong, and it betrays The Economist's unfamiliarity with what the term "alt-right" means. No, Shapiro is not part of it. In fact, Shapiro has been a target of online harassment from some of the alt-right's members.

Shapiro was understandably displeased about being casually lumped in with the tiki-torch marchers of Charlottesville. "If you lump me in with people who are so evil I literally hire security to walk me to shul on Shabbat, you can go straight to hell," he tweeted.

Thankfully, The Economist realized its error and quickly changed the headline. Shapiro is now called a "radical conservative," which is more defensible, in that it's not flat-out wrong.

My guess is that The Economist has no idea what the alt-right is and just wanted a headline that rhymed. Perhaps its editors presumed the term just refers to someone who is even more on the right than your standard conservative. But the alt-right is a very specific ideological group that is not really more or less conservative. Its members subscribe to an ideology that they believe should replace the mainstream right.

My forthcoming book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump (pre-order here), includes an entire chapter on the alt-right. I covered some of their rallies and interviewed prominent members, including their best-known leader, Richard Spencer. In brief, the alt-right is a white nationalist movement that promotes an identitarian worldview: They think a person's worth is determined by his membership in a race-based group. The alt-right wants the U.S. to be a place for white Europeans and their descendants, and for the government to promote and protect the interests of white Europeans and their descendants. This is not a movement for black people, Hispanic immigrants, or Jews—all of whom represent a kind of "other" from the standpoint of the alt-right.

Needless to say, these are ugly and overtly racist beliefs. They are also at odds with what Shapiro, as a Jewish man, represents.

They are also at odds with what Shapiro thinks. To take just one example, Shapiro-style conservatives constantly bemoan identity politics. But the alt-right is all about identity; Spencer is actually in favor of identity politics. As he told me when I interviewed him, "I think actually the left is getting at something real when they say, 'I am not just an American citizen. I'm not just an individual consumer or producer in capitalism.'" He then accused conservatives and libertarians of "running away" from the sense of belonging that identity politics can provide, as part of our misguided defenses of individualism and markets.

If you're confused or intrigued by this, you should pre-order my book and read the full chapter. The alt-right really is its own thing, and casually lumping Shapiro in with it was a lazy move that The Economist was right to correct.

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.

345 responses to “I Interviewed the Sage of the Alt-Right. No, It's Not Ben Shapiro.

  1. I covered some of their rallies and interviewed prominent members, including their best-known leader, Steve Bannon

    Oh, you said Richard Spencer. Because I thought you were gonna say Steve Bannon. You know, investment banker, media mogul, the guy that widely and credibly claims to have created the “platform for the alt-right”? But, you know, Spencer’s an alt-right guy too and pretty well known. So, if I had to pick *a* sage or best-known leader of the alt-right Spencer would certainly be up there. Top 5 for sure.

    1. Spencer is the guy that coined the term “alt-right” (together with Paul Gottfried).

      1. I know who he is. I’d be hard pressed to make “Richard Spencer, co-inventor of the term ‘alt-right’.” sound more like a footnote.

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h ? $72h?how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance? on something new? after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Heres what I’ve been doing? ,,,

          CLICK HERE?? http://www.AproCoin.Com

        2. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

          CLICK HERE?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

      2. The whole, The Economist, Ben Shapiro, alt-right, Richard Spencer, “I have a book” thread or narrative just doesn’t flow or feels forced to me. Maybe it’s just me.

        1. Just be happy you got an article where you can post comments.

        2. Well, it certainly doesn’t make for very good or very interesting journalism. It’s pretty click-bait-y in a long-winded kind of way and I never feel satisfied after reading something like this.

        3. In my upcoming book, Someone is Wrong on the Internet, I have an entire chapter dedicated to how Robby should be paying Reason.com for articles like these, instead of the other way around . . .

      3. ‘Alt Right’ has become a catch all boogeyman phrase for the left meant to encapsulate all who stray from their groupthink. It can mean anything a progtard wants it to on any given day or time.

        1. Jack “Cuck” Hunter’s definition of the “alternative right” would include Reason magazine and many of its contributors.

          Steven Pinker counts “anarcho-capitalists” among the “alt-right”.

        2. It’s definitely a catch all to commies at this point. When a Zionist Jew is being called alt-right, you know it’s lost its meaning to the media!

          1. I think the Vox Day Alt-Right would call a Zionist Jew the Alt-Right. A Jewish land for a Jewish people.

            And the Japanese too. They might find the Han a bit too imperial.

            As they sell it, it’s non-imperial ethnonationalism for all ethnicities. Ethnic nations with their own nation states.

            1. Yeah, that’s true. The non-imperial bit is what others can’t seem to grasp.

              For some reason everybody has a NEED to believe anybody who wants to protect their own peoples homeland is an evil bastard who wants to conquer/murder/enslave everybody else, and not just somebody who wants to be left alone to have their society continue down their own path set forth by their own people.

              I guess believing that is what makes them easy to demonize, because it’s hard to call somebody evil for just wanting to preserve their own way of life… After all that is the main “evil” thing whites did by colonizing the Americas right, taking away the Indians choice of being able to live the way they wanted? So not wanting to be colonized has to be turned around into wanting to be a colonizer in order to feel okay with calling them evil, because just wanted to be left alone isn’t very evil at all.

              1. It might make sense for people in a country that is ethnically homogeneous to talk that way, but for someone in a diverse society to talk that way has sinister implications.

                1. The problem for ethnonationalists in the US is they have nothing to offer the Western Hemisphere but pronouncements of doom and a prediction of a thousand years of darkness.

                  Ok. Thanks. We’re going to try to do better despite our “inevitable doom”.

              2. “For some reason everybody has a NEED to believe anybody any White who wants to protect their own peoples homeland is an evil bastard who wants to conquer/murder/enslave everybody else,”

                FTFY

                “After all that is the main “evil” thing whites did by colonizing the Americas right, taking away the Indians choice of being able to live the way they wanted? ”

                If only Native Americans had had a big beautiful Wall to keep the foreign invaders out.

                1. Yeah, only whites of course are bad when they want a land for themselves.

                  aajax, here’s the thing… Europe IS basically as white as it ever needs to be, and in most nations it’s still the sub set of honkies that have lived there for a LONG time, in many cases thousands of years. So it’s not weird for European nations to talk this way… But it is being treated as PURE EVIL.

                  America was 85% white, arguably almost 90% counting Hispanics, just a few decades ago. Everywhere in Europe is above that still, with maybe the UK being close. We’re already a white minority under 18 in the USA. So it just goes to show how quickly things can change, and then indeed how hard it is to reverse.

                  Which is why nobody is really talking about reversing stuff… Just slowing down/stopping the train. I don’t think that needs to sound like there is ill intent at all.

          2. I think the Vox Day Alt-Right would call a Zionist Jew the Alt-Right. A Jewish land for a Jewish people.

            And the Japanese too. They might find the Han a bit too imperial.

            As they sell it, it’s non-imperial ethnonationalism for all ethnicities. Ethnic nations with their own nation states.

    2. So in fact, the Alt-Right is actually considerably less racist and anti-Semitic than the “mainstream” left.

      1. The Left always projects their hatreds and crimes on the Right.
        Every accusation from a Leftist is a confession.

    3. When Bannon said that, the term “alt-right” was not fully defined. Yes, Spencer had coined the term, but for a while it looked like “happy warrior” conservatives (the Breitbart model) might successfully steal the rather catchy name away from them.

      1. Alternative Right.

        The Media made sure the civic nationalist right, as an alternative to the right wing of the Globalist Uniparty, was denied a useful political label.

        Instead, they made sure to pin the label on the Alt-Retards. Spencer has a career as the media’s dancing monkey whenever they need a white nationalist to parade about and Sieg Heil to their tune! Spencer focus grouped better with the younger generation than David Duke. The torch has been passed to a new irrelevant buffoon.

        #####
        The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought ? that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc ? should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.

        1. ” including their best-known leader, Richard Spencer”

          Like the rest of the MSM, Robby plays his part and endorses the Dancing Sieg Heil Monkey as the “leader” of the Alt-Right.

          He’s “best known” because he gave the MSM the bogey man they wanted, and they gave him the media attention he wanted.

  2. The Economist has strayed too far from their economist objective roots. I dropped my subscription years ago. I miss the global news, even though it was half-assed, because you could at least tell what was worth a little investigation. I don’t miss the panic attacks worthy of Evergreen College, the straying into pure politics (gun control, really?) and did I mention the panic attacks like this one?

    1. Yes, theEconomist has morphed into a prog rag.

      1. The Left’s long march through the institutions continues. We saw it here at Reason. They are relentless.

        The Left is after power and they mean it.

  3. My guess is that The Economist has no idea what the alt-right is and just wanted a headline that rhymed.

    I’m not sure if anyone knows what the definition of alt-right is… or at least what the original definition means… or if that definition has morphed (it seems to have) just like “neocon” did.

    And to be honest, I’m not sure if my understanding on the etymology of the word is even correct. All I know is that alt-right NOW seems to be neo nazis… I guess. Not sure why we just didn’t stick with neo-nazi.

    1. We’re all ‘alt-right’ now.

      You think Trump is alright? AR.
      You think the DNC has a radical left problem? AR.
      You like Jordan Peterson? AR.
      You listen to Limbaugh? AR.
      You’re for free speech? AR.
      You like guns? AR.
      You listen to the Rubin Report? AR.
      You read John Solomon or Greenwald? AR.
      You watch Fox? AR.
      You want small government? AR.
      You flash the ‘okay’ sign? AR.
      You think the Brexit vote should be respected? AR.
      You listen to Gorka? AR.

      And so on.

      1. buncha NEOCONS!!!

      2. Most people think alt-right are the tiki torch guys.

        1. Those guys were only a small fraction of the righty protesters in C-ville

    2. also, is “neo” necessary?

      1. *shrug*. Hard to say. But I recall alt-right meaning something very different when it first started to creep in to the edges of the lexicon. But maybe I remember wrong. Who knows. But I guess the new-alt-right definition is akin to neo-nazi. If that’s what we’re going with, then fine. All that means is everyone I’ve found interesting who’s been accused of being alt-right is no longer alt-right. I’m good with that.

        1. You are correct. It had started out as Conservatives/right-leaning people tired of the left’s advance and done with RINOs who played marquis of queensbury rules and helped advance leftist goals. When the media and people like Richard Spencer started changing the term to mean white separatism/nationalism the people who had been adopting the term rapidly dropped it. Much of what “Trumpism” represents is Conservatives tired of being lied to by politicians and wanting someone who actually fights for their priorities. It is a shame writers here refuse to see that and understand that such people are more ally than enemy

          1. “It is a shame writers here refuse to see that and understand that such people are more ally than enemy”

            Ally how? Conservative populists will turn big government as soon as the government is run by “the right people”.

          2. Yeah, I wish Alt-Right has simply remained meaning more like “Non cucked right leaning people who believe in the concept of nation states” because that’s more or less what it meant for a minute. It’s a good name too, so it sucks it’s mostly been turned into just meaning “Nazi” at this point. Not that most of the Nazis are even Nazis…

            There’s a world of difference between believing in ethno-nationalism for all people and being a Nazi. Most Alt-Right people are ethno-nationalists, but almost none are actual Nazis. Even within that there are harder and softer variants. Personally I think the softer side of that is an imminently practical way to run a country… The idea that you can have functional societies with NO ethno-cultural majority is ridiculous… It just doesn’t work.

            1. “The idea that you can have functional societies with NO ethno-cultural majority is ridiculous… It just doesn’t work.”

              When I think of Switzerland, I don’t think failed state. It has a mixture of different faiths and languages, tolerant of outsiders, giving a home to dozens of exiled Bolsheviks at one time. Federal states can be just as successful and long lived as nation states, which tend to be caught up in endless squabbling over just who is a citizen and who is an outsider.

              1. Yes and no… Switzerland has lots of infighting between the French and Germans, and the ONLY reason it works is because they have a highly localized power structure. Decentralized power would help in any situation, but it might not always be enough. Especially with that ever present human urge to force YOUR way on others.

                But there’s also the fact that from objective, outside measures the differences between the two are FAR smaller than between many other potential groups.

                I tend to believe one can kinda use common sense to work these things out:

                A Baptist and a Lutheran can probably live in the same community with little issue… Indeed groups of both such peoples could form a town, easy peas. BUT a town that was half outright Satanists and half Baptists… There will realistically be a lot more problems, right? Does that not make logical sense?

                Well, most Europeans are like the first example where they’re FAIRLY similar to begin with, whereas some other groups you start getting closer to the second example. A Japanese guy and a Bantu are RADICALLY different.

                Then you add in the whole easily distinguishable just by lookin’ at them thing, and all of a sudden it is far easier to do the us/them thing.

                1. As I said, I think one can use a common sense scale to figure out how likely compatibility there is in many instances. Nothing is 100%, and one can also change peoples culture over time, but homogenization ALWAYS has to occur over time, or else you will have issues of varying degrees. I believe Swiss culture has melded French and German cultures far more than in France and Germany itself for instance.

                  Finally, and here’s the real kicker… Even if you can hold a nation state together with duct tape and super glue… Would the French Swiss and German Swiss not in fact be happier and better off if they had ended up 2 separate small nations? The truth is they very well may have.

                  The idea that it is inherently a good idea to cram people with radically different cultures into a single nation state is a new invention for the most part. In the past it was generally seen as a necessary evil when one wanted an empire, and often nations tried to stamp that out and meld the cultures. But if one isn’t in it for the raw power of controlling lots of land and such, WHY is it somehow magically an unmitigated good to intentionally create problems, where there would be none, just by shifting borders around to match peoples cultures better?

                  That is a modern idea that people take for granted, and I’ve never understood it. Infighting IS NOT a good thing, it is a problem. So avoiding that to the degree reasonable seems rather smart to me.

                  1. “The idea that it is inherently a good idea to cram people with radically different cultures into a single nation state is a new invention for the most part. ”

                    Perhaps so. But Kurds, Arabs, Vietnamese have a lesson as well. Dividing a single nation into may contiguous statelets and kingdoms is also a bad idea. It seems to lead to just as much strife.

                    “Would the French Swiss and German Swiss not in fact be happier and better off if they had ended up 2 separate small nations? ”

                    They seem to be happy with a federal republic. Just learn to take ‘yes’ for an answer.

                    ” just by shifting borders around to match peoples cultures better?”

                    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. But cultures, languages and all human institutions are in constant flux. Trying to preserve them is a fool’s errand. If your European ancestors shared you ideas and resistance to outside influence, you’d still be painting yourself blue, competing with wild hogs for acorns and worshiping trees.

                2. “But there’s also the fact that from objective, outside measures the differences between the two are FAR smaller than between many other potential groups.”

                  Small differences are probably the most dangerous. Consider the differences that separated mass murderer Brevik from his many young victims. Same age, same language, same ethnicity. Same with the Irish. Ulster and Eire are identical except for the tiniest detail. One guy thinks the host represents Christ while the other thinks it is Christ. Yet this has fueled hundreds of years of conflict with no end in sight.

                  By the way I’d be curious about your take on the question of Ireland and Brexit. It seems to me that the British up and start enforcing the border there after years of EU ease of crossing might well mean the end of the UK. (ie Northern Ireland deciding that they rather like open borders with their southern counterparts.)

            2. “The idea that you can have functional societies with NO ethno-cultural majority is ridiculous… It just doesn’t work.”

              Germans are not Irish are not Brits are not Italians are not Black Americans.

              The US had no ethno cultural majority in the 20th century, while it became the world superpower and defeated imperial national socialism and imperial international socialism in the 20th century.

              It did have a *politico-cultural* majority, which it pushed unapologetically on immigrants, particularly in the early 20th century.

              Without the manpower provided by wave after wave of ethnic immigration, the US would have been just another Canada, and another Canada doesn’t stop 20th totalitarianism.

              Sounds like “working” to me.

              1. The US ethno-cultural majorities were located in the states, hence why the original formulation resembled more of strong states with a unified defense. It didn’t last long and we became imperial in the 19th century – and empires require stronger, centralized governments. So as we expanded, the federal powers expanded.

                1. I’m not going to even get into all of mtruemans bs, but buybuy, that’s kinda true… Kinda not.

                  The fact is that my German ancestors that lived in Pennsylvania pre revolution were German… But they weren’t. Maybe not even by 1776, but certainly not by the 20th century. All those European ethnicities melded into the American one pretty seamlessly, which was primarily just becoming British with more balls!

                  All the fresh off the boat sorts were a pain in the ass, like the Mexicans are today, but 85% of the country during the early 20th century peak were born here, white, and pretty well melted into the pot.

                  As I said above, I personally think it’s rather easy to use common sense to figure out who can assimilate where given incentive. It basically comes down to how similar the cultures are to start, do they look the same or close enough that a single generation of interbreeding makes it impossible to tell, and then maybe religion. DONE. Koreans could integrate into Japan EASILY and quickly. Somalians could not. In Europe or America that means Christian honkies integrated, others have mostly been more problematic. Mexicans are in between say a Brit and a Somalian. Common sense.

                  It’s that simple.

      2. Neo-alt-right?

        1. Alt-neo-right-nazi. With a twist of lemon.

          1. Follow the white rabbit? Problematic.

            1. one pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small.

        2. Some people are pushing “Dissident Right” now, which isn’t so bad.

      3. also, is “neo” necessary?

        Yes. I blame the liberals. Regular ones. Not the ones who distinguish themselves as classical liberals.

  4. The most useful definition of “alt-right” is “people who oppose the Koch / Reason open borders agenda.” Ben Shapiro probably qualifies just as well as Richard Spencer.

    1. This isn’t actually satire.

    2. Bernie Sanders opposes open borders. So Bernie is Alt Right?

      1. He’s white, he’s male, and he’s straight. So it checks out.

        1. He is also old, which also gives him AR points.

    3. Reason is going to give OBL a regular article soon.

  5. Right is essentially Liberal, believing in the primacy of the individual. Rand Paul, John McCain etc. Alt right is not Liberal, as they believe in the primacy of the family, clan, nation etc. In America Shapiro calls himself a Liberal (in the original sense of the word) but I imagine in Israel, he calls himself a Zionist, which means ‘alt-right’ in Yiddish.

    1. John McCain? No statist like that is any where close to believing in the primacy of the individual.

      1. The information suggests he believed in the primacy of the individual when he was being interrogated…

      2. Statism and Liberalism go hand in hand. When the rights of the individual are in trouble, who do you call? The police, courts and other arms of the state. The state has never been more powerful than it is under the regime of Liberalism.

        1. “Statism and Liberalism go hand in hand.”

          I prefer the term progressivism to define the left ideology today. But I’m old enough to remember when liberal still had some redeeming qualities, and there were a lot of old school liberals and classical liberals that wanted to be left the hell alone. The horrible statists on the left today don’t deserve the term liberal.

          1. YUP. Even when I was a kid liberals had some finer points… Now anybody who calls them self that is basically 100% wrong about everything, and a horrible person to boot!

          2. 80s Liberals – Rule of law, freedom of speech, democracy, more Welfare transfers – Still Western Civilization.

            90s to 00s Progressives – Rule of the Deep State and the Cathedral – A society of ruling apparatchiks which must crush the freedom out of the West, but not enough to destroy the material progress they covet.

            00s to 10s SJW Identitarians – Lawless tribalists whose motivation is hatred of Western Civ and Whites in particular. The politics of Resentment writ large.

            80s Liberals have been left behind by the Left and are on the Right now. Few of them realize this.

        2. “Statism and Liberalism go hand in hand.”

          This is a seriously flawed understanding of how the individual interacts with the social institutions. An individual can seek redress from other institutions in society such as the market, the family or the church to deal with his or her problems. But only the state is granted coercive authority in our society and much more often than not it is the state that is usurping the rights of the individual via coercion.

          The state will always seek to expand its authority (and power) and undermine the useful role and authority of the other social institutions, usually to the detriment of both the institution and individuals. There can be no big government libertarianism and thoughtful conservatives should reject big government due to their presumed respect for social institutions. But the same cannot be said of the progressives, as their solutions to social problems almost always involves bigger, and more intrusive, government.

          1. “The state will always seek to expand its authority (and power) and undermine the useful role and authority of the other social institutions”

            This is the strength of Liberalism, the state can overpower the bonds of other institutions like the church and the family, and its weakness, its failure to reign in a power hungry ‘big government.’

            “But the same cannot be said of the progressives, as their solutions to social problems almost always involves bigger, and more intrusive, government.”

            Progressives believe in bigger government, but they also more tolerant of individual freedom and autonomy. The big government education they support enables children to leave their lives on farms and seek more rewarding work in the cities. The government health care they support allows them to take control of their bodies and decide for themselves on issues like abortion.

            1. This is the strength of Liberalism, the state can overpower the bonds of other institutions like the church and the family, and its weakness, its failure to reign in a power hungry ‘big government.’

              The state does overpower the other institutions, though I’m not sure that that is such a good thing considering the problems we see with the decline of the family for instance, but it replaces them with bureaucratic indifference and it relies on its coercive power to fund its initiatives regardless of whether or not the government is actually responsive to the needs of individuals.

              Progressives believe in bigger government, but they also more tolerant of individual freedom and autonomy. The big government education they support enables children to leave their lives on farms and seek more rewarding work in the cities.

              I’m not sure why work in a city would necessarily be “more rewarding” in either an economic or spiritual way, but that still begs the question of why it would have to be provided by bigger government. I wonder why it is that big government education hasn’t allowed so many urban residents to escape their impoverished, crime-ridden neighborhoods to move into “more rewarding” lives when religious or secular private schools seem to have so much higher rates of success in doing so.

              1. “though I’m not sure that that is such a good thing considering the problems we see with the decline of the family for instance”

                Whether or not its a good thing, its bred in the bone of Liberalism. A clever boy who would otherwise be doomed to working as a field hand for his father can avail himself of public education as escape his family, perhaps never seeing them again, to pursue his dreams of becoming an architect in the city.

                ” I wonder why it is that big government education hasn’t allowed so many urban residents to escape their impoverished, crime-ridden neighborhoods to move into “more rewarding” lives when religious or secular private schools seem to have so much higher rates of success in doing so”

                Because Liberalism, putting primacy on the individual and weakening the bonds to family, church etc, also leads to an increase in inequality. Not through anyone’s choice but seems to be something structural, something that the original thinkers like Smith and Jefferson etc didn’t foresee. Many of these people living in impoverished neighborhoods probably don’t share the idea that the individual is prime, and instead treasure their ties to family, church, locale etc.

                1. Many of these people living in impoverished neighborhoods probably don’t share the idea that the individual is prime, and instead treasure their ties to family, church, locale etc.

                  But individuals do treasure those ties precisely because they see value in them and as government expands (and those institutions decline) they often lose that. Your bright boy who has left his family behind forever to become an architect might find that he is not as happy as he was before as a field hand in spite of his glamorous new career. I don’t really have a problem with an increase in inequality because I can appreciate that individuals might value different things and so some might choose to stay on the farm while others might choose architecture. But government all too often sees a ‘one size fits all solution” to a given problem and pursues policies to push individuals in a given direction.

                  The government can never be flexible enough to deal with the unique circumstances that involve a particular individual, but smaller institutions like the family or the church can. This discussion does remind me of a doctor friend from the Army who went to school to study agriculture and was encouraged by a professor to pursue medical school (he farms on the side and is a Reservist). His community and church helped raise money for him to go to medical school, which shows what smaller institutions can accomplish.

                  1. The modern progressive is NOT like the one you have in your head.

                    They value individuality… Until somebody has an opinion they don’t like. Then they’re a HERETIC that needs to be burned at the stake!

                    You’re talking about liberals of 50 years ago my friend, you might want to pay more attention to how most of them actually are in 2019.

                    1. “You’re talking about liberals of 50 years ago my friend”

                      No, I’m talking about how Classical Liberals, parents of both America’s political factions, puts a primacy on the individual at the expense of other institutions like church, family, nation etc.

                    2. They value control.

                  2. “The government can never be flexible enough to deal with the unique circumstances that involve a particular individual, but smaller institutions like the family or the church can. ”

                    It doesn’t have to be flexible. Egypt not long ago passed laws against female circumcision. I can imagine the church and the family urging a young girl to undergo the surgery for a variety of reasons. It’s the state that has put its foot down and said NO to the practice. And it’s the state that can make it stick. Individual Freedom from arbitrary authority, that’s Liberalism.

                    1. i think that to solve the problems of individuals you have to be flexible because everyone’s problem is different and I have no faith in “arbitrary authority”. Arbitrary is a synonym for capricious and capricious use of authority is a hallmark of the abuse of power.

                    2. “Arbitrary is a synonym for capricious and capricious use of authority is a hallmark of the abuse of power.”

                      Sure, but the Founding Fathers, strongly under the influence of Classical Liberalism, tried pretty hard to make sure that state authority was well founded. If authority was arbitrary, it was the authority of the church, or the authority of the family, especially the royal family.

                      Now I think that the social fibers under Liberalism are fraying. People no longer look upon government service, education, the press with the same reverence.

                    3. If the family or church acts capriciously an individual can abandon them, not without difficulties perhaps, but a person can still cut them loose. Not so the government which demands obedience and gets its money up front. And I agree that reverance for those institutions you mentioned above are declining, but I think that is due in large part due to failures by those institutions.

                    4. ” but I think that is due in large part due to failures by those institutions.”

                      I’d say rather that disillusion comes from the bankruptcy of Liberalism itself. Its failures to deliver on the promises of Smith and Jefferson, and its spiritual vacuity.

                    5. LOL Jefferson would think you were a horrible person!

                      And really, they didn’t want the STATE to dominate ANY private institutions in the way you’re talking about… They just wanted it to stay the fuck out of the way, for both private people and organizations. Your view is soooo warped it’s ridiculous.

    2. The right has never believed in the primacy of the individual. Classical liberalism was never right-wing.

      1. “The right has never believed in the primacy of the individual.”

        A belief in Classical Liberalism has united both the Democrats and Republicans for most of American history. Those who see the family or clan etc as the center of political discourse, including some conservatives, have been rather marginal in American politics.

        1. Additionally or analogously, as should be apparent from our lens, the options aren’t or were hardly ever ‘primacy of the individual’ vs. ‘other’ but ‘primacy of small independent groups’ vs. ‘primacy of elites’.

          If you strip the property rights of 30 million people and, in doing so, convert 3 million slaves (not to mention independent living and/or contractually employed freed slaves) into self-owning property did you strike a blow for individuals and individualism or not?

          1. As a libertarian, and a fan of the work of Jacob Levy, I do not subscribe to ‘primacy of small independent groups’ vs. ‘primacy of elites’ always being a good thing. Sometimes, the “elites” have protected the individual from the oppressions of a small independent group. In the end, it is the freedom of the individual that matters above all.

            1. What about when absolute freedom of the individual creates too many real world problems for people that might loosely consider themselves a group?

              Such as true open borders making it impossible for a 1st world nation to exist? Do people in such nations not have a right to protect themselves and their progeny from having their lives ruined by foreign immigration?

              What about people who decide they want to masturbate on public sidewalks because they enjoy tugging one off while watching people walk by? It’s kind of a victimless crime technically… But I know of no society that would think it acceptable.

              Hence, in the real world sometimes group dynamics are a legit thing IMO. To me it’s all about balancing it out, and in general maintaining a strong leaning towards the individual… But not getting so retardedly dogmatic that you essentially demand ritual suicide for the sake of the individual, which is basically what open borders would be.

              1. “Do people in such nations not have a right to protect themselves and their progeny from having their lives ruined by foreign immigration?”

                Not if they want to call themselves Liberals, followers of the US constitution. Liberalism is about individual autonomy, designed to help or even encourage people from transcending their family, their bodies, their culture, their nations etc. If you want to preserve and protect these bonds, you’re a Conservative.

                ” ritual suicide for the sake of the individual, which is basically what open borders would be.”

                Don’t be hysterical. Humans have inhabited the planet for hundreds of thousands of years with open borders. Get a grip, your fears are overblown.

                1. “Humans have inhabited the planet for hundreds of thousands of years with open borders. Get a grip, your fears are overblown.”

                  Not really.
                  Humans, and most other higher animals, have always been very serious, and protective, of their borders.

                  1. But these have long been open borders. Cavemen didn’t carry passports or have to open the trunk of their mastodons whenever a Customs and Immigration caveman didn’t like the cut of their loincloth.

                    1. But these have long been open borders. Cavemen didn’t carry passports or have to open the trunk of their mastodons whenever a Customs and Immigration caveman didn’t like the cut of their loincloth.

                      I’d love to say you can’t be this retarded, but you’re mtrueman, of course you can be.

                      ‘Paper hadn’t been invented and they openly slaughtered, raped, and enslaved trespassers specifically because of the cut of their loincloth but cavemen had open borders we should envy and emulate them.’

                      Do you lose IQ points every time you take a dump or something?

                    2. “you can’t be this retarded”

                      I can easily be this retarded and if I try I can be even more retarded.

                2. All BS.

                  “Not if they want to call themselves Liberals, followers of the US constitution. Liberalism is about individual autonomy, designed to help or even encourage people from transcending their family, their bodies, their culture, their nations etc.”

                  The Founders were VERY MUCH in favor of BORDERS, and VERY protective of WHO they allowed in. They accepted groups existed. Thomas Jefferson while being against slavery, also said he was positive that blacks and whites couldn’t possibly live side by side in society without massive problems. He was THE MOST “enlightened” of the lot, most of the rest were way more hard core.

                  As far as open borders… BS. Groups KILLED people who even TRIED to cross into their lands most of the time, and certainly if those coming were in large numbers or threatened their lifestyle in any way.

                  Likewise, the major reason it is an issue today is BECAUSE of modern technology. We never had to worry about literally 10s of millions of people changing CONTINENTS in a few years pre modern transportation. Nowadays we do.

                  As a hypothetical, what if China encouraged 300 million Chinese to move to the US… And then vote to become annexed to China? This is far fetched, but not actually impossible given the math. WHY should a nation accept that they cannot refuse that scenario when it is in fact in their hands to do so?

                  I REJECT the idea that people don’t have a right to control their nations borders and who enters them.

                  1. “As a hypothetical, what if China encouraged 300 million Chinese to move to the US… And then vote to become annexed to China? This is far fetched, but not actually impossible given the math. WHY should a nation accept that they cannot refuse that scenario when it is in fact in their hands to do so?”

                    There might be a higher cost associated with not accepting them. Cultures, nations, languages, all human institutions, are doomed to disappear eventually. It’s the Conservative impulse to conserve and preserve them. Liberals are happiest seeing individuals transcend them.

                    “Likewise, the major reason it is an issue today is BECAUSE of modern technology. We never had to worry about literally 10s of millions of people changing CONTINENTS in a few years pre modern transportation. Nowadays we do.”

                    It’s an understandable concern. But 10s of millions of people don’t decide to up stakes and strike off into a strange land on a whim. Dealing with the issue might call for sacrifices on the part of the wealthy, even though sacrifice is not really a part of Liberal vocabulary. It’s more associated with conservatives.

                    1. Liberals are happiest seeing individuals transcend them.

                      Progressives are and even then, only in concept or the abstract. Classical liberals are ambivalent. If transcending a culture, nation, or language doesn’t bring about more life, freedom and property such as moving from an oligarchy to a socialist regime or electing a nationalist socialist, classical liberals would inherently oppose such a ‘transcendence’.

                    2. “classical liberals would inherently oppose such a ‘transcendence’.”

                      Classical Liberals leave such choices to the individual. The whole point of Liberalism is to strengthen individual freedom and autonomy. They are not ambivalent when it comes to freedom of religion, freedom of trade, freedom of speech. These are core values.

                    3. You are SO insane.

                      You literally just stuck up for the idea of America sitting there cucked like a BITCH, and letting the Communist Chinese take over our great nation without a shot fired. You are fucking insane.

                      NO good could come from such a thing. China is probably going to dominate the 21st century no matter what, but that is no reason for the western world to allow itself to be destroyed by people from shitty cultures that are inferior to ours in terms of freedom. FUCK THAT.

                      You can fuck right off dude.

          2. Opposition to slavery was always a big thing with Whigs, the original (British) party of Classical Liberalism. Same with Free Trade, religious toleration, and a host of other Classical Liberal positions that carry on to this day, shared by most of America’s political actors, regardless of party affiliation.

      2. Wait, British or French/Anglican or Gallic Classical Liberalism?

        Egalite et Fraternite kinda forsake the primacy of the individual.

        1. I was thinking of the Classical Liberalism of Locke and his followers among the Founding Fathers.

          1. Massively overreading into a minimum of words: “life, liberty and property” would appear to put life above or ahead of the other two. Not to even attempt to debunk his philosophy as a whole, but just to potentially correct some misconceptions, his passive involvement in the management of slave owning colonies would seem to put at least portions of each (life, liberty, and property) above ‘slavery’. Again, not to debunk his notions of liberty entirely, but if given the choice of drafting a will to pass on slaves or not Locke would’ve drafted the will. Certainly not an endorsement, but not a stance of absolute eradication.

            1. It wasn’t just Locke who benefited by slavery.

              “”I have not come here to be insulted by a set of wretches, every brick in whose infernal town is cemented with an African’s blood. “”

              That’s a famous quotation by a drunken actor after being booed off the stage. The town he was referring to was Liverpool, and in 18th century it was the busiest slave port in Europe. Had Locke, Jefferson and other slave holding Liberals been born in the 19th century, they probably would have been more outspoken and bolder in their opposition to slavery. It’s a case of being on the wrong side of history.

              1. It’s a case of being on the wrong side of history.

                I don’t know what this means. I’m dead certain that I don’t know because you don’t even know what it means.

                John Locke was born on the wrong side of history? Thomas Jefferson was on the wrong side?

                You miss my point and it isn’t about slavery. They didn’t believe fanatically or zealously in individualism. The individual is of elevated importance but they believed in a minimal form of governance and a society oriented around laws. They didn’t declare the primacy of the individual and then march off into the woods like Thoreau. Again, I don’t mean to indict Jefferson as a filthy slave owner, just to point out that someone who believed in the primacy of the individual would’ve freed the slaves in his employ before his death rather than after. Specifically, his belief that they weren’t capable of function or even survival as individuals, that they were dependents, was his justification for keeping them. I very much do not disagree with his views and stance on the matter, but the fact remains that you don’t wind up with 600 slaves that you regard as dependents by believing in the primacy of each individual. There are plenty of great words to describe his position… potentially generous, protective, careful, helpful, potentially humane, etc., etc…. all of them come before ‘principally individualist’.

                1. “I don’t know what this means. ”

                  It means that they were born too early. Had they been born later, all else being equal, we probably wouldn’t be berating them for their hypocrisy. But maybe we would. It’s merely speculation on my part, and you needn’t concern yourself with it too much.

                  ” just to point out that someone who believed in the primacy of the individual would’ve freed the slaves in his employ before his death rather than after”

                  If that someone is a hypocrite then it’s conceivable they could oppose slavery but possess slaves. We humans are retards, after all.

    3. he calls himself a Zionist, which means ‘alt-right’ in Yiddish.
      Lol

  6. Radical conservative? Shapiro? The Economist has no idea what it’s talking about. Stopped reading that publication roughly 20 years ago.

    1. Shapiro is the Approved Opposition, the right wing of the Globalist Uniparty.

  7. Shapiro is now called a “radical conservative,” which is more defensible, in that it’s not flat-out wrong.

    How absurd. Maybe we could say it’s more defensible since as an opinion it is not provably false. But the truth is that to people on the far left any non-leftism is “radical”. That you accept this means the book is likely to suck too.

    1. He didn’t say it was a good way to describe Shapiro. Just that it wasn’t completely wrong like “alt-right”. Shapiro is definitely a conservative. I wouldn’t call him radical, to me he looks like a pretty straight-up conservative of a certain tradition, but he does differ somewhat radically from some mainstream American conservative views.

      1. What’s ‘mainstream’ conservative views?

        He’s pretty standard conservative.

        Classical conservatives would be seen as ‘radicals’ today.

      2. What’s ‘mainstream’ conservative views?

        He’s pretty standard conservative.

        Classical conservatives would be seen as ‘radicals’ today.

      3. What’s ‘mainstream’ conservative views?

        He’s pretty standard conservative.

        Classical conservatives would be seen as ‘radicals’ today.

        1. I mean what people on the news and stuff call “conservative”. Or what the Rpublican party establishment likes.

          To my way of thinking, Shapiro is a very standard conservative.

          1. Unfortunately these days, in the news media if you’re a gay-marriage, drug legalization supporting, non-racist (as people with working brain cells would define it) type, you’re still right-wing. Or the latest smear from the left: neo-liberal.

          2. It’s been an ever changing bar as American society has been brain washed further and further to the left.

            Shapiro probably would have been a moderate Democrat 30 or 40 years ago, hell even 20! But now he’s a CRAZY right wing zealot. Same thing with Trump. It’s insane how much the political spectrum has shifted to the left. Some of it has been on good issues, but much of it has not been IMO.

            1. Open wide, clinger, and get ready for some PROGRESS comin’ atcha!

      4. What the heck? I pressed submit’ twice and the first didn’t take but it gets posted thrice?

        Weird. Alt-right!

      5. Didn’t Shapiro get started by writing a whole book about the evils of porn? Sounds pretty standard conservative fare to me.

        1. Yeah, he’s definitely conservative, full-stop. But he’s a little more libertarian than many conservatives when it comes to what should be legislated.

          1. Examples of his positions that differ from standard pre-Trump conservatism?

            1. He is opposed to the WOD, for one. He definitely doesn’t like marijuana usage, much less other drugs. But he at least understands that the WOD has caused more harm than good.

              I wouldn’t say I am a fan of his, but I do greatly respect his thoughts, even while I disagree with a number of them.

              But then, I can say that about the entirety of the IDW. I enjoy the conversations between members like Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, etc. Even when I disagree.

              1. Does he support the legalization of heroin? Cause legalization of weed isn’t particularly radical these days and is, I would argue, pretty mainstream, even in many conservative circles (except for politicians beholden to law enforcement and alcohol lobby groups).

                1. No, he is against the legalization of drugs that he considers cause harm. Heroin is one.

                2. Have to admit that given the bullshit I’ve had to endure with meth addicts that I am against legalizing it unless they are not shielded from reprisal when they do all the vile shit meth addicts do.

                  1. But how much of the vile shit has to do with the vile scene created when the drug is illegal? I think a lot of the nastiness around hard drugs has more to do with the scene created by drugs being really expensive and addicts being a largely reviled subculture.

                    1. Most of the vile shit meth addicts do is because that shit fries the mind.

                      Way more so than heroin or crack, the other “demon drugs” of the modern era.

                      Meth isn’t really all that expensive. But its combination of powerful craving and supression of empathy lead to very antisocial behavior.

                    2. I still say it’s hard to know when we haven’t tried it another way. Mind set and setting have a lot to do with how any drig affects a person.

              2. Those guys are advancing the ‘national conversation’ more than anything the left has to offer.

                They’re not hostile to anyone outside their perspectives. Jimmy Dore would fit right in because they discuss and argue in good faith.

              3. I like listening to all of those people because I don’t want to only hear from people who I agree with. I very much want to have my ideas challenged by intelligent people who will actually argue rather than just reacting emotionally.

              4. The crazy thing is that most of the IDW, with the exception of Shapiro, would have been called mainstream liberals 10 years ago.

                1. I am not sure about Peterson, but yes a number of them would have been (and some still consider themselves on the center-left).

              5. “But then, I can say that about the entirety of the IDW.”

                NOTE: IDW = Intellectual (?) Dark Web (right?)

      6. Just that it wasn’t completely wrong like “alt-right”.

        This isn’t nearly a strong enough position as it includes the possibility this description is accurate. But it isn’t, it’s completely absurd.

  8. They think a person’s worth is determined by his membership in a race-based group.

    Careful now, we’re about to pull in 90% of the left into the alt-right.

    1. Let’s say it’s a necessary but not sufficient condition for being in the alt-right.

      1. It’s actually not.

          1. That’s the thing. Nobody knows. I first heard the term used to describe ‘far right’ sites like Stormfront.

            But the media, in their usual lazy and full of shit ways, have determined to expand the definition and hence roster. For example, Peterson qualifies as one.

            Or Proud Boys despite its non-racial origins.

            1. I’m not attached to any definition of “alt-right”. Just trying to nail one down.

              1. Ok, here’s my two cents. And please, everyone feel free to disagree, cause this is just my understanding of how it applied when the term first began to see the light of day:

                The original definition of alt-right as I understood it was it shared some structural DNA with other similar terms such as “alt-country”.

                Alt-country is applied to cool, hep-cat kids who play country music, but a little “cooler”, with a little weed and even some flirtation with doing a little “horse” on occasion.

                Think soul-patches, tats and the occasional pork-pie hat. Hipsters who play country music.

                As the term alt-right went, there was this new breed of political animal who had tats, smoked weed, probably supported gay marriage, didn’t have a negative view of porn, but rejected all the typical left identity politics crap, believed in friedman-esque economics, debunked wage-gaps, gender politics and had a dim view of modern feminism (to name a few). The previous are just examples, but hopefully they’ll light the way of my understanding.

                Who were these new hepcats? They have tats, Republicans don’t have tats! Republicans are old fuddy-duddy white men, they’re like Pat Buchanan! I can’t pidgeon-hole these youngsters! They don’t act like the reliable young, democratic bloc! Hence the term “alt-right”.

                I might call people like Gavin McGinnis as the patient-zero of the alt-right.

                1. Essentially, the term alt-right was used in a more neutral way to describe a new breed of political animal– just like alt-country was a way to describe a slightly different, say, left-of-center type of country music. But it quickly became a smear or an epithet, and then morphed into a new way of saying neo-nazi.

                  Again, kind of how like neocon was initially used to describe a very specific subset of people with a specific set of views and very particular background, and then just became a word that we applied to particularly hawkish republicans.

                2. I do find it interesting some of the more popular ‘alt-righters’ are Canadian – like Gavin, Peterson, Southern, Crowder (born in Michigan, raised in Montreal) and perhaps even Molyneux. Won’t be long before Maxime Bernier (politician) is tagged alt-right.

                  1. I do find it interesting some of the more popular ‘alt-righters’ are Canadian – like Gavin, Peterson, Southern, Crowder (born in Michigan, raised in Montreal) and perhaps even Molyneux.

                    But that’s the thing, if we’re going to conflate (or compare, I’m not standing by my definition hard and fast) the alt-right with the Charlotsville people, then Peterson isn’t within 10,000 miles of being alt-right, yet I hear people flippantly use that term with him.

                    If MY definition of alt-right is more correct, then Peterson *might* be lumped in with them, only because he’s nominally liberal.

                    1. I wouldn’t call Peterson alt-right in any way. He’s only conservative in that he sees the value in many cultural traditions and thinks that people need to get their shit together themselves.

                      One of the things I like the most about the guy is that he steers clear of politics as much as he can and is interested in people as individuals.

                  2. Gavin is the only one listed who might consider his actions to be alt right. Crowder does not at all and denounces them like Shapiro does. Dont be a lefty.

                    1. Gavin is the only one listed who might consider his actions to be alt right. Crowder does not at all and denounces them like Shapiro does. Dont be a lefty.

                      Crowder might denounce them because the shifting definition doesn’t match his definition. If Alt-right means neo-nazi, Crowder SHOULD be denouncing them.

                    2. Pretty sure Gavin McInnes at least used to call himself “alt-right”. He;s the original right-wing hipster.

                    3. Pretty sure Gavin McInnes at least used to call himself “alt-right”. He;s the original right-wing hipster.

                      I don’t know if he did ever call himself alt-right, but it definitely aligns with my definition from the early days.

                      “Check out this new site called Vice, it’s all gonzo reporting and weed and sex and drugs and, wait, that one guy rolled his eyes when I talked about institutional racism and then he said something nice about Reagan. I don’t… I don’t get it. It doesn’t compute!”

                    4. I though he did. I could be thinking of someone else.

                3. This exactly. The alt-right was the smear term used for those on the left who loudly rejected the left’s lurch towards hyper-PC, hard socialism and identity politics. They don’t really belong on the right, as they are anything but conservative, but many have found support there.

                  1. What counts as conservative depends very much on what you want to conserve. Preserving the whiteness of America is a very conservative impulse if you believe that whiteness is an essential feature of the American population that is worth preserving.
                    I think a lot of people make a mistake in thinking that “conservative” just means contemporary, mainstream, American conservatism. The meaning depends entirely on context. In a way radical environmentalists are extremely conservative too. They think there is a way the world is supposed to be and any change is bad.

                    1. The lack of agreed upon political definitions is what drives me most crazy here. I reflexively reject the attitude that “conservative” or “right-wing” are in any way libertarian. Maybe it’s the fact that I grew up in the 90’s when the right was as bat-shit as the progressives are today.
                      Today, if someone truly defines “right” as liberty, and left as “authority” then we’re talking past eachother when I use the more traditional definitions.

                    2. Yeah, definitions are a major problem, because they’re always changing. Right wing today is center left even 10-20 years ago on MANY issues. It is quite annoying.

      2. No, not that their worth is determined by group membership, rather that whites should play identity politics like the left does. Under-girding that desire for whites to play identity politics is the belief that, generally speaking, Western civ and it’s wonders are a product of whites (a debatable point).

        They readily acknowledge that other races are in fact, superior, in many aspects, but not holistically in the development and maintenance of civilizations.

        1. More or less. They accept that individuals exist. They also believe that culture matters, and that it is largely downstream of ones race, at least in some ways.

          For instance based on the fact that Jews, Asians, and THEN whites have the highest IQs consistently in 100% of the research done… They assume that at best other ethnicities will only ever be able to exist as a problematic underclass within a white or Asian dominated society… And who wants tons of problematic underclass people around fucking up your society?

          Frankly, from all the reading I’ve done… I think it’s a correct conclusion. IQ seems to be largely genetic, and IQ determines all kinds of life outcomes. People with 85 IQs simply cannot become doctors. This creates downstream issues that are inevitable, like 50% of murders being committed by blacks who are 12% of the population. It also makes them angsty against whites because they can never have the success whites have. Yet smart blacks integrate in JUST FINE… The problem is they’re a lower percentage of the black population, hence as a whole blacks are more of a problem than not.

          Alternatively, it may well mean that an Asian minority might fight in AWESOME in a white society… Provided there aren’t too many where they’re almost lording it over you. Etc

          Science, when unbiased, seems to support their views… They’re just too politically incorrect for people to want to admit it. Except in Asia, where they fully accept all this as facts still!

    2. That’s like saying we’re about to pull Hitler into Breitbart.

    3. That’s sort of the horseshoe theory. The white nationalists we call alt-right today are basically the left. It was inevitable that identity politics would eventually extend from every other group to whites, as meaningless a term as that is.

      1. Nazis are what happens when you take identity politics to its ultimate logical conclusion.

        1. Yep, to the extreme left.

      2. The alternative to right is left

        1. Not really… The concept of group interests was not historically JUST a left wing thing. Enlightenment era thinkers all 100% accepted differences between races, individuals, etc. Ultra egalitarianism is a modern invention really… And one that is patently false I might add.

          There are those in the alt-right which are left wing on some issues, like economics, but they’re hyper conservative on other issues. Just like the Real Nazis, they’re a mixed ideology in reality. One doesn’t NEED to be 100% rigidly on one side or another technically speaking you know.

    4. It’s only bad when white people do it

    5. The thing that distinguishes the alt right from the right is accepting identity politics as a good thing. Except the Left considers identity politics for the identities the alt right are interested in as beyond the pale. The main sticking point is the Left’s double standard.

      1. Personally, I think identity politics is inevitable. It is the NORM for people. It’s fighting human nature to NOT do it… And we all know how well that tends to work out.

        Either way, if the left is going to do it, then the right MUST also do it. If you don’t, you’ll be destroyed.

  9. Perhaps its editors presumed the term just refers to someone who is even more on the right than your standard conservative.

    It’s possible The Economist headline writers don’t see degrees of Nazism.

  10. I have no problem with identify politics. I do have a problem with monopoly government where only one identity at a time can rule, and we end up alternating between them each election.

    I’d love to have a bare-bones government, and people sign up with whatever association they want by contract, or none, for controlling their lives: turn over your property if you want, turn over your income if you want; all or some fraction, whatever you agree to by contract. Let the damned fools have their identity politics, but stop stealing my money and telling me how to behave.

    1. But there is no appeal to identity politics if you can’t use it to tell people they are wrong and take their money.

    2. “I have no problem with identify politics.”

      Then I have a problem with you.

      1. I don’t have any problem with you, as long as you can’t use monopolistic coercive government to push your identity politics on me. Perhaps you missed that.

        1. Being that identity politics is behind things like punishing people for mis-gendering. You may want to reconsider.

          1. The thing you miss is that people ALWAYS have such opinions. They always will too. It only really becomes a huge problem with the power of the state is brought in.

            Also, if you think people can get rid of identity politics… You’re off your rocker. This type of thinking is programmed into our brains. It never went away, and it never will go away. The way to deal with it is to minimize the practical implications by not having people too radically different within a given nation state, and limiting the hell out of the power of that government.

        2. How can you separate ‘identity politics’ from politics and government? The term has politics in it. It’s essence IS to use coercive force of the government.

          We see that up here with the ideologues running the Liberal party and the enactment of Bill C-16 and anti-Isalmophobia legislation.

          1. It’s because people can’t imagine a non-coercive non-monopolistic government. If people could choose their government, voluntarily through contracts, or choose no government, identify politics would leave others alone.

            Well, these voluntary governments could always wage war against others, but thugs are thugs.

            All you really need is a redress core which is strictly based on measurable tangible harm done, such as violating contracts, or physical harm, such as assault or murder or theft. Leave all that social engineering “harm” to voluntary contracts signed with non-coercive non-monopolistic governments.

            1. Ah, the most tribal design yet

  11. You already messed up labeling the alt-right by approaching the subject from the perspective of the mainstream media (Richard Spencer types) and not from the organic thought generated online. First off, the alt-right is extremely divided and effectively a meaningless label. It’s basically a pejorative at this point because alt-right = white nationalism to most. There’s no need to fight for the label anymore, but an accurate historical representation would note that the alt-right was not unified at any point from within. It simply became an iconoclast.

    “They think a person’s worth is determined by his membership in a race-based group”
    “This is not a movement for black people, Hispanic immigrants, or Jews?all of whom represent a kind of “other” from the standpoint of the alt-right.”

    cont

    1. In the early 2010s, I considered myself alt-right although I am Jewish. That was at a time when nobody in the mainstream ever heard of the alt-right or Richard Spencer (I certainly never heard of him prior to Charlottesville). Once the infighting started, the white nationalist types started calling people like me alt-lite; we acknowledge the connection between race and culture, but stop short of identity politics. Frankly, this idea shouldn’t be considered political because it isn’t exclusive to any ideology. Ask yourself this: if the US traded its entire population with Japan, would the Japanese keep our 2nd amendment? Would we keep their criminal justice system? The answer is most likely no. When you have racially exclusive (or strong racial majority nations), you can generally assume certain values are inherent to their people. Thus, it makes no sense to have a liberal immigration policy where people are treated like blank slates. It’s not that being a certain race “makes” you think a certain way, but that if you’re Pakistani, you’re more likely to have certain values present in Pakistan than America. That’s not because you can’t have those values, but if most Pakistanis had those values, Pakistan wouldn’t be the Pakistan we know today. There’s no inherent statement of superiority or inferiority and matter of fact, we respect all cultures. That’s why many of us believe in the need for restrictive immigration policies to conserve existing cultural norms.

      1. Pakistan is defined by Islam, not race. India was divided into Hindu and Muslim, and the Muslims became Pakistan

        1. Well, divided into Muslim and Hindu-majority Pluralistic

        2. Sure, but white nationalism isn’t limited to skin color. From their perspective (and this is yet another similarity between the alt-right and postmodern, neo-Marxist leftists), whiteness is not in reference to literal melanin, but a larger cultural identity. The two sides aren’t identical though; most of those leftists talk about smashing whiteness in a purely cultural sense (not advocating white genocide) while most alt-rightists consider the two items inseparable.

          1. Not wrong.

            Almost 30 years ago I was slack jawed with astonishment when, in LA, I heard two culturally “American” people – one of them black- refer to themselves as white people.

            It was in a comparison to Mexicans.

          1. The former east Pakistan.

      2. It would be nice to see a thoughtful investigation into the history of people who identify themselves as “alt-right”. I’m sure you are right and there is a lot more to it than the ugly white-nationalism stuff. But you are probably also right that at this point it is permanently linked to those sorts.

        1. I always got the impression that it was mostly the ugly white-nationalism stuff if you scratch deep enough. If someone doesn’t come right out and condemn that stuff, it’s because they are sympathizers.

          1. Scratching implies it’s underneath everyone in the movement. That’s true in 2019, but it wasn’t true during 2016 and certainly not prior to that. Ever wonder why the existing white nationalist groups called their event Unite the Right? They polarized themselves and very smartly (despite the horrible optics) made it impossible for anyone else laying claim to the label alt-right to associate. Everyone else disassociated and that’s where all these splinter movements have come from.

      3. if most Pakistanis had those values, Pakistan wouldn’t be the Pakistan we know today.

        This is part of the problem with the analysis though. It tries to explain a very complex result – “the state of Pakistan today” – by trying to force it to be the dependent variable that depends on only one independent variable, “Pakistani values”. Pakistan is the way that it is based on a whole lot of complex reasons, sure some of it is “Pakistani values”, some of it is the role of Islam, some of it is the legacy of British colonial rule, some of it is geography (not particularly blessed in an agriculturally fertile area), there’s a ton of variables that go into trying to explain why a place is the way it is.

        If the populations of the US and Haiti were to switch places, would the US still be the US, and would Haiti still be Haiti? No.

        HOWEVER,

        If the historical timelines of the US and Haiti were to switch places, with no swap of populations, would the US still be the US, and would Haiti still be Haiti? ALSO No.

        1. The point was not to explain why Pakistan is how it is, but to illustrate that unfortunately, there are certain ideological likelihoods for certain groups of people. If we exiled midwestern, European ancestry Americans into any country that banned guns, you can bet they will push for 2A. Why they will push for 2A isn’t as important as the fact they will. If you collectively want your country not to have guns, those Americans would be like poison. Thus, they should be avoided. I agree with everything you said though.

        2. “Pakistani values” – what the hell does that even mean? Only individuals have value scales.

          1. It means that if you swapped populations right now, there are certain ideas that the Pakistanis will propagate in society. They’re not going to magically transform into beef eating, gun toting, Kardashian worshipping, Constitution loving Americans.

            1. There are so many problems with your statements. Neither country is that homogeneous. For example, five languages have more than 10 million speakers each in Pakistan ? Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Saraiki and Urdu. Also, less than half of Americans could be described as gun-toting. It is these kinds of broad generalizations with which I have a problem.

              1. I don’t see either of your points as problems with his statements. He isn’t saying individuals are to be treated based upon group behavior, he’s saying groups should be treated based upon group behavior. It is uncontroversial that groups behave differently than individuals.

                1. Should we limit individuals rights based on group identities?

                  1. I guess that kind of depends upon the composition of the group and whether we are talking about my personal interactions or government policy.

                2. Exactly. Of course Pakistani in itself is kind of meaningless. There are lots of languages and cultural identities and even those labels don’t do individuals any service. But if we take a random sample of 100 people from within the borders of Pakistan, what do you think they will believe?

                  If a hypothetical country doesn’t want any guns and it has a non-values based immigration system, if they took in enough Americans, they would eventually have a large number of 2A advocates. Even if the percentage is as small as 5% of all Americans (it’s most likely larger than that), import a million Americans and you just bought yourself 50,000 2A advocates. What do you think happens when they settle and have children? What if they outbreed your native population? What if they form a group identity around 2A and advocate importing even more 2A supporters from around the world? What happens if you have a democratic process and they one day comprise a large enough portion of the electorate to have political influence? What if they obtain a majority and can overrule the native population?

                  These are the sorts of questions every society needs to ask itself.

            2. Chipper, you’re being willfully obtuse.

              Group features are A FACT. It doesn’t matter if you like it or not, it is true.

              They may change over time. There may be reasons for things. But at any given moment, statistically relevant differences exist, and can sometimes be VERY IMPORTANT.

              It is a FACT that the USA has been pushed waaay further to the left than we would have been because of immigration over the last few decades. MAYBE we can convert people in time, but importing less freedom oriented people has had THE EXACT effect any logical person would have predicted.

              Individuals should always be looked at as individuals… But to discount clear, obvious, statistical level things is just as foolish

          2. Chipper Morning Wood|3.28.19 @ 2:12PM|#
            “Pakistani values” – what the hell does that even mean? Only individuals have value scales

            Chipper Morning Wood|3.28.19 @ 2:20PM|#
            I always got the impression that it was mostly the ugly white-nationalism stuff if you scratch deep enough. If someone doesn’t come right out and condemn that stuff, it’s because they are sympathizers

      4. Or you could, you know, treat people as individuals. Fuck off, slaver.

        1. Treating people as individuals doesn’t change the fact that if a group of individuals share a similar idea, they can act as a collective to propagate that idea. Even the most ancap memeball society would still have groups.

          1. I am not denying groups are important. I am saying that people, and libertarians in particular, should never uphold the primacy of the group over the individual.

            1. Unfortunately, policy can’t be as granular as individual interaction. It’s a practical matter, nothing more.

              1. So you wouldn’t let immigrants with ties to ISIS immigrate here?!

                Slaver!

                1. THIS.

                  This is the level of stupid that many extremist individualist never want to tackle.

                  Treat a person as they deserve to be treated… But don’t fool yourself into thinking that if you let in 50 million hardcore Muslims that they’re going to instantly become bacon eating, constitution loving Americans. They will not. Maybe in 3 generations, MAYBE they might… But not overnight. And not without pressure forcing them to assimilate.

                  This is why I have always believed in low and slow immigration, no matter the source. Even white Europeans are more leftist than Americans, hence every immigrant we let in from ANYWHERE is ruining the American society I love.

                  1. I have many Muslim friends and they are excellent people. And some of them are hardcore Muslims. They make this country a better place than many so-called Christians I know.

            2. If we don’t hold the primacy of the group over the individual, then a group that does will one day overpower us. Also, individualists are in and of themselves a group.

              1. This is another thing they don’t like to tackle.

                100 individualists are weaker than 50 people operating as a team. Like it or not, this is how things play out in reality. Which is why you need to accept playing as a team, but still have awesome rules/laws for individual freedoms.

                The Founders accepted all this, and set up a great system.

                1. I didn’t say people can’t band together for a common purpose. But when an individual’s values come into conflict with the group, he should be free to disengage from the group.

          2. The difference is, ancaps groups are affiliative, while collectivist groups are assortive. In the former the choice of the individual is prime – you only belong by and to the extent you choose to belong, while in the latter it is almost an inverse relationship and you belong to the group whether you like it or not.

            1. It doesn’t have to be. It depends on the rules the “team” operates under. Thomas Jefferson believed in individuals and their rights… But he wasn’t so retarded and detached from reality he didn’t see that we ALSO needed to function as a team in some spheres. It’s about the balance between the two.

            2. Thanks, ThomasD. I don’t know why it’s so hard for some to understand that.

      5. awildseaking, you’re pretty much spot on.

        The blank slate idea is utter bullshit. From all my reading, I tend to think people are highly malleable over time, and with enough social pressure to integrate… See Europeans with fairly different cultures melting into Americans.

        But then that pesky IQ issues crops up, which IMO limits how far this can go between certain groups. Then there is the biologically programmed into us preference for people who look more similar to ourselves, which would make people cliquish if not outright clannish even in a multi racial mono culture.

  12. >>>>includes an entire chapter on the alt-right

    hope the last seven pages of the chapter are “hahahahahahaha … these fucking idiots are too stupid to be considered fucking idiots.

    >>>>”running away” from the sense of belonging that identity politics can provide

    only thing identity politics provides is power for the Richard Spencers … fuck that

  13. You know, it is a constant source of amazement to me that people like Robby are -shocked- that identity is at the core of the new alt-national socialist workers party. This is what socialists do, and how they think: since “from each, to every according to what they deserve” has only a decision about worthiness as the criteria in deciding what the Commissariat will deign to deliver, the more people will adopt around and promote the approved Identity.

    Were you conned into thinking that the national boundary a National Socialist craves somehow negates the “socialist” part? Whether they are Internationalist Communists or not, assignment of intrinsic personal worth and blame based on racial, religious, etc. identity is _what_ _they_ _do_.

    Welcome to the miserable fucking 21st century bud. It rhymes pretty well with the early 20th century I’d say. Hold on tight for the middle stanza.

    1. What makes you think he’s shocked? I’m not getting that sense. He’s just trying to sell books.

      1. I can accept Robby as being “a disengenuous fuck” rather than “an obtuse jerk off”. But for most of the Reason staff, these are not mutually exclusive qualities.

  14. Dear lord…..You’re writing a book?!? Your skills are nowhere near developed enough. I know the bar has fallen pretty low lately but come on Robbie….Virtually everyone else on staff is a better journalist, writer and thinker than you. It seems as if Reason is pushing you on us as the future of Reason and libertarianism…ugh.

    1. He should stick to going on Tucker. It has the added benefit of mitigating his “both sides” tendencies

    2. Writing a book and getting it published these days is trivially easy. Getting people to buy it or give it credence, less so.

    3. His writing probably needs to mature a bit more, but I think he’s done some quite good reporting.

      1. Yeah, Robby has gotten a lot better over time.

    4. Virtually everyone else on staff is a better journalist, writer and thinker than you.

      Well, Shikha Dalmia certainly is. But there’s no shame in failing to measure up to the greatest living libertarian writer.

      1. Fuck I KNEW YOU WERE A PARODY ACCOUNT!

    5. He’s one of the only people not only at Reason, but in the media, to do actual journalism

      1. And while his instincts do need some work, Reason certainly has and does pay worse writers and thinkers and I don’t just mean Dalmia.

        1. Someone’s been listening to the weekly podcast

    6. Robbie is on Tucker a lot. maybe he thinks that will give him enough exposure to sell some books. Even if they are weak and equivocating.

  15. If Shapiro is a radical conservative, who’s a normal conservative? Nancy Pelosi?

    1. Anna Navarro and Jennifer Rubin, duh

    2. Shapiro is what I would think should be considered a normal conservative. But I think it’s fair to say he differs a fair amount from what is considered mainstream conservatism in the US. “Radical” really doesn’t seem like the right word, though.

      1. In case you missed my comment up top so I’ll repeat here. Fair enough but what is ‘mainstream conservative’?

        It’s not really a thing in my view. Is it any different from ‘mainstream’ libertarianism or liberalism or socialism or whatever?

          1. Saw it. Got it. Thanks.

          2. See my snarky comment up top.

            Oh, wait…

        1. 20 years ago I would have said mainstream conservatism was best articulated by guys like Buckley and Will but that is clearly no longer the case. The media has most of the country convinced that Trump is a radical conservative but he’s hated by the neocons because his policies look a lot more like Jimmy Carter’s or Bill Clinton’s than GW Bush. Small l libertarians are by nature skeptical of group identity dogma so it’s hard to identify a unifying belief system beyond the NAP and they even argue about that. Progressives seem to be the only group that pretty much marches in lockstep but I could be wrong about that. Seems to me all of these labels have outlived their usefulness.

    3. anybody w/a radio show.

    4. And that’s the heart of the matter isn’t it. Portraying Shapiro as a young and prominent member of the middle of the conservative movement isn’t quite so othering is it?

  16. Nobody in the “alt-right” really calls it that anymore. Richard Spencer *may* have coined the phrase (and done more to destroy the brand than any human alive), but they self identify as the “dissonant right” or the “affirmative right” these days

    1. “but they self identify as the “dissonant right” or the “affirmative right” these days”

      Why do they prefer such vague and unhelpful designations? Why not ‘anti-global right’ to distinguish it from Classical and Neo-Liberals? Anti-global right is short, to the point, and not prejudicial to my ears, at least.

      1. My guess is because no one is the putative leader such that they can get agreement on branding decisions.

      2. I think just rolling with Nationalist Right or something would be fine… Because at the end of the day the nationalism and anti-globalism really are kind of at the core of where they differ from other right leaners.

        1. “are kind of at the core of where they differ from other right leaners”

          And most left leaners, too. Nationalist Leftists are mostly a thing of anti colonial struggles in Vietnam, Africa etc. The Black Panthers, Quebec Separatists and other groups centered in wealthier countries never shared the successes of national liberation, modest and disappointing as they were.

          1. Yeah, well the utopian globalist mantra has been pushed by EVERYBODY in the power elite for decades now… So the left and right both take it for granted, and anybody who questions that perhaps globalism has its limits, or that there are pros and cons, etc is a heretic. But reality shows that it DOES have a lot of down sides in real life, day to day, practical ways for lots of people.

            Things from my gun rights being voted away for foreign shit heels, to my taxes being raised, to having to listen to them whine about how *GASP* Americans are Anglocentric in their world view… When the nation was founded by British people. Those ALL annoy me. And they’re things that we don’t HAVE to put up with if we don’t want to, and many people are deciding they’d rather not have to put up with bitching minorities, at least not at the scale we have them now.

            1. “Things from my gun rights being voted away for foreign shit heels, to my taxes being raised, to having to listen to them whine about how *GASP* Americans are Anglocentric in their world view… When the nation was founded by British people. Those ALL annoy me.”

              Because you’re not a Liberal. In any sense of the word.

              “And they’re things that we don’t HAVE to put up with if we don’t want to, and many people are deciding they’d rather not have to put up with bitching minorities”

              A Liberal would advise you to migrate. You’ve got legs, use them. Humans have always migrated when they find the conditions they are living under intolerable.

              1. The problem is MORONS like you have destroyed the entire civilized world!

                If some country in Europe, or elsewhere, were actually free I WOULD MOVE. But they’re all even worse than here! So I feel like I have to stay and fight for the survival of my civilization. And we have morons like you trying to destroy it from within.

                I actually AM a classical liberal in almost all respects… But you modern retards have taken some of the original general premises and taken them to extremes NONE of the original proponents suggested, many directly stated they’re against, etc.

                Thomas Jefferson accepted that society and culture MATTERED, and that defending the tradition of British culture and improving upon it here in America was of a GREAT VALUE. TJ would agree WITH ME, not you moron.

  17. I’m not sure the White Nationalist movement is any more numerous than they’ve been since they lost the segregation war in the 60’s. It’s just a little more visible on the internet than hiding out in compounds in Idaho and only venturing out for armored car robberies.

    But if there is a revival of white nationalism then I blame the left and their identity politics, if you spend all your time and energy saying race is the most important attribute then some people will pay attention. And I’m not sure its completely unintentional. Their have to be at least a few neo-Nazis to gin up your supporters and tar your opponents with, even though conservatives don’t want or need the white nationalist fringe.

    1. I very much doubt they have grown in numbers. There is really no more despised ideology in this country today.

      1. Publiclly for sure Zeb. In the long term, Kazinki’s point is a good one. The left has set up a system where every group but whites gets to play identity politics and wage tribal warfare for its own benefit. That can’t last forever. It either stops and we have a color blind society or whites start doing the same thing.

        1. Well, whites are ALREADY a minority in the under 18 demographic in the USA… How long can you continue to play one sided identity politics, WHEN YOU’RE NO LONGER THE MAJORITY?

          Just pragmatically speaking you HAVE TO start acting as a group, or you’ll be destroyed. So that is what is happening. You can thank commies, globalists, and mass immigration for these problems. They will only be getting worse too as time goes on. Not better.

        2. Well, whites are ALREADY a minority in the under 18 demographic in the USA… How long can you continue to play one sided identity politics, WHEN YOU’RE NO LONGER THE MAJORITY?

          Just pragmatically speaking you HAVE TO start acting as a group, or you’ll be destroyed. So that is what is happening. You can thank commies, globalists, and mass immigration for these problems. They will only be getting worse too as time goes on. Not better.

    2. If it swelled it’s because it includes people who merely rebuttal the far left narrative.

    3. It is an interesting question as to whether these people were always around to this extend before Trump and whether the media just started reporting on them more with Trump, whether they came out of the woodwork with Trump, or whether Trump caused, directly or indirectly, an actual increase in their numbers.

      1. Spencer has been around for years. These groups have been around forever. They are just getting attention now because the media sees covering them as a way to attack Trump.

      2. Well, it can be asked did Obama feed into groups like BLM?

        White nationalists have been around forever. The Internet probably brought them more notoriety but when the media decided Trump was a racist and a literal Nazi, they fed that line I reckon.

      3. Uhhh, white nationalism was the official policy of the US government until 1965. I’d argue there are MANY fewer than there were in recent decades, everybody is just pant shitting about it now.

        If they had openly admitted that the changes in immigration policy would cause whites to be a minority in this country in 1965 instead of lying about it like they did, there is ZERO chance that law would have been passed too.

        The reality is NOBODY likes to become a minority in their own homeland… But that is exactly what is happening in the USA, and even in Europe. So you can expect lots more white people to get PISSED as they come to realize what the actual implications of this are. It was a horrible idea IMO, and now we’re going to have to put up with the disaster it has caused. Seeing the total disintegration of social cohesiveness is only the beginning. Shit’s going to get real the further it goes.

        1. ^And there it is. As I pointed out above, scratch these guys deep enough and you find a white nationalist. I’ve been enough of these discussions to know that’s where it always ends up with them.

          1. Pshh, I’ve never hidden any of this.

            I believe ALL nations should be able to maintain their original ethno-cultural group as a super majority. I don’t mind some foreigners poking about… But where the fuck does it say it’s moral to conquer a country via illegal mass migration? Typically in history people tried to PROTECT their land from others stealing it, which seems reasonable to me.

            You can say America is its own weird situation and we can’t bitch about it, despite being 85-90% white since the founding… Fine. But where is your moral grounds that European nations aren’t allowed to remain white in the lands where their ancestors have lived for 10s of thousands of years in some cases? Scandinavians, according to DNA tests, have lived there longer than the Native Americas have been in the Americas!

            So piss off.

    4. I’m not sure the White Nationalist movement is any more numerous than they’ve been since they lost the segregation war in the 60’s.

      But if there is a revival of white nationalism then I blame the left and their identity politics, if you spend all your time and energy saying race is the most important attribute then some people will pay attention. And I’m not sure its completely unintentional.

      I don’t think it’s unintentional, what the core of the problem is that the legitimization was unexpected. I think you’re right that their numbers haven’t grown, but I think more people have been asked the question(s) “Canada, Sweden, Japan, etc. are more ethnically pure than the U.S. is that a problem and what should be done about it?” and find themselves increasingly answering “No, and nothing.” When white people were hanging their black neighbors from trees because some white woman said they looked at her sideways nobody gave a fuck how ethnically pure Sweden or any other country was. Now that Antifa is beating people over the head with bike locks and setting cars on fire David Duke’s arrest for inciting a riot doesn’t seem as menacing.

      Fewer and fewer people will identify as white nationalists, but more and more people are becoming convinced that punching Nazis in the face has solved anything since 1945.

      1. When white people were hanging their black neighbors from trees because some white woman said they looked at her sideways nobody gave a fuck how ethnically pure Sweden or any other country was.

        Ironically, the only people hanging black men at least metaphorically because some white woman said they looked at them wrong are leftsists on college campuses. Funny how history works out sometime.

      2. *hasn’t* solved anything

      3. Furthermore, I think a lot of people are realizing that there are VIRTUES in Japan and what Sweden used to be.

        The fact is that the USA has a TON of MASSIVE, real world, problems because we allowed in so many people from all over the world. If it was still just blacks and whites hashing shit out, we would have a FAR more harmonious society, with fewer problems and points of contention. Every new person you have to invite to a negotiating table creates a ton more problems in hammering out a workable way forward. The USA is almost at the point where it is impossible to do anything, because everything pisses off somebody. Japan doesn’t have this issue. And the USA didn’t when we were ~85% white in the 60s.

        Multiculturalism is a failed experiment… And the USA has been destroyed for the sake of trying out something anybody with common sense could see would be problematic from day one. The only question is how things will play out going forward. I for one am for splitting the country up, but we’ll see how it goes.

  18. “My guess is that The Economist has no idea what the alt-right is and just wanted a headline that rhymed.”
    Your guess is incredibly naive. It was purposeful calumny.

    1. Yeh, it’s TE. It’s not Buzzfeed.

  19. Shapiro is now called a “radical conservative,” which is more defensible, in that it’s not flat-out wrong.

    He’s got pretty run-of-the-mill conservative opinions, so it’s wrong, maybe even flat out.

    1. one of Robby’s biggest flaws is that he thinks progressives are well-meaning, reasonable people who say everything in good faith

      1. That is his basic flaw. He always goes off track twisting himself into a preztel trying to excuse and justify the left as well meaning and generally better and never worse than the right.

        1. Some of them are. It does make me wonder though, do the libertarians who openly acknowledge the ulterior motives of power-seeking individuals in other contexts not extend that same line of thinking to Democrats or those on the left?

          1. If the Libertarian in question works for Reason, no they don’t. In their minds those principles only apply to evil Republicans.

            1. Many “libertarians” are reflexively progressive – that is, their perspective, psychology, prejudices, morals, etc are of the progressive paradigm, even if their nominal philosophy isn’t socialism/progressivism.
              See chipper morning eunuch, chemjeff for examples

              1. It’s a mindset. Lots of research shows people basically have different types of brains. Bleeding heart brains think a certain way, conservative brains another. I have a conservative/empirical brain… Most of the Reason writers have Feelz brains, as do many posters.

                It is hard wired, so it’s hard to chastise them because they can’t help it… But damn I do hate them most of the time.

        2. Robby may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he knows how he got – and how he keeps – this gig.

    2. It is totally flat out wrong. Shapiro doesn’t hold a single non mainstream opinion. If Robby thinks Shapiro is a radical conservative, then anyone left of Hillary Clinton is a conservative.

      1. I don’t think Hillary has any real ideology. Psychopaths never do. More likely she just uses ideology as a tool to attain more power. I suspect if she believed that becoming a conservative republican would give her a lock on the presidency that she wouldn’t even blink.

  20. As wrong as this is, the fact that Shapiro has nearly made a carreer out of accusing anyone who disagrees with him on the right of being a “white nationalist”, it is hard to say justice wasn’t served. Karma can be a bitch sometime.

  21. Serious question, am I the only person who has no idea why I know who Ben Shapiro is? What exactly does he do? He doesn’t have a regular writing gig anywhere that I can tell. He doesn’t seem to have ever held a real job or accomplished anything other than once attending Harvard Law school. I really have no idea why I know about him. He just seems to have materialized on the internet sometime during 2016.

    1. What exactly does he do?

      He’s got a radio talk show, for what it’s worth. He goes on TV shows to debate and opine. He worked at Breitbart for a while. I think his occupation would be most accurately described as “pundit.”

      1. I didn’t know he had a radio show. As best I can tell he seems to mostly speak on college campuses and argue with college kids. He seems to go around and beat dumb college kids in arguments and then take that as some kind of serious feat. He is a 30 something year old man with a graduate degree and his major claim to fame is that he can kick around college students in arguments. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny. In fairness, I guess that qualifies him to be a “Pundit” just as much as any of the other “pundits” are qualfied.

        1. The radio show is fairly new, he competes with Hannity, and comes on after Rush.

          1. He is such a putz, I find it hard to believe he attracts much of an audience. Rush is funnier than hell and is basically a force of nature at this point. Hanity is not really my cup of tea but there is no denying he attracts a huge following. Who is going to listen to Shapiro? He totally alienated the Trump supporters. And I would think that would be 90% or more of his potential audience.

            1. I think he founded The Daily Caller.

              1. That was Tucker Carlson.

                1. Sorry Daily Wire I meant.

                  Fuh.

              2. He founded the Daily Wire, which is pretty much the same thing.

                As for the radio show, I find he talks to much, and to fast, and almost over his few guests. Most annoying, is that he shifts to commercials in the same voice, then back into commentary, right away. Yes, he likely makes more $ this way as I (and countless others) switch to FM when the commercials start when I listen to Rush or Hannity or Levin. In short, his style works for YouTube, not radio.

            2. Tucker is far and away the best of the fairly mainstream conservatives nowadays. Who ever knew all that fire was hiding under that bow tie when we was doing puff pieces on CNN!

        2. If memory, serves, he first came to attention while still in school, running a college paper, I think.

        3. he’s very squeaky.

        4. I think he also has some kind of law practice.

          I kind of like him because he seems to be pretty consistent and honest. But he’s pretty dull too.

          1. That’s why he got big. He’s a nice boring, predictable, Jewish boy who kind of sums up all the stereotypes you might expect out of a conservative.

  22. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 10000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
    Check For info Here,
    ===> http://www.Theprocoin.com

  23. Let’s also not forget that Shapiro was one of the worst offenders in slandering the Covington kids. Being slandered is something that is only supposed to happen to deplorables I guess.

    1. Retracted and corrected

      1. That is nice. But that doesn’t excuse him for doing it in the first place. And for the record, the Economist has deleted this headline. So, I guess everything is good, right?

      2. Shapiro also “retracted” his call for the forcible expulsion of all non-Jews from Israel. He’s as much a racist as anyone in Robby’s narrow definition of the “alt-right”. Or was, until he retracted his long-held views on violent ethno-nationalist identity politics.

        1. Well, that’s most Jews for you. One way is acceptable for Israel, but every European nation needs to be held to a completely different standard! And it’s fine for Asians to do WTF ever too. But them white folks need to be kept in line!

          I watch a YouTuber who is a hard core right wing Orthodox Jew pretty frequently… His thinking is that many in the Jewish intelligentsia basically just have a subconscious reflexive fear of letting white people do their own thing and have white countries, because of Jews history of getting shafted… But they don’t REALLY hold those opinions, it’s just something they do to pragmatically keep white nations from getting out of line. I think he’s right.

          1. The EU is what happened after European “elites” – including those in the US – saw that Nazism, the only inherently honest form of progressivism, failed because it was too direct and unsubtle.
            WWII was the war for which form of progressivism – fascism, nazism, communism, or social democracy – would rule. Social democracy and communism came out on top in the short term, which created the conditions for the long term conquest of fascism.
            So, now that the EU has realized a fascist Europe, only one thing remains for nazism’s dreams to be fulfilled: to get rid of the remaining jews.
            Therefore, bring on the Muslims

            1. I don’t think they really mind the Jews… Honestly I think it is a need to marginalize white people, so that they can’t cause problems. A strong, unified white nation is a powerful thing. The UK, Germany, France… They’re global players. If there is no unity in those nations, they’re easier to control. Therefore flood them with foreigners, and they’ll be in endless disunity and infighting. It’s simple divide and conquer. The globalists don’t want ANYBODY actually unified and able to stand up for their own interests IMO. They want everything to be rule by consensus, and “equally” distributed, as decided by them.

    2. I think there were worse who piled on but he didn’t stick to the lie after the truth came out like other places like CNN, WaPo and those asshole celebrities.

  24. But the alt-right is a very specific ideological group that is not really more or less conservative.

    When did that happen? Look at the archive of your own tag for the term, and you see that’s not a consistent characterization, even just on Reason.

    I mean, y’all used to say it wasn’t fair to call the alt-right Nazis or racists or anything like that. Now it’s okay? If you’re changing your tune, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t try and pretend you didn’t change it.

    1. The Reason Stylebook has not been fully colored yet.

      My guess is someone ate the crayons.

    2. As this thread demonstrates, the meaning of “alt-right” is pretty hard to nail down and seems to have changed over the past several years. I don’t think Reason can be held responsible for that.

      1. Uh, look at the piece above your comments.

  25. so ben shapiro isn’t alt right and the Economist made a mistake. so?

    1. So look at all the interesting discussion it prompted. This is a blog, that’s what blogs are for.

  26. “They think a person’s worth is determined by his membership in a race-based group.”

    Ah, so basically just like woketarians on the left…

    1. that’s certainly what you want to believe. reality, however.

      1. Are you arguing that the left DOESN’T believe that? LOLOLOLOL

  27. “They think a person’s worth is determined by his membership in a race-based group.”

    Robby, please explain how – unlike all the other categories within the Intersectional Olympics – their particular sort of identity politics makes them on the right?

    1. (Or, when you speak of the left-right divide are you implicitly accepting that collectivism is an aspect common to the entire continuum?)

      1. Or perhaps the left-right continuum isn’t adequate to characterize every political strain there is.

        1. That’s a rather pointless conclusion though. If only because everything can be said to either be left of right of something.

          the problem is more that too many people are unable – or worse – unwilling to make their terms explicit.

          1. I agree that is the main problem.

    2. Well, many advocate other conservative/right wing viewpoints.

      As I said about the ACTUAL Nazis above, most political parties/movements tend to be mixed ideologies. Almost nobody is ever 100% pure on ideological grounds. Most alt-right people are pro traditional morals, gender norms, for lower taxes/smaller government, etc. That does not NEED to exclude them thinking that immigration should be strictly controlled.

  28. “They think a person’s worth is determined by his membership in a race-based group.

    Unlike Black Lives Matter or La Raza (now called UnidosUS).

    There are many groups who base a person’s worth based on race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, religion, politics or various combinations of the aforementioned.

    1. And someone said that other groups don’t also share that ugly attachment to identity politics?

      What is this, the non-sequitur section?

  29. Given how wrong the economist is about the US, how can I trust them on any other topic outside the U.K.? And why do I care about the U.K.? They make 2000 Florida look decisive.

  30. It wasn’t a mistake. They know Shapiro is popular among young people and they want to try to delegitimize and deplatform him by calling him alt-right

  31. “They think a person’s worth is determined by his membership in a race-based group.”

    This is not right at all, in terms of how most in that circle think. Everybody in that sphere accepts that individuals are individuals. However they accept that group differences exist, which according to science THEY DO. They think that lumping people together creates problems and friction, especially with less successful groups, and the trouble isn’t worth it. This seems to be playing out in reality exactly as one would expect in the west, now that we have lost a super majority.

    “The alt-right wants the U.S. to be a place for white Europeans and their descendants, and for the government to promote and protect the interests of white Europeans and their descendants. This is not a movement for black people, Hispanic immigrants, or Jews?all of whom represent a kind of “other” from the standpoint of the alt-right.”

    The first part is true, 2nd is sometimes true. Many just think the USA and Europe, along with EVERY part of the world I might add, should have their original ethnic group as a super majority. Not that ZERO foreigners should be allowed… But that everybody is entitled to a homeland, instead of being forced to take in people who dislike/outright hate their way of life, and having to accommodate those people. 90% European Europe is fine in most peoples books, Brits becoming a minority group in the UK, not so much.

    1. The fact is MUCH of the info the alt-right talks about is 100% correct. Whites are on track to be a minority IN EUROPE within a few decades, sooner in the USA… This just seems wrong. People don’t like it either, but it is being forced on them by progressive politicians. Nowhere else on earth is doing this stupid shit either. Not Asia, Africa, anywhere… Just prog white areas.

      I think IQ differences, cultural issues, religious issues, etc all add up to their views being pragmatically speaking a lot more realistic… Multi-ethnic societies ALWAYS have tons of trouble.

      Everybody BUT whites never gave up their identity, which is why whites are the only ones being obliterated by this thinking. I think this worldview will be belatedly accepted as being correct, after it’s already too late to save western civilization.

      Not a hard 100% purist version of this thinking mind you, but a “Everybody has a right to be a super majority in their homeland, and people need to adhere to THEIR social standards if they want to move there.” There is nothing immoral about this view IMO, and it seems to create far more functional societies. Imagine how well the USA would be humming along if we had ZERO race issues sucking up attention like Japan does?

      Spencer is a moron. Jared Taylor is a far more intelligent, thoughtful, and wise person to read if you want to get the skinny on this line of thinking.

      1. no one forces immigrants on you. They come here and exchange goods and services with someone who accepts them voluntarily.

        You don’t have a right to dictate the ethnic composition of your neighborhood, city, country ,etc. If all the landowners around you want to sell to people who don’t look like you, the only solution is for you to suck a fck.

        A collective right to a positive good (a piece of real estate where people like you area super majority) is a form of socialism, albeit, national socialism.

        “Imagine how well the USA would be humming along if we had ZERO race issues sucking up attention like Japan does?” – Japan has been in recession forever, it’s population is ageing, putting a huge amount of strain on public finances. The US doesn’t have these problems to the same degree, because, thankfully, we let immigrants in.

        All of you all need to find a new website. This is Reason, not the daily stormer. Around here, we believe that if i want to hire Jose at my business,or lodge him at my rental, or etc, you get no say in it.

        You’re not losing your identity, your race isn’t losing it’s identity. You’re just xenophobic, and are not only trying to justify being a bigot, but trying to justify imposing your bigotry on your community without their consent. There’s nothing libertarian about it.

        1. LOL

          This would be fine and well, in an actual FREE SOCIETY. The problem is we live in one where freedom of association has been taken away from people… So nobody is allowed to create a Whiteopia or Asiantopia with other like minded individuals.

          Then, there is the matter of socialized government programs, where I am FORCED AGAINST MY WILL to subsidize low skilled immigrants… It’s fine for somebody to hire Jose, but it’s NOT fine to force me to subsidize his costs of living, his kids education, etc.

          All that I can say is people who support TRUE open borders are morons… No 1st world nation could survive open borders without turning into a shit hole. It is immoral to forcibly destroy a nicer society against the will of the people over some ideological bullshit idea like that. After you get to that point, it’s just a question of having fair and reasonable rules.

          I’m actually okay with skills based immigration of people from any ethnicity… But I think they need to be able to pull their weight, and I think we need to slow down the numbers so people have time to assimilate without destroying our social fabric.

          1. I WISH the world worked the way it does in fantasy land where people like you live… But it doesn’t. In practical terms IMO mass scale immigration of wildly differing cultures will always make life all fucked up… Exactly like it has done in the USA.

            You ignore all the problems it has brought to the USA, while discounting all the benefits Japan has. Japanese people can send their 5 year olds to school on the train in Tokyo with ZERO worries. What is THAT worth? What is their low crime rate worth? What is not having your blood pressure up over endless ethnic based fighting lines worth?

            If the US had let in 20% as many immigrants as we have in recent decades, but 100% of them had been highly skilled, we’d probably be BETTER off economically. We wouldn’t have all these low skill welfare leeches. We wouldn’t have the associated crime. Etc.

            There is a path between Japan and the disaster we have, or even true open borders. I advocate for that middle path.

            1. “I WISH the world worked the way it does in fantasy land where people like you live… But it doesn’t. In practical terms IMO mass scale immigration of wildly differing cultures will always make life all fucked up…”

              – i’m sorry, did you really just say, mass immigration of wildly differing cultures will always make life all effed up? Despite not being coherent argument for or against anything, we have had mass migration from all over without things being all effed up.

              “Japanese people can send their 5 year olds to school on the train in Tokyo with ZERO worries.” – yup, study after study has shown that immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native born americans.

              “What is not having your blood pressure up over endless ethnic based fighting lines worth?” – besides a remedial english lesson (ironically the kind they give to ESL immigrants), it sounds like you need therapy.

              “If the US had let in 20% as many immigrants as we have in recent decades, but 100% of them had been highly skilled, we’d probably be BETTER off economically.” – [citation missing]

              “We wouldn’t have all these low skill welfare leeches. ” – native born population is the biggest welfare leech, buddy. immigrants can’t just come here and go on the dole without ever contributing. Illegal immigrants often pay payroll taxes without the obvious benefit of having their own SSN.

              1. Ugh. First off the crime stats for immigrants confuse legal and illegal, and ALSO include black crime stats for native born… If you remove those, immigrants commit MORE crimes, especially illegal ones. Likewise with your claims of welfare. Those have been debunked many times, immigrants are MORE likely than native born to use it… And ESPECIALLY so if you remove black Americans.

                You can’t conceive of how single a $150K a year engineer is more valuable economically than 4 $20K a year floor sweepers? It’s pretty simple math…

                As for the peace of not living in a society filled with infighting, you have to go to a country that isn’t the US to know what that peace is like. The mass immigration here HAS fucked the USA up. Do you not count massive protests and riots over issues that wouldn’t even exist as being problems? Because they count as problems in my book.

                You’re just a moron, so I don’t even know that I’ll respond to any of your other nonsense… But if you’re young enough to be alive when this shit fully hits most Americans in another decade or two, just remember I was right, your utopian ideas were wrong… And you can apologize to me if we’re both still posting here.

          2. so, because some people have initiated aggression against you, it’s ok for your to do it to others? Or because Jose might use welfare someday hypothetically, he can’t come here when i want to hire him? Should i be able to prevent you from owning a weapon because you might misuse it?

            “It’s fine for somebody to hire Jose, but it’s NOT fine to force me to subsidize his costs of living, his kids education, etc.” – it’s just funny that you focus on Jose’s public cost, and not the natives. Are you kicking out native born welfare recipients? Also, it’s not like illegal immigrants are on the dole, and it’s not like first gen immigrants can come here and just go on the dole without ever contributing.

            “All that I can say is people who support TRUE open borders are morons” – if by open borders you mean literally no border control at all, including no supervision of immigration for even things like communicable diseases, i think you’ll have trouble finding even one person who takes this stance. I.e. dumb strawman argument the spencer types use to trick innocent, but not that educated laymen such as yourself.

            “It is immoral to forcibly destroy a nicer society against the will of the people over some ideological bullshit idea like that.” – no one owns are society. our society is the result of individual decisions and actions. you have no right to a certain type of society.

            1. I WANT to end native born welfare too! But because we have some use by natives, that DOES NOT make it a good idea to import MORE people who are EXACTLY in the demographic that uses it here! Low education, low income people NEVER pay in enough to cover their share of government, even if they don’t use a PENNY in direct welfare. So yes, they DO collect subsidies from me, right off the bat. As far as throwing out native born deadbeats… You do understand there’s a difference between being stuck with a shitty dead beat son/daughter, versus going out of your way to adopt a dead beat kid right? Native dead beats suck, but we’re stuck with them, doesn’t mean we need to import more.

              An engineer you allow in will pay in more than they ever use… Even a well meaning janitor WILL NOT. Period. I don’t want to pay for your GOOD FEELZ about letting in 3rd world peasants.

              Actually, some people DO argue for basically totally open borders idiot. I’m not advocating totally closed borders either moron, so you’re basically saying we’re quibbling about the details?

              1. As for society at large… This is basically a collective decision a nation makes.

                Do we want to become a 3rd world toilet, or RAISE our average income by importing people MORE qualified than the average native? Do we want to import religious issues from other continents or not? Etc.

                These are decisions a society has to make… Most Americans want a decent number of high skilled immigrants. It’s mostly just the political class that is against common sense in these matters. And idiots like you. I understand that I’m at the whim of majoritarian ideas here, and it sucks, because many people are idiots… But it is what it is.

                Your alternative of simply saying “Gee schucks, I guess we’ll just let in ANYONE!” Is an even WORSE alternative than letting people collectively make up our minds through elections and those we put into congress. All I now is my ideals would make for a country 90% of people would find nicer than just letting in any peasant from around the world.

  32. You don’t seem to have an idea about what alt right is. Alt Right is anybody who’s to the right of Jebb Bush and Nancy Pelosi. It’s a pretty wide range of people. Enough of them to get The Don elected.

  33. Who the fuck knows and at the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter.

  34. “the alt-right sage without the rage”

    Is he not? Is he opposed to the ethnic nationalism of Israel? To their religious nationalism?

    1. Alt-right =/= nationalism

      1. Alt-Right = ethnonationalism

  35. The Alt-Right is Not Right – It’s Left…..The alt-right is myth
    One of the pillars of conservatism is “The Golden Rule,” which automatically precludes white nationalism or racial supremacy of any kind.
    According to McPaper, the white nationalist/supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2008. If he uses the term alt-right to identify himself and his fellow believers ? this begs a question?
    Was President Woodrow Wilson a member of the alt-right? He was a racist white supremacist.
    So were President Lyndon Johnson and the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd.
    Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to halt the spread of the black race. I’d call that white supremacism.
    The KKK was the enforcers of the white supremacist Southern Democrat Party, the Dixiecrats.
    Alt-right demonstrators hit the streets adorned with Nazi paraphernalia and Confederate flags.
    Neither of those symbols represents American conservatism.
    In fact, the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, which these nuts appear to be so fond of, was a tale of combat between two competing leftist ideologies ? fascism and communism.

    1. Neither of those symbols represents American conservatism.
      In fact, the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, which these nuts appear to be so fond of, was a tale of combat between two competing leftist ideologies ? fascism and communism.
      Neither faction incidentally resembled conservatism or what we’ve come to know as “the right.”
      The German KPD was the largest communist party outside the Soviet Union during the 1920s.
      It was the Trotsky-inspired KPD or German Communist Party vs. the Hitler led fascist “National Socialist German Workers Party” (Nazis).
      There were no “right-wingers” involved at all.
      And did I see the word socialist?
      By cracky, I did.
      I don’t know of anyone who would confuse conservatism with socialism.
      The alt-right is myth.

  36. It’s a name crafted to confuse the public into thinking these loons were spawned out of the conservative movement.
    It should actually be relabeled, or labeled properly as the National Socialist American Party, because they are in fact fascists – not of the right and certainly not conservative.
    But because of our woefully inept education system in this country, most believe fascism and Hitler were right wing.
    They couldn’t be more wrong.
    The fascists were leftists who had/have a lot more in common with communists than with free market conservative capitalists.
    The major difference between fascists and communists is that the former is nationalistic and the latter, internationalistic.
    http://freedomoutpost.com/alt-…..ight-left/

  37. Before 2016 alt-right used to mean just newer paleocons, conservatives who werent into constant middle east wars and so on. But then the media force-memed it into meaning neo-nazis basically.

  38. “I have a better education than them, I’m smarter than them, I went to the best schools; they didn’t. Much more beautiful house, much more beautiful apartment. Much more beautiful everything. And I’m president and they’re not”

    Our president said this today.

    Beautiful shame

  39. “Skinheads” has been found to be an insensitive, demeaning term that excludes certain groups from meaningful political discourse. These groups prefer the term “Alt-Right”.

  40. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h ? $72h?how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance? on something new? after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

    Heres what I’ve been doing? ,,,

    CLICK HERE?? http://www.TheproCoin.Com

  41. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  42. Not a bad advertisement.

  43. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

Please to post comments