On the Alt-Right

I am encouraged that Clinton called out the elephant in the room in the Alt-Right as not even thinly veiled racists attempting to mainstream the rhetoric of white supremacists. I figured a discussion of the Alt-Right is probably its own topic. Here is a primer.

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/0...

Q: Where do you find alt-right on your keyboard?
A: Next to the 3 Ks.

Hillary's speech annoyed me, actually. I mean, yeah, great on calling it out directly, finally... but the alt right is not some new thing.

The GOP has been using racism, white nationalism, whatever you want to call it, as a basic part of their platform for decades now. Major party spokespeople have been using coded language for it forever, talking about the only reason black people vote for Democrats is because Democrats give them free stuff with OUR tax money... almost explicitly citing the image of the lazy negro and welfare queens.

This isn't new, it hasn't been new in a long time... it is just way more open, but even then, it's been there for a looooooong while.

Demosthenes wrote:

Hillary's speech annoyed me, actually. I mean, yeah, great on calling it out directly, finally... but the alt right is not some new thing.

The GOP has been using racism, white nationalism, whatever you want to call it, as a basic part of their platform for decades now. Major party spokespeople have been using coded language for it forever, talking about the only reason black people vote for Democrats is because Democrats give them free stuff with OUR tax money... almost explicitly citing the image of the lazy negro and welfare queens.

This isn't new, it hasn't been new in a long time... it is just way more open, but even then, it's been there for a looooooong while.

that article Paleo posted wrote:

In many ways the “alt-right” is a rebranding of classic white nationalism for the 21st century. As BuzzFeed described the movement: “In short, it’s white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times: 4chan-esque racist rhetoric combined with a tinge of Silicon Valley–flavored philosophizing, all riding on the coattails of the Trump boom.”

I would say you're right and you're wrong. The alt-right is a snazzy new 21st century veneer on old school GOP coded racism. It's bolder, prouder, and much more adept at using trolling to get away with what are essentially anonymous hate crimes.

Demosthenes wrote:

Hillary's speech annoyed me, actually. I mean, yeah, great on calling it out directly, finally... but the alt right is not some new thing.

You'd be surprised at how many conservatives aren't aware of the alt-right. Her speech wasn't aimed at people who pay close attention to politics, it's aimed at moderate conservatives who genuinely don't know about right fringe elements and don't yet realize what kind of muck Trump is stirring up.

I'd be willing to bet money that most older Republicans have never heard of Breitbart, InfoWars, the Men's Right Movement, Stormfront etc. At most they've heard of David Duke.

The fact that we have a national candidate that is trying to normalize or mainstream the behavior of sh1tbags like Dylan Roof (a regular contributor to the Daily Stormer before his taking his rhetoric to practice) tells you everything you need to know about the conscience of today's GOP.

Demyx wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Hillary's speech annoyed me, actually. I mean, yeah, great on calling it out directly, finally... but the alt right is not some new thing.

You'd be surprised at how many conservatives aren't aware of the alt-right. Her speech wasn't aimed at people who pay close attention to politics, it's aimed at moderate conservatives who genuinely don't know about right fringe elements and don't yet realize what kind of muck Trump is stirring up.

I'd be willing to bet money that most older Republicans have never heard of Breitbart, InfoWars, the Men's Right Movement, Stormfront etc. At most they've heard of David Duke.

This. Also, I'd be willing to bet this is aimed at primarily at younger demos who get their news primarily from the web. I've already seen two television reports preface this story with, " you may not have heard of the alt-right before but..."

It's a way to ease the general public into this news, not bash them over the head with it and imply they're dumb for not realizing this has been going on for ages.

Seth wrote:

I would say you're right and you're wrong. The alt-right is a snazzy new 21st century veneer on old school GOP coded racism. It's bolder, prouder, and much more adept at using trolling to get away with what are essentially anonymous hate crimes.

Heh, 'right and wrong': that's true--I can't find where I read it, but some article put it well, I think: the mainstream right has been dogwhistling (cynically or ignorantly) for years and the alt-right is in one sense just a natural evolution.

However, there's even more to that evolution. The alt-right also a movement free of a whole lot of what the mainstream right has been pushing for years. The mainstream right actually had an ideology beyond racism. The alt-right really doesn't. The alt-right doesn't care about 'religious freedom' or the Laffer curve or the safety net turning into a hammock or foreign wars or law & order or too many women with short hair and long pants. Only to the extent they can make those issues about pure bigotry.

All the deeper, arguably reasonable agendas the mainstream right was using those dogwhistles to advance? The alt-right doesn't care. The agenda of the alt-right IS the bigotry.

I disagree with Demyx, in that Breitbart, Infowars and Men's Rights (and Caucasian Rights) have been referenced to me in many conversations with older Republicans (50's and up). Many of the radio talk show hosts they listen too touch on those sources; Drudge cites them, as do Daily Caller and other "news" websites that they love.

I think you're radically underestimating the influence of the alt-right in the realm of formerly social-conservative voters. They've been radicalized almost without realizing it.

Or maybe she has had a different lived experience? She is younger, rolls with a different crowd in a different area of the country. My experience matches her's.

SallyNasty wrote:

Or maybe she has had a different lived experience? She is younger, rolls with a different crowd in a different area of the country. My experience matches her's.

Probably, yeah. Not all conservatives listen to talk radio or read Drudge. I don't think I've ever heard a person in real life mention Breitbart or Infowars, only online. It's entirely possible that since I live in a liberal area of the country, conservatives here don't feel comfortable mentioning those things in public or are simply a different sort of conservative.

Even online, as a liberal, my knowledge of the alt-right far surpasses that of any conservative with whom I can converse. Whenever I mention Alex Jones or Milo, I am met with genuine confusion. Most of them hazily know what Drudge is but avoid it in the same way I avoid insane liberal web sites like natural news or real farmacy.

Demosthenes wrote:

Hillary's speech annoyed me, actually. I mean, yeah, great on calling it out directly, finally... but the alt right is not some new thing.

The GOP has been using racism, white nationalism, whatever you want to call it, as a basic part of their platform for decades now. Major party spokespeople have been using coded language for it forever, talking about the only reason black people vote for Democrats is because Democrats give them free stuff with OUR tax money... almost explicitly citing the image of the lazy negro and welfare queens.

This isn't new, it hasn't been new in a long time... it is just way more open, but even then, it's been there for a looooooong while.

She wants to win Republican support. She could blast the entire GOP for being racist, but by claiming that a fringe group has taken over the party she gives regular Republican voters an out to distant themselves from Trump.

Djinn wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Hillary's speech annoyed me, actually. I mean, yeah, great on calling it out directly, finally... but the alt right is not some new thing.

The GOP has been using racism, white nationalism, whatever you want to call it, as a basic part of their platform for decades now. Major party spokespeople have been using coded language for it forever, talking about the only reason black people vote for Democrats is because Democrats give them free stuff with OUR tax money... almost explicitly citing the image of the lazy negro and welfare queens.

This isn't new, it hasn't been new in a long time... it is just way more open, but even then, it's been there for a looooooong while.

She wants to win Republican support. She could blast the entire GOP for being racist, but by claiming that a fringe group has taken over the party she gives regular Republican voters an out to distant themselves from Trump.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

Demyx wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Or maybe she has had a different lived experience? She is younger, rolls with a different crowd in a different area of the country. My experience matches her's.

Probably, yeah. Not all conservatives listen to talk radio or read Drudge. I don't think I've ever heard a person in real life mention Breitbart or Infowars, only online. It's entirely possible that since I live in a liberal area of the country, conservatives here don't feel comfortable mentioning those things in public or are simply a different sort of conservative.

More anecdotes, but as far as I know, I also don't know any conservatives that read Drudge or are aware of Breitbart or alt-right. Most conservatives I know are relatively uneducated and hold conservative beliefs without being overtly politically engaged or politically aware. They vote every November, re-post things they see on facebook (anti-Obama and anti-Hillary stuff, generally) and, aside from that, pay little attention to anything other than what's on the local news (and sometimes they don't even watch the news!) or Rush Limbaugh's show.

That said, I think people who are so unaware are unlikely to be swayed in their views. They'll write off stuff like this as liberal smear attempts and propaganda.

I get the different lived experiences, that's kind of what I was pointing out. But I am amazed that what I've seen in Virginia and MD and DC among conservative circles is missing in yours. I had thought it was more homogeneous across the country. Drudge and Rush and Daily Caller are part of the price of entry into Republican thought in the DMV, opinion sources I've lived with since before Bush came into office.

You all are frankly lucky.

Maq wrote:

Q: Where do you find alt-right on your keyboard?
A: Next to the 3 Ks.

Mmm. "Alt-right" is just a new layer of paint on very old white supremacy.

Atras wrote:
Djinn wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Hillary's speech annoyed me, actually. I mean, yeah, great on calling it out directly, finally... but the alt right is not some new thing.

The GOP has been using racism, white nationalism, whatever you want to call it, as a basic part of their platform for decades now. Major party spokespeople have been using coded language for it forever, talking about the only reason black people vote for Democrats is because Democrats give them free stuff with OUR tax money... almost explicitly citing the image of the lazy negro and welfare queens.

This isn't new, it hasn't been new in a long time... it is just way more open, but even then, it's been there for a looooooong while.

She wants to win Republican support. She could blast the entire GOP for being racist, but by claiming that a fringe group has taken over the party she gives regular Republican voters an out to distant themselves from Trump.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

Conversely, it paints every Republican still endorsing Trump as, at best, tacitly allowing that takeover.

Tanglebones wrote:
Atras wrote:
Djinn wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Hillary's speech annoyed me, actually. I mean, yeah, great on calling it out directly, finally... but the alt right is not some new thing.

The GOP has been using racism, white nationalism, whatever you want to call it, as a basic part of their platform for decades now. Major party spokespeople have been using coded language for it forever, talking about the only reason black people vote for Democrats is because Democrats give them free stuff with OUR tax money... almost explicitly citing the image of the lazy negro and welfare queens.

This isn't new, it hasn't been new in a long time... it is just way more open, but even then, it's been there for a looooooong while.

She wants to win Republican support. She could blast the entire GOP for being racist, but by claiming that a fringe group has taken over the party she gives regular Republican voters an out to distant themselves from Trump.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

Conversely, it paints every Republican still endorsing Trump as, at best, tacitly allowing that takeover.

I don't think that conclusion is an unfair one though. The fact that Trump has actively courted the Alt-Right where others have mostly winked and nodded to them makes it very hard to argue that there is any cover left available for those that don't want to be grouped with misogynist white nationalists. Before you might have had plausible deniability by saying "They just came to the party". Now you have to admit that you invited them.

FWIW, I've definitely seen folks in their 60s sharing Breitbart on Facebook.

I recently read over at Vox an article that describes a sizable number of alt righters being neo monarchists. This is something I'm trying to wrap my brain around given how many conservatives are small govt and how most Americans in general are against despotism. Can someone explain this to me?

Here's the article I'm talking about:
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/1143409...

jdzappa wrote:

I recently read over at Vox an article that describes a sizable number of alt righters being neo monarchists. This is something I'm trying to wrap my brain around given how many conservatives are small govt and how most Americans in general are against despotism. Can someone explain this to me?

I probably can't explain it to you as well as you want it explained, but here's my pet theory...

An alt-right mindset is, by definition, an authoritarian view, and the pinnacle of authoritarianism is monarchy.

Jonman wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

I recently read over at Vox an article that describes a sizable number of alt righters being neo monarchists. This is something I'm trying to wrap my brain around given how many conservatives are small govt and how most Americans in general are against despotism. Can someone explain this to me?

I probably can't explain it to you as well as you want it explained, but here's my pet theory...

An alt-right mindset is, by definition, an authoritarian view, and the pinnacle of authoritarianism is monarchy.

It is only anti government when it is doing things it perceives as "giving money to black people". This includes but is not limited to things like barring white separatists from grazing cattle on public land for free.

Monarchy is kind of the ultimate digging your heels in against the progress of time position so I guess it makes sense thematically.

It also assumes the potential for a ... well, ubermensch. They're looking back at the best examples of (European) "enlightened" monarchs, and wanting more of that.

There's plenty to be said for having One Great Person run everything. They can do things like redraft a complex web of laws into a unified, cohesive code (Justinian, among other Roman emperors), make strident changes to institutionally value things that need institutional support (Frederick the Great, among others), sweep away support for ideas you don't like (Peter the Great), etc. That's alluring stuff. The problem is that those powers aren't conditional on the views of the ruler.

Things moving slowly is sort of the price we pay for things not being able to move the wrong way as quickly as they otherwise could.

wordsmythe wrote:

It also assumes the potential for a ... well, ubermensch. They're looking back at the best examples of (European) "enlightened" monarchs, and wanting more of that.

There's plenty to be said for having One Great Person run everything. They can do things like redraft a complex web of laws into a unified, cohesive code (Justinian, among other Roman emperors), make strident changes to institutionally value things that need institutional support (Frederick the Great, among others), sweep away support for ideas you don't like (Peter the Great), etc. That's alluring stuff. The problem is that those powers aren't conditional on the views of the ruler.

Things moving slowly is sort of the price we pay for things not being able to move the wrong way as quickly as they otherwise could.

From what you're written, Wordy, I'm assuming your grasp of history is waaaay better than mine.

If I was to point out that Justinian, Frederick and Peter are terrible examples, due to the orders-of-madnitude difference in the complexity of the institutions they ruled over compared to contemporary US politics, would that hold water?

Jonman wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

It also assumes the potential for a ... well, ubermensch. They're looking back at the best examples of (European) "enlightened" monarchs, and wanting more of that.

There's plenty to be said for having One Great Person run everything. They can do things like redraft a complex web of laws into a unified, cohesive code (Justinian, among other Roman emperors), make strident changes to institutionally value things that need institutional support (Frederick the Great, among others), sweep away support for ideas you don't like (Peter the Great), etc. That's alluring stuff. The problem is that those powers aren't conditional on the views of the ruler.

Things moving slowly is sort of the price we pay for things not being able to move the wrong way as quickly as they otherwise could.

From what you're written, Wordy, I'm assuming your grasp of history is waaaay better than mine.

If I was to point out that Justinian, Frederick and Peter are terrible examples, due to the orders-of-madnitude difference in the complexity of the institutions they ruled over compared to contemporary US politics, would that hold water?

You could probably just link an article on the failures of the German Reich going into WW1 and then some Max Weber on the differences between bureaucratic and charismatic authority.

boogle wrote:

You could probably just link an article on the failures of the German Reich going into WW1 and then some Max Weber on the differences between bureaucratic and charismatic authority.

Your high opinion of my Google-fu is flattering.

*bats eyelids*

Thx for the well thought out responses (and I always appreciate historical deep dives). I guess I'm wondering if the alt-righters have thought things through, given at best they're still nobody peasants in an autocracy and most likely their entire lives are co-opted in service of their emperor. As a guy who spent a long winter on the Korean DMZ to stop a crazy totalitarian regime, I'm still flabbergasted that millions of Americans want a similar system here at home.

PS - if there's anything Dan Carlin has taught me, it's that historical figures tend to appear more favorable as time goes on. Peter and Frederick both committed loads of crimes against humanity but are remembered today more for their accomplishments.

Alt Reich*

Robear wrote:

I get the different lived experiences, that's kind of what I was pointing out. But I am amazed that what I've seen in Virginia and MD and DC among conservative circles is missing in yours. I had thought it was more homogeneous across the country. Drudge and Rush and Daily Caller are part of the price of entry into Republican thought in the DMV, opinion sources I've lived with since before Bush came into office.

You all are frankly lucky.

Fwiw, my family are these people. I'm from Maryland and my mother and stepfather drink from the Drudge and Rush fountain while my dad and stepmother loooooove Trump.

Politics have become very tough to discuss to the point it isn't discussed anymore.