Alt-right – RationalWiki

The Alt-Right is a racial movement and if you’ve heard otherwise then you’ve heard wrong.

Here’s how to understand the alt-right: Think about what’s right, then think about the alternative to that.

The alt-right (shortened for Alternative Right)[note 1] or new right is a far-right movement that opposes multiculturalism and social justice movements (or what they call “Cultural Marxists” and “SJWs”). The movement is made up largely of young Internet-dwellers; it is itself the merger of traditional white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates, and far-right internet groups (such as the neoreactionary movement and right-wing elements of the Gamergate movement). The alt-right consensus generally rests at the juncture of those three groups. The alt-right is also united by its support for U.S. Republican President Donald Trump. The term originated with Richard Spencer’s white nationalist magazine/blog Alternative Right, nicknamed “AltRight”.

The alt-right wholeheartedly embraces the overt racism, misogyny, neo-Nazi affectations, bullying and trolling of chan culture as a lifestyle. You’ll find them on /pol/, /r/The_Donald, My Posting Career or The Right Stuff; they make up a sizable fraction of the more radical and uncouth sections of Gamergate. They’re also the ones who popularized “cuckservative” as a term of abuse for those on the right who are deemed not racist enough.

Whether they are primarily neoreactionaries who are into white nationalism or white nationalists dressing their ideas up with neoreactionary jargon is probably a distinction without a difference. The term “alt-right” has come to be more generally used for Trump supporters who think swastikas are good; in this context, it’s just a hip name for white supremacists.

The press has been mistaking it for an online phenomenon even though some factions pre-date the internet. 4Chan and Vloggers are the online element with others having one foot in the real world and the other online. The paleocon wing is perhaps the oldest (hence paleo):[4]Pat Buchanan (himself a Nixon aide) founded the news journal which produced Richard Spencer, and you have guys who were once mainstream like Peter Brimelow,[5] who was an aide to Orrin Hatch and editor of Forbes. Then you have the Clinton-era militia groups like the Oath Keepers,[6] who are in or out depending on who you talk to.[7] There’s the Silicon Valley neoreaction wing made up of techies and businesspeople where some have considerable weight[8] (see Peter Thiel advising Trump), and others who are just extremely prolific bloggers (Mencius Moldbug).[9] There’s the academic HBD/eugenicist wing made up of professors, grad students, and their followers, some of whom are actually affiliated with neo-Nazi parties like Kevin MacDonald. The internet didn’t really cause these things so much as it allowed consolidation into the loose coalition of alt-right. There’s even more sects, but the point of things like “Unite the Right” is to try to hold all of them together.

Who exactly brought the movement to the mainstream? Richard Spencer, who is best described thus:[10]

The correct response to Spencer and to the alt-right is “wow, that’s some fucking cringey racialist bullshit”.

Although the alt-right has only come into prominence in recent years, the truth is that random people using the Internet to spread cringey white supremacist propaganda is nothing new. Perhaps the first example of such would be the 1995 Usenet essay The Long March by Ian P. McKinney of the neo-Fascist National Alliance.[11] This essay was infamous not only for its extreme bigotry and logic that would best be described as being not even wrong, but also for being spammed everywhere on the Internet.

The essay begins with a plea, supposedly to those who care enough about the fate of Western civilization, to heed the author’s words. The essay then attacks Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh for not being racist enough for McKinney’s liking (one can assume that, if the word “cuckservative” existed at the time, McKinney would have used it).

From there, the author proceeds to rattle off a painfully long diatribe in which he fusses about IQ scores, religiously cites The Bell Curve, and uses all other manner of disproven statistics, circumstantial evidence, half-truths, stereotypes, and condescending pseudo-intellectual jargon to reach his main “conclusion”: that African Americans are developmentally inferior to Caucasians and that the only reason anyone believes otherwise is because of the fiendish machinations of Jewish communists who have successfully infiltrated the Cultural Anthropology departments of major universities as part of their sinister plot to overthrow Western civilization.

McKinney argues that racial equality is a “false religion” promoted by fanatical sheeple consisting of liberals and moderate conservatives (and yes, he counts people like Gingrich as “moderates”), and there’s also a brief mention of immigration causing white genocide. At least the knowledge that Mr. McKinney clearly has a lifetime’s supply of tinfoil is of some use, should we need to borrow some for baking.

The alt-right is a loser’s poor fantasy of what a radical revolution looks like. I should know.

Superstructure taken from:[14]

The subbreddit /r/AltRight defines itself thusly:[16]

While not much different from views expressed by more traditional idiots white nationalists like Tom Metzger, members of the alt-right have called for a “white homeland” and the potential division of the continental United States into ethno “regions”. For example, noted asshat alt-right leader Matthew Heimbach has called for the white region to be named “Avalon”.[17] There is some irony here of course, in that Heimbach has chosen to use a name of an Asian automaker’s car for his white ethnostate. One would have hoped he could have come up with a name more in keeping with his proud white heritage, maybe something along the lines of “The United States of White America”, “Mulletland” or “KidRockistan”. Which in and of itself raises some real central issues for this entire discussion: first, what exactly is and is not “a white person”? And second, instead of trying to change the geography of the United States, why not just have those who want these changes made move to some place where it is already illegal to live there if you’re not..”white”? You know, like how it used to be in Oregon, and kinda like how it is in West Virginia? Third, instead of outlawing, say, “nonwhites” why not outlaw those whose IQ is below 110, or people with a felony record, pedophiles, DUI convicts, you know that kind of thing?

I dunno.

Any one of these dweebs alt-right leaders are basically just taking the ideas of past idiots like David Duke, Tom Metzger and George Lincoln Rockwell (who was such a joke in his day that he was murdered by a bunch of fellow Neo-nazis in 1967), dusting them off and updating a few words here and there. Then when shit gets crazy, much like supreme asshole alt-right figurehead Gavin Mcinnes, they abandon the alt-right ship and say the whole thing was just a joke anyways.

Most involved in movement are attention seeking media whores who will latch onto anything in order to get a press agent. When judged on accomplishments alone, someone like Milo Yiannopoulos, who can’t seem to figure out how to properly book a room at UC Berkeley, stands shoulder to shoulder with a complete nutjob like David Duke, who can’t get through an interview without frothing at the mouth about his fake PhD and disavowing his past KKK affiliation.

On substance, they indeed put forth the same vile tenets of white extremism, nazi ideology and ethnic inferiority as part of their modern agenda. But they share the same laughable ineptitude as their forefathers at not being able to make even the most basic logical case for their point of view when challenged with the most simplistic line of rational questioning. Although to be fair that’s probably not true of all of them, there may even be some who can make a coherent logical argument in support of their socio-political position that “white people are good, period”…that doesn’t even ignore the obvious counterargument that there are a hell of a lot of bad white people with more and more coming out of the woodwork each and every day and no you can’t blame all that on the blacks but you can blame it on the fact that they survived the rocky shoals of white intra-family crime and made it to the firm ground of white-owned America where they stood tall and proudly declared themselves to be The Greatest Race On Earth as a result of that fact. Does kinda prove their point, actually, but realistically that’s an argument that no white-supremacist would ever make. Simply because no white supremacist is a criminal or would ever become one, and thus never would be personally responsible for white intra-family or intra-race crime. Or any crime at all, other than the obvious crime of going around and claiming that white people and only white people are good for the country, and that we need to get rid of all the no-whites in order to Make America Great Again [still unsure on what that “white” means and what kind of “great” they’re talking about].

…in any rate, let’s just say that on substance they’re somewhat circular. The country would be great only if white people are in charge and only white people are in it and that’s true because white people say so. The fact that there is disagreement is a result of non-white influence and should be not just ignored but destroyed for the good of the country. Remember: white=right, white=good. Those who disagree are the spawn of Satan.

For whatever reasons, most of the leaders that have emerged from this joke new movement have shared the same trait as their glorious forefathers in so far as needing attention from both traditional and non traditional media outlets. But this might also be what separates them from your average, low IQ neo-nazi and KKK member, who have, up until now at least, only really managed to be able to produce typo-strewn monthly publications and random acts of violence, mostly on their fellow idiots race warriors.

In being able to actually put a sentence together, traditional media outlets have raced to interview, profile and “examine” this group of complete dickwads “new voices” emerging on the fringes of the right wing. The major issue with this development is that, at the end of the day, they are basically just re-hashing the tenets of racist propaganda for their own gain.

The other problem with of all this lies in the fact that by giving these asshats alt-right figureheads a platform, traditional media outlets (also corrupted by blacks) have allowed them to spread a damaging underlying message of hatred to many more ears (also corrupted by blacks) than their incompetent predecessors could have ever dreamt possible. This fact can (and does) have tragic consequences, as witnessed by some of the recent mass shootings (largely caused by the blacks). But even when the alt-right tries to walk back from these events (as they usually do once the proverbial shit hits the fan as a result of black involvement), they eventually take credit for these tragedies by referencing them (and blaming them on the blacks) at the first possible instance, once the dust has settled of course (listen to any of idiot in chief Andrew Anglin’s latest interviews and he will specially address these events when the slightest opportunity is presented to him).

In order for the alt-right’s massive number of conspiracies, slurs, and insults to make any kind of sense, obscene use of doublethink is basically required. To quote The New York Times:[18]

The full spectrum from neoreaction through to the alt-right came out solidly for Donald Trump as 2016 Presidential nominee. In an interview with MSNBC, Republican strategist Rick Wilson characterised Trump supporters as an online movement of anti-Semites and “childless single men who masturbate to anime,” noting the “Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons and names.”[20] Elements of the alt-right have also been sympathetic to Nigel Farage, Vladimir Putin[21] and Brexitalthough some white nationalists call for a European superstate built along ethnic lines,[22] not unlike Oswald Mosley’s “Europe a Nation” policy.[23]

Steve Bannon the former CEO of the Trump campaign and now Trump’s Chief Political Strategist ex-Chief Political Strategist in the White House, is also tied in with the alt-right and anti-“Establishment” populism; he was the former executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC[24] and “turned Breitbart into Trump Pravda for his own personal gain”, according to former Breitbart employee Ben Shapiro. Under his leadership, Breitbart embraced “the white supremacist alt-right”, and the website “[became] the alt-right go-to website”, according to Shapiro.[25]

On August 12, 2017, various alt-right white nationalist, white supremacist, and anti-Semitic groups held a rally in the city of Charlottesville, Virginia where they protested against the Jews and their supposed plan to replace the white race with non-white immigrants. Cries of “Jews will not replace us” and “You will not replace us” followed by “White Lives Matter” and the Nazi-era slogan “Blood and Soil” were heard. Unfortunately for the protesters, Antifa activists and counter-protesters were standing in their way and what was a simple protest soon turned to violence when a Neo-Nazi named James Alex Fields Jr. killed a woman named Heather Heyer during the rally. This wasn’t the only act of violence, though. A protester was seen shooting a gun, three protesters were seen beating a black man, and League of the South Florida members led by Craig Tubbs shoved their shields at counter-protesters. Afterwards, the organizer of the rally, Jason Kessler, was denounced and later sentenced to 50 hours of community service for punching James Taylor. The Daily Stormer insulted the victim killed in the rally during the subsequent media frenzy, resulting in the website being expelled from Google and GoDaddy.com.

See the rest here:
Alt-right – RationalWiki

Related Post

December 10, 2017   Posted in: Alt-right |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."