Who are the alt-right, exactly? (An open letter)

[metatron]

alt-right

Dear Lexicus,

You recently opened this thread to chronicle the exploits of a group/movement you call the "alt-right".
I'm afraid i have to insist that you make clear what you deem to be that "alt-right".
Like, who the heck is that anyway?

Because i honestly can't really tell and i have the growing impression that it's any conservative - or for that matter plain anybody who disagrees with your ideological peer group about basically anything, except taxes... possibly.

Let me demonstrate:
There is a wikipedia entry on the alt-right. In my view it's largely a fecal-show of obfuscation and conflation, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt for a minute. The article lists a whole range of movements that are essentially deemed constituent groups.
I'm sure arguments vaguely akin to what i am about to say can be made about all of them but for arguments sake (and because i agree with a very large degree of overlap) i'll give you the following: Neo-Nazism, Dark Enlightenment, Southern Nationalism, Neo-Monarchism, Identitarian Movement (the latter two largely being a Euro-thing, but what the heck).
We shall take note here that the article really emphasises novelty (except when it doesn't), because the Klan isn't mentioned, at all (yet Neo-Nazism is, like that's new). Anyway, this leaves us with two groups where this all gets... problematic: 1. The MRM (implicitly they appear to mean anti-feminism in general) 2. The "alt-lite"/"new right".
1. So the MRM thing is essentially one big conflation-gasm/misrepresentation-gasm/an outright lie and pretty much based on a single New York Magazine article that goes on and on about RooshV (a PUA) and Mike Cernovich (another PUA). Essentially the whole argument doesn't have actual MRAs in it (like that's not required...). Never mind that wikipedia has an actual article on the MRM that is fine...ish. Most people mentioned there would rate the above two individuals as "scum" and "not MRAs". Case in point*.
2. The paragraph on the alt-lite is one big pile of ambiguity with nothing really stiff in it. It lists as examples: Steve Bannon, Lauren Southern, Faith Goldy and Jack Posobiec.
Like... that's an interesting coalition, to say the least.
Once more we shall check the actual article on the "alt-lite". This gets even more broad and confusing, but adds Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes and Alex Jones to the mix.
And it is this point where i throw in the towel and officially have no idea who the frack is not the alt-right, except possibly, just possibly, the staff of Buzzfeed.

So... to establish some sort of basis what the heck we are actually talking about here i suggest you do the following:

1. You set up some sort of casual definition of the term. Nothing fancy, no PhD thesis required, we will take it in good faith.
2. Optionally: You can pick any person allready mentioned here and exclude them. Otherwise we can assume all these people are part of the "alt-right" in your view, can we?
3. To avoid us debating terms (such as "racist" or "sexist") used in your definition you should review a list of persons i am about to provide and you may sort these people as "alt-right" and "not alt-right".
Let's have a scatter-brained bag of everything for a list:

Gad Saad
Chris Maldonado
Christina Rad
Theryn Meyer
Steven Pinker
David Rubin
Jonathan Haidt
David Pakman
Sam Harris
Phil Mason
Karen Straughan
Ayaan Hirsi Ali​

(yes, i do understand that in your perspective this is some thoroughly weird patchwork - that's the point)
I am afraid i have to insist on this. If you are unfamiliar with anybody, do 5 minutes worth of research, call it as you see it, and - if necessary - disclaim that you are rather unsure. We shall take it in good faith.

4. Am i a part of the alt right? You once implicitly (but rather firmly) claimed that i wasn't. Why not, exactly?
5. What about the punchability of these people? Richard Spencer is punchable, and as i understand many of your previous comments many others, even when they are - to put it in your terms - less overtly fascist, are also quite punchable. Yet i am not, as you have told me.
So is Lauren Southern punchable? Is Theryn Meyer? What about Josephine Mathias or Candace Owens, for that matter? Are they punchable?​

This is a good faith attempt to find out who is supposed to be your opposition in said thread exactly. I trust you will treat it as such.

*Never mind whether i count; there is continued disagreement on that, as you may have noticed when Hygro called me a "'softy old feminist".

 

[Lexicus]

I don't know most of the names you've dropped here.

Because i honestly can't really tell and i have the growing impression that it's any conservative - or for that matter plain anybody who diagrees with your ideological peer group about basically anything, except taxes... possibly.

Meh. The alt-right is a subset of reactionaries. I'm leaning toward defining them in stylistic terms rather than ideological terms, honestly. The "mainstream" right, at least in the UK and the US, is now more or less overtly white-supremacist and white-nationalist, so defining the alt-right in strictly ideological terms is going to lead to a lot of "mainstream" right-wingers being included in the "alt-right," which seems to defeat the purpose of the term - "alt" means "out of the mainstream", or at least that's how I understand it.

1. So the MRM thing is essentially one big conflation-gasm/misrepresentation-gasm/an outright lie and pretty much based on a single New York Magazine article that goes on and on about RooshV (a PUA) and Mike Cernovich (another PUA). Essentially the whole argument doesn't have actual MRAs in it (like that's not required...). Never mind that wikipedia has an actual article on the MRM that is fine...ish. Most people mentioned there would rate the above two individuals as "scum" and "not MRAs". Case in point*.

I would consider most MRAs to be part of the alt-right. It would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

3. To avoid us debating terms (such as "racist" or "sexist") used in your definition you should review a list of persons i am about to provide and you may sort these people as "alt-right" and "not alt-right".
Let's have a scatter-brained bag of everything for a list:
Gad Saad
Chris Maldonado
Christina Rad
Theryn Meyer
Steven Pinker
David Rubin
Jonathan Haidt
David Pakman
Sam Harris
Phil Mason
Karen Straughan
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (yes, i do understand that in your perspective this is some thoroughly weird patchwork - that's the point)
I am afraid i have to insist on this. If you are unfamiliar with anybody, do 5 minutes worth of research, call it as you see it, and - if necessary - disclaim that you are rather unsure. We shall take it in good faith.

I have little doubt you'll take it in good faith. I have strong doubts about...others.

Anyway...I'm not familiar with most of the names on this list. Starting with te ones I do know, Jonathan Haidt is definitely not alt-right. I wouldn't characterize Ayaan Hirsi Ali as alt-right either, though obviously she shares many of the ridiculously Islamophobic views common on the alt-right. Steven Pinker, certainly not alt-right, though I think I have posted before about why his book on "Why Violence Has Declined" is bad.
Finally, again Sam Harris is somewhat ideologically aligned with the alt-right but is definitely not alt-right.

Now for the names I don't know...

Gad Saad- looking at the list of guests on his little Youtube thing, I conclude that he could be loosely defined as alt-right. If he's a full-on race-realist then I would probably classify him as part of the alt-right.

Chris Maldonado - I've heard that name before. Looking him up. Definitely part of the alt-right.

Christina Rad - found an article about her on Rational wiki. She might be (I don't know, I'm not going to watch her youtube videos to find out) an obnoxious "New Atheist" in the style of Dawkins et al but this isn't enough to put her in the alt-right bin.

Theryn Meyer - grey area, by everything I've been able to find out about her.

David Rubin - I don't think so.

David Pakman - Can find no indication of anything that would remotely tie him to the alt-right.

Phil Mason - Grey area. Twitter account got suspended for attacks on Sarkeesian, so likely a pretty nutty reactionary. Need more info to make a real determination, and I ain't going any more research.

Karen Straughan - yes, alt-right.

 

[metatron]

David Pakman - Can find no indication of anything that would remotely tie him to the alt-right.

Curious, i thought that something like this was allmost as unforgivable as calling Ms. Sarkeesian by her true colors.

alt-right.

What about the punchability of these people then?
And how about Ms. Owens and Ms. Mathias?

 

[Lexicus]

Curious, i thought that something like this was allmost as unforgivable as calling Ms. Sarkeesian by her true colors.

All I did was Google the guy. I'm re-evaluating it after reading this though: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sulome-anderson/response-to-david-pakman_b_10194582.html

This is very bad behavior. This is enough to put Pakman in the grey area.

And how about Ms. Owens and Ms. Mathias?

Eh. Both grey area. Both idiot reactionaries, but may or may not be alt-right.

 

[Kyriakos]

F society.

 

[metatron]

Meh. The alt-right is a subset of reactionaries. I'm leaning toward defining them in stylistic terms rather than ideological terms, honestly. The "mainstream" right, at least in the UK and the US, is now more or less overtly white-supremacist and white-nationalist, so defining the alt-right in strictly ideological terms is going to lead to a lot of "mainstream" right-wingers being included in the "alt-right," which seems to defeat the purpose of the term - "alt" means "out of the mainstream", or at least that's how I understand it.

Hmm... in witnessing the handywork of one Mr. Yiannopoulos i repeatedly had the odd sensation that, for better or worse, this might be basically Coulter 2.0.
You know, more youthful vernacular but otherwise comparable m.o.
I suppose this impression is somewhat tangential to your claim.

All I did was Google the guy. I'm re-evaluating it after reading this though: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sulome-anderson/response-to-david-pakman_b_10194582.html

This is very bad behavior. This is enough to put Pakman in the grey area.

Yeah, that was a pretty pitiable selfimplosion. But the mere idea that Ms. Anderson might just be... whatchamacallit... a liar is of course out of the question.
Anyway, we have Mr. Pakman firmly seated one way or the other.

And... i realise that i should have put one Ms. Haider on my list, but, oh well.
(You offer any refunds? Sarah Haider).

Anyway, you have still not offered commentary on whether these people can be punched and how all this relates to, say, me.
Here, i have the mental image of a continuous string between me (not punchable) and Mr. Spencer (very punchable), with the assumption that you would see most of those people somewhere spread out on this supposed continuum between the two of us.
Needless to say, i find the idea of sharing a continuum with Mr. Spencer odd, but in the spirit of inquiry we shall entertain the idea.

 

[Lexicus]

Anyway, you have still not offered commentary on whether these people can be punched and how all this relates to, say, me.

Nor will I. I don't like to try to construct logically-coherent schemes like this; a theory that tells you who can be punched under what circumstances that covers all potential cases is impossible.

 

[metatron]

Nor will I. I don't like to try to construct logically-coherent schemes like this; a theory that tells you who can be punched under what circumstances that covers all potential cases is impossible.

This is one of the reasons why i provided a set of examples.

Feel free to pick a relatively easy one (no need to immediately make uncomfortable calls on Ms. Owens or Ms. Mathias).
How about Mr. Maldonado? Or Ms. Southern?

 

[Lexicus]

I dunno, it would depend on how they were behaving.

 

[BvBPL]

The alt-right isn’t great, but it could be worse. I mean, crtl-right is even further from the center.
Then there’s shift-right, which is just as far to the right, but thinks itself above the alt- and ctrl-right.

 

[metatron]

I dunno,

Hmm... i don't mean to be difficult but so far the scope of what the alt-right is (1), who is in it (2), whether they should be punched (3) has not become any clearer.

Well arguably it's somewhat bigger that i expected, as per said list, but that doesn't make things easier exactly.

it would depend on how they were behaving.

Well, then what has Mr. Spencer done exactly that makes him punchable.
I mean i can easily come up with something that might be the cause.
Say giving a speech to a room full of suspect men who offer numerous hitler salutes as receipt for the speech, which was appreciated by the speaker. That would be one thing. There's certainly more.
But this is allready neatly covered by the term "Neo-Nazi".
So there isn't any information in his case as to what is "alt-right" and when it is punchable.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'd question why MRAs should be considered part of the alt-right by default, given that it seems to make as much sense to put them on the left-right spectrum as "people with brown hair" as a category, but then I'm just as unclear as to what "alt-right" really denotes as the OP. My original understanding was that it referred to anyone with right-wing politics, but who didn't consider themselves part of the mainstream American Republican breed, particularly in terms of things like religiousity. But then I see British people being labelled (and labelling themselves) as alt-right, even though the political right over here is already quite different to the American Republican breed, so I have no idea what they are alt- to. In the broadest, broadest sense it seems to mean "holding right wing opinions, but not being affiliated with any establishment right wing parties", but the reasons for not being affiliated with them seem to be many and varied.

 

[AdrienIer]

What usually unites the alt-right around the world is the idea that the "classic" right isn't xenophobic enough, is "letting down our culture" (which is usually a shorthand for not being Christian fanatics), and isn't tough on crime enough. In short, not reactionary enough. Most of their other policy proposals are pure populism (like Trump saying at the same time that he won't be waging wars in the middle east and that he'll nuke ISIS).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What usually unites the alt-right around the world is the idea that the "classic" right isn't xenophobic enough, is "letting down our culture" (which is usually a shorthand for not being Christian fanatics), and isn't tough on crime enough. In short, not reactionary enough. Most of their other policy proposals are pure populism (like Trump saying at the same time that he won't be waging wars in the middle east and that he'll nuke ISIS).

Isn't that just the far right?

 

[Lexicus]

Isn't that just the far right?

Well, that's why I proposed a stylistic component to the definition. To be alt-right, you need to be far right ideologically, and into the sort of trolling/***** aesthetic/style that grew up in in the 2000s. That's a tentative stab at a definition, and undoubtedly exceptions will be found etc so please don't take it as my final word on the matter.

 

[AdrienIer]

Isn't that just the far right?

It is also my opinion that alt-right is just a rebranding of various far right or even neo-nazis groups, that has become fashionable enough that no one on the far right will refuse to be associated with alt right people (and vice versa).

Edit : see how the Charlottesville protest was branded as a "unite the right" rally and not a "unite the far right" one. Clearly these people have realized that having a thousand far right subgroups all around the US was not efficient and that uniting (under an alt right banner, not a far right banner) was better. They're attempting a takeover of the right.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Right, so it's just a rebranding of far-right, but with trolling thrown in?

But then why does it include MRAs?

 

[Lexicus]

But then why does it include MRAs?

Because MRAs are far-right.

 

[AdrienIer]

Because MRAs are far-right.

They are literally reactionaries.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because MRAs are far-right.

Well obviously I've deduced that you think that, I'm just asking why you think that as I don't see the link at all and it doesn't seem a reasonable statement to me.