Should we stop using the term "alt-right"?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi all. Today I want to talk about the term "alt-right". I'm starting to think that the term "alt-right" should be discarded because of how confusing, useless and vague it is. Nobody is really sure of what "alt-right" even means or what "alt-righters" are fighting for. When confusing, vague terminology is constantly thrown around, the quality of intellectual discourse suffers.

The term "alt-right" is short for "alternative right". In other words, the alt-righters are right-wingers who disagree with the mainstream neoconservatism which was popularized by the George W. Bush Administration. The alt-righters strongly disagree with modern liberalism and leftism, but they also see some problems with neoconservatism that need to be addressed. That's what the name implies.

… and that's very vague.

There are many, MANY social groups out there that could be considered "alternative right". In other words, right-wing "philosophy" (if you want to call it that) is incredibly complex.

In America, most right-wing political leaders are neocons. In other words, they strongly support Israel, they are strongly militaristic. They have a traditional, American interpretation of Christianity. They are strongly patriotic. They distance themselves from the extreme racism of the white nationalists. You get the idea.

If you are a right-winger, but are not a neocon … then what are you? Tough question. The white nationalists could be considered "alternative right". They rely on overt racism instead of subtle racism and they are generally skeptical of US militarism … largely because they believe that the US military is currently under Israeli control. The even invented the term "alternative right".

Of course, right-libertarians could be considered "alternative right" too because they also consider themselves to be a right-wing alternative to neoconservatism. The right-libertarians generally have a more liberal attitude towards drug legalisation and LGBT acceptance … though their economic stance is more hard-right … to the point of insanity. Right-libertarians and white nationalists generally hate one another. They both voted for Ron Paul back in 2012, but they did so for entirely different reasons.

… and then we have the an-caps. They are so extreme that even right-libertarians sometimes feel uneasy around them. Neo-monarchism is a thing too. I wish I was making that up. There are also many different right-leaning conspiracy theorist movements. Even right-libertarians often feel uneasy around Alex Jones … and even Alex Jones fanboys feel uneasy around flat earthers. I'm not saying that all flat earthers are right-wing. Some of them are far-left post-modern stoners or plain old idiots … but most flat earthers are religious fundamentalists who take a right-wing stance on most issues.

See what I mean? The term "alt-right" implies that all non-neocon right-wingers are on the same "side". Plus, the blog that made up the term "alternative right" no longer uses the term. The blog changed its name to "affirmative right" a while ago.

New Rule: Whenever someone uses the term "alt-right", ask "What do you mean by that?" Most people who call themselves "alt-right" are white nationalists who are "hiding their power level" behind cowardly euphemisms. When left-wingers throw around this euphemism as a snarl word, it really lowers the quality of intellectual discourse.

I agree that the term is really meaningless at this point given that it means different things to different people.

Did any group really refer to themselves as "alt-right"? I don't know any white supremacists (skinheads when I was younger) and I don't think I ever have so I'm not sure about that.

One of the reasons I think the term has become meaningless is that it seems that to many "liberals", "leftists" someone is "alt-right" simply because said person doesn't agree with the liberal's dogma or beliefs. That amuses me. Much like the term "racist" can be abused, in both cases, the words are used by some as a weapon even if the recipient isn't in any way "guilty" of being such.

Well … not all white supremacists are skinheads.

Nazi skinheads are racists who don't try to "hide their power level" in any meaningful way. They will shout racial slurs at people on the street and sing songs about beating up homosexuals and Jews.

Of course, not all people with extreme views will use extreme language. There are some people who will say "I'm trying to preserve the culture and heritage of people of European descent." … but then they will sweat under the collar when you ask them "Will this involve the use of violence?"

David Duke, Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor are all examples of people who fall into that category.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics



Yeah, I agree.

For example, a lot of YouTube users will describe Carl "Sargon of Akkad" Benjamin as "alt-right". This can be confusing because the term "alt-right" is so frequently used to describe white separatists and white supremacists.

Sargon takes a right-wing stance on most issues and is critical of Black Lives Matter, but he has clearly stated that he believes race is an unscientific social construct. Sargon is also a huge fan of Guns, Germs and Steel, which is a book that white supremacists despise because it conflicts with their worldview.

I'm more liberal than before, but being a white nationalist isn't necessarily a "bad thing".

Enforcing racial segregation through the threat of violence isn't a bad thing?

Explain.

The alt-right is real and that's what they call themselves. So we should keep it. And scorn those who throw it around wrongly. Misogyny is probably even more overused wrongly, but we shouldn't throw it out.

It's what they call themselves publicly as a euphemism.

It's just a euphemism for white separatism. They want to create an all-white ethnostate and then scare away everyone who isn't white using threats of violence. Let's reject their euphemism and instead use a label which is more fitting.

The term was most recently spun up by Richard Spencer, a national socialist that advocates centralized government control over the economy with a large welfare apparatus. Paul Gottfried used the term "alternative right" in 2008, but he was referring to the growth in popularity of Tea Party-style libertarian groups, which have no ideological overlap with national socialists.

People like Milo Yiannopolous came to associate the term with just about anyone with an edgy bent against progressive Political Correctness, which also grew to include--after a barrage of media coverage--any conservatives against establishment politics.

This is far too vague and highly misleading, and conservatives obviously shouldn't adopt the term given its direct association with national socialism and white supremacism via Richard Spencer.

I agree with what Magna is saying. It reminds me of when people call a wannabe edgy 12 year old an alt right nazi just for posting a Pepe meme and praising Kek. I don't even think a Hitler Pepe meme is grounds for calling someone a nazi. I think terms such as "nazi" and "alt-right" etc. should be reserved for people who actually support and believe in those platforms.

For some reason, my link disappeared from this post. Here is the link outlining Richard Spencer's Leftism.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/ ... l-one.html

As it turns out, Nazis -- national socialists -- are socialist. Who would have ever guessed?

Fox News isn't a reliable source. It's a propaganda outlet.

Richard Spencer agrees with the left on one or two issues. He agrees with the right wing on most issues. He is committed to racial segregation, which was supported by the mainstream political right until fairly recently. He also supports sexual traditionalism, which has always been associated with the right.

Spencer's right leanings outweigh his left leanings. Calling Spencer a leftist over his economic policy is like calling Lenin a rightist over his dislike of "left-communism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Left-Wing%22_Communism:_An_Infantile_Disorder

Also, Hitler had Gregor Strasser executed because Strasser was too economically left-wing for his tastes. Clearly, Hitler's commitment to nationalism far outweighed his commitment to socialism.

I just call them alt REICH since that's exactly what they are - they're Nazis running around in suits pretending they're not skinheads. Sticky is a Dinesh D'Souza fan lol - I knew it (!) - that explains everything. Darth look into who Dinesh is and the "legitimacy" (being sarcastic) he has.

According to Dinesh Confederates are leftists, Neo-Nazis are leftists, the Unite The Right Marches were leftists, and apparently Hitler was pro-gay despite locking all of us who love the same-sex up in concentration camps. I mean, go figure. I don't know if Dinesh is insane or a profiteer, it's like Qanon it sounds like the most whacky satire but it is meant to be taken seriously...

It's literally an interview with Richard Spencer, where he directly states that he embraces socialism.

The national socialists of Germany opposed Bolsheviks. That doesn't make them any less socialist.

I read the interview. Spencer didn't literally say that he embraced socialism. He spoke out against extreme laissez-faire capitalism and he also spoke out against international globalization. He didn't speak in favor of socialism. He just rejected the most extreme type of capitalism.

The point of that interview was to prove that Donald Trump and Richard Spencer are different. They made their point.

The word "socialism" is hard to deal with because it means different things to different people, but Spencer didn't advocate any extreme form of socialism. For example, he never once said "We need to abolish private business." … so he is nothing like a communist.

Also, the Nazi economy was very different from the Soviet economy. Private businesses were far more common in Nazi Germany. Like I said, "socialism" has become a very vague term in modern political discourse … so it isn't a particularly useful term anymore.

A centrally-planned economy is the very definition of socialism. It is very clear what Spencer is advocating, and it most definitely isn't capitalism. But since it was Fox News that published the interview, clearly the words uttered by Richard Spencer were somehow not what he said.


There were no actual "private businesses" in NSDAP Germany. The state retained the ultimate control over all economic matters, and intervened accordingly.

I can read. Spencer never said that he wanted a centrally planned economy.



Yes there were. The Nazi uniforms were made by Hugo Boss, and the Nazis privatized several banks.

The Nazis often used socialist rhetoric, but they did not always act in accordance with this.



Wow. Is that your source? Seriously?

That source is arguing that any sort of government intervention leads to Nazism, which is absurd.

"Faced with this situation, we need to be more resolute than ever in defense of the free market, with no government restrictions whatever."

No thanks. When I take a walk, I don't want to see starving homeless people everywhere.

Laissez-faire capitalism isn't Nazism, but it has a completely different way of killing millions of people.