One way of viewing it is that it's akin to the original neo-conservatives, who were Communists who lost faith in it. If you remember William Kristol trying to be the anti-Trump leader, his father Irving was one of its founders (note that this is decades before "neo-con" got its current meaning).
Lots of us are libertarians or conservatives who've lost faith in those, and are pursuing and defining a new Right that's by definition an alternative to the existing Right. Me, I was a paleoconservative.
Note that as a matter of taxonomy, he divides it into the Alt White, such as the Daily Stormer types and a group he can't belong to, and a much larger Alt West, I can dig that up for you if you want, but obviously the Alt West isn't obsessed with the Joooos, is therefore unabashedly Christian or at least believing, well, here's his 4th point:
The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
The total antisemite types, I gather they don't much like Christianity because of its Jewish origins, from Jesus to the Old Testament, they're certainly fond of a lot of pagan icons.
The combativeness of point 3 is a personal characteristic of his, but is pretty essential, and you can see how Trump is aligned with it (although, frankly, if implicitly telling the press to FU is what you need to enjoy a steak dinner with your family in peace...).
Point 12 is particularly important: "The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.", or more simply put, "We Don't Care." Note Trump's war on Political Correctness, which alone won him more than a few votes, lots of people are utterly sick of it.
Obviously many of the points will send anyone on the left screaming, and certainly there's no universal agreement on any of this---forget it being inchoate, humans being humans there never will be!---but you can take it as being at least somewhat representative of the Alt Right.
Wow, as a Trump supporter, I find this really scary ("what the alt right is").
I honestly did not know this is what the Alt Right was purporting to be.
But, this is not what Trump is about. Trump's policies do not reflect your manifesto here.
If you visit The_Donald Reddit, this is what most young Trump supporters are. They are opposed to SJWs, BLM, and third-wave feminists, because they do not think that their actions are helping them achieve their goals, and others just want to make fun of this fact.
The Alt Right certainly does lurk there, and I would say it is a good recruiting ground.
If you click on the Discord button in the sidebar, you will find a default chat room for The_Donald crew where it says "no racist/Nazi shit", but then there are recommendations for places to go for "free-er speech".
This makes me nauseas to think about. I get the feeling very dark places lie beyond here.
Sure, on the other side of the spectrum is the The New Black Panthers, and Communists, but I do feel like the right has scarier extremities.
If Bannon is for the Alt-Right as written in that article, then I am scared as fuck about him in the White House.
Vox Day's "philosophy", it's not really mine, that's still inchoate. And not much of a manifesto "a public declaration of policy and aims", it's more principles than policies to achieve those, except the essential ones like no "noble and principled defeat". One of the reasons we're so dangerous, sort of like Reagan, the first US president who decided to end instead of "contain" the Soviet Union. Or in some of my recent readings, why Washington was considered to be so dangerous a general by the British.
As for Trump's policies/philosophy, well, I've outlined how some of them do align, and he's certainly kryptonite to movement conservatives and the GOPe that pretends to be conservative. On the other hand, he's pro-legal immigrant, and that's very much not of the Alt Right, we think that'll lead to Enoch Powells' "Rivers of Blood" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Riv...) and we'd very much like to avoid that for obvious reasons (and note I'm not just talking about white vs. other identity group conflicts, Latin Americans, Asians, blacks, they don't exactly get along very well, do they?)
As for Trump's younger supporters, well, they're young, you need certain conditions, like "being mugged by reality" or just being old enough to collect enough data on all this, to come to these sorts of conclusions. I think having a family also helps, if you're responsible, you start thinking a lot more of what's down the road, and realize there's a whole bunch of cans which will eventually not be amenable to being kicked down it any further.
Most people acknowledge the benefits of multiculturalism and enjoy it. Art, music, food, festivals, etc. People enjoy relationships with immigrants because they bring a different perspective. NYC is the best case of this. A true melting pot.
Economies need immigrants for GDP growth.
Its a win-win.
Integration is key though. And because we enjoy the benefits, it is our responsibility.
Controlled immigration is a core part of every country although maybe not so much in Europe at the moment.
We live in a democracy, and everyone gets to vote for what makes them happy.
If people don't enjoy immigrants's culture then that's fine, but they have to respect (via democracy) that most people do.
The article uses a single anecdote of a pensioner who is robbed of her lively-hood by immigrants.
But are the circumstances of this kind of situation exclusively caused by immigrants? Or could the same thing occur with a recession? Or with gentrification?
When you look at one example, it certainly seems bad. But the generalised situation of "feeling like an alien in the town you live in", is not exclusively caused by immigrants. If this is a problem, we should address this problem universally. Anti-immigration is a hammer looking for nails.
It wasn't an article, it was a political speech, per the title and the single introductory paragraph that wasn't his words, and therefore subject to constraints that make some of your complaints irrelevant, like the single anecdote.
Integration is key though.
You mean like the famed US "melting pot"? That concept is stone cold dead, your "integration" is most assuredly not happening.
There is always a clash amongst cultures. But the alt-right's thesis is that it is related to immigrants.
Instead of making a case against immigrants by taking one example after the next of integration problems, you need to generalise your claims to ensure that they are consistent. Without requiring consistency of argument, you can basically claim anything you like.
There is always a clash amongst cultures. But the alt-right's thesis is that it is related to immigrants.
Is that it includes immigrants; we certainly don't exclude the other obvious clashes (Syria is the current awful example), but it's the immigrants in the US and Europe that are among the most important right now.
As for your latter point, I'm only here to explain what I've gathered about what the Alt Right is about, not necessarily to explain it beyond that, and while I don't claim its views immigration are inconsistent, a high level of consistency is certainly a bit much to ask this early in the formation of its philosophy, that's very much a work in progress.
Except that many generations of immigrants have successfully integrated. Besides European immigrants, Asian immigrants on the West Coast have integrated amazingly well. Latinos have also integrated nicely, although it's harder to tell because we have so many fresh immigrants.
Cultural integration is a multigenerational process, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Except that many generations of immigrants have successfully integrated.
Echoing masondixon's reply, we on the Alt Right disagree, starting possibly as far back as the Irish immigrants who played a variety of significant roles in the Civil War, e.g. the NYC draft riots. For a stark example of that quite a bit later, in the 20th Century, see the Curley effect: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+curley+effect It's anything but integration, or good for the Republic, society at large, etc. especially as its paradigm of identity politics was followed by other groups.
I think a lot of the Left's freak out over the election of Trump as well as the rise of the Alt Right is that, having first opened the bottle of identity politics and used it to great effect, they're genuinely and legitimately frightened that the genie they've unleashed is not under their control, and that "whites" are starting to enter the game.
Especially since, per Vox Day, identity trumps culture, which the Left has captured, which trumps politics, where the Left has been in fact winning (forget the labels and much of the rhetoric, look at actions) due to the establishment right/GOPe accepting its definitions of reality, rules of the game, and all that.
Trump very noticeably does not accept the Left's rules on how the game of politics are to be played, as we're seeing in now ludicrous examples like that family steak dinner.
But where are those Irish who lived under Curley now? Have they not integrated?
In America, manifestations of the Curley Effect are far more likely to come from class warfare or political ideology (such as abortion, LBGTQ rights, etc) than from ethnic diversity.
I agree that white use of identity politics does concern the Left... because identity politics developed to promote minorities and underrepresented communities. That whites feel the need to act like a minority group is disturbing considering the economic and political power that we obviously weld.
Identity politics, by its very nature, promotes a "my group first" mentality. The Left justifies its use by underrepresented minorities as a way to promote their interests and improve their quality of life. It's why blacks in the 1960 were demanding the right to vote, rather than protesting for or against the Vietnam War. The idea is that this will eventually lead to a more level economic and political playing field. However, if even the most privileged demographic groups engage in identity politics, then economic and political inequality will likely either be maintained or be exacerbated through tyranny of the majority.
> That whites feel the need to act like a minority group is disturbing considering the economic and political power that we obviously weld.
I don't see it being about whites though. I think its everyone except-the-activist-element-of-the-minority-group. People think Trump's victory is a victory for whites, but then cannot understand why some blacks, latinos, muslims, women, gays would vote for him.
> However, if even the most privileged demographic groups engage in identity politics, then economic and political inequality will likely either be maintained or be exacerbated through tyranny of the majority.
The minority always needs the support of the people wielding the power to make changes. The prominence of these movements comes from the whites joining their cause and campaigning for them. So it is in these movements best interests for the privileged demographic to engage in identity politics....or so you would think.
But what is happening now is that the privileged are peer pressured to go along with everything, but are told not to engage or criticise.
Naively, you would think that this social justice machine that has been created is a positive force.
But the backlash from the election of Trump shows that it is moving to fast and is actually counter-productive to the objectives of these movements.
But where are those Irish who lived under Curley now? Have they not integrated?
Well, apparently they voted for Trump, so maybe?
It's why blacks in the 1960 were demanding the right to vote, rather than protesting for or against the Vietnam War.
I have an (even :-) older friend who grew up in the D.C. area, and was an eyewitness to an huge protest that I think was at the Mall, at which MLK denounced the Vietnam War, you don't have to take Wikipedia's word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Opposit...
That's one of the problems with identity politics, it's part of the Left's problem with having no limiting principles, i.e. X is never enough.
Anyway, we disagree about our (white) degree of "privilege", and that's not counting the Left's crowing about how soon we'll become a true minority (see also Bertolt Brecht), some even go so far as to say we live under a Minority Occupation Government, making a play on the white supremacists ZOG. As I commented in another HN topic, today the career of scientist would be closed to me.
As this election demonstrated, and as the Left's freak out way beyond any in my lifetime over a Presidential election confirms (I wonder if you'd have to go back to Lincoln), here's no "if" here, as this article I just stumbled upon and am about to read puts it, "This Election Marks The End Of America’s Racial Détente" (http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/14/election-marks-end-ameri...).
(ADDED: And, yeah, the idea there ever was any more of a racial détente than there was between the US and USSR is bogus, as anyone who's been around for a few decades with their eyes open can attest, it didn't survive the '80s.
And the author is dead wrong about how this is going to proceed, now that the Left has broken faith and demonstrated they can't be trusted. Like the Evil Empire, another transition from a détente is to fight to victory by one side, in this case, all it took was one President who was determined to end, rather than "contain", the USSR.)
If you're on the Left, if you're an Official Minority, if your livelihood depend on the NFL, etc. etc. etc. it sucks to be you, but perhaps you shouldn't have opened that genie's bottle. Except, of course, that conflicts with the no limiting principle issue, the Left is congenitally unable to resist the temptation.
Wow, those draft riots are interesting, look at this: "The mob was turned back at the Times office by staff manning Gatling guns, including Times founder Henry Jarvis Raymond"
Lots of us are libertarians or conservatives who've lost faith in those, and are pursuing and defining a new Right that's by definition an alternative to the existing Right. Me, I was a paleoconservative.
As far as a strict definition, the best I've seen so far is former libertarian Vox Day's initial attempt, 16 points which you can find at http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html
Note that as a matter of taxonomy, he divides it into the Alt White, such as the Daily Stormer types and a group he can't belong to, and a much larger Alt West, I can dig that up for you if you want, but obviously the Alt West isn't obsessed with the Joooos, is therefore unabashedly Christian or at least believing, well, here's his 4th point:
The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
The total antisemite types, I gather they don't much like Christianity because of its Jewish origins, from Jesus to the Old Testament, they're certainly fond of a lot of pagan icons.
The combativeness of point 3 is a personal characteristic of his, but is pretty essential, and you can see how Trump is aligned with it (although, frankly, if implicitly telling the press to FU is what you need to enjoy a steak dinner with your family in peace...).
Point 12 is particularly important: "The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.", or more simply put, "We Don't Care." Note Trump's war on Political Correctness, which alone won him more than a few votes, lots of people are utterly sick of it.
Obviously many of the points will send anyone on the left screaming, and certainly there's no universal agreement on any of this---forget it being inchoate, humans being humans there never will be!---but you can take it as being at least somewhat representative of the Alt Right.