The Alt-Right: We should take them seriously

[Tarfeather]

Recently, I've discovered an alt-right YT channel by someone who's actually somewhat intellectually capable. This has deepened my understanding of the points they're making, and of their identity. Particularly, it's made me aware that while with recent developments, the Alt-Right may attract many fascists, American "libertarians", "classical liberals" and general right-wingers, their core philosophy and ideology is distinct from these groups, just as libertarian socialists like myself are distinct from (neo-)liberals, SJWs [1], and authoritarian communists.

 

By the way, just typing this out makes me realize that we have very clear and well-known terms for most right-wing movements, and a whole lot of them include the word "liber" (libertarian, "classical liberal"). It's almost as if the entire political spectrum has shifted to the right, and anyone to the left of center is considered a communist.

 

Anyway, my observations are that alt-righters are:

- anti-establishment

- desire systemic economic and political reform

- are NOT fascists.

 

What is true about them, though, is:

- They openly desire a white ethno-state

- They're openly racist, although not in the way fascists were (they don't necessarily view other races as inferior or "subhuman", rather they stress biological differences between races)

- They're openly sexist (like, seriously)

- They believe in traditional values, such as family, marriage, etc.

 

Maybe most shockingly, some of these people are actually more rational, logical and nuanced than mainstream political discourse. That's problematic, because they hold views such as "women don't belong in politics". However, some of these people will actually try to rationally and logically argue their case. And the thing is, there are of course points to be argued. And mainstream society isn't arguing these points, because there it is "taboo" to suggest things such as biological differences between sexes and races. More worryingly, these arguments are also taboo among radical left-wing circles.

 

Personally, I'm rational and skeptic first, ideological second. In other words, I will listen to people who make good and unbiased points and objectively evaluate those arguments, even if ideologically these points oppose mine. My conclusion is, some alt-righters are actually worth listening to, and giving credit to. What astounds me, is how these people can arrive at the conclusions they're coming to. With "classical liberals" and their bigoted views on Islam, it was easy to identify that these people aren't actually very rational, and that their bigoted points are based just as much in scare-mongering and fear as those of "regular" right-wingers. With the alt-right, while their points may be easy to dismantle using just simple counter-examples, their ideological framework and world views are consistent enough that not taking their points seriously would be intellectually dishonest.

 

In conclusion, I would suggest not to immediately associate "alt-right" with "nazi". It is true that nazis and other groups are flocking to this movement, as their own ideological standing and intellectual ability are shaky at best, and having allies who can reason their cause makes them feel better about themselves. The arguments of the Alt-Right are to be taken seriously, though, and trying to silence them using the "Nazi Keule" will only achieve the opposite results, as is already becoming clear with recent election results in the US and Europe.

 

[1] I'm not trying to be insulting, I just literally don't know what to call these people.. identarians? people who are so anti-racist and anti-sexist that they go all the way around to being racist and sexist? I have no idea.. you know who I mean, I hope.

[Galactic Turtle]

As a black American, this is not news.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

@Tarfeather In the anarchist parts of facebook I meet plenty of people who know how to argue these people. The fact is, the mainstream media is largely what I would consider classically liberal-they are by no means anti capitalist, and that even goes for a lot of pro LGBT+ sites as well as feminist ones. Identity politics without class consciousness is very popular in mainstream society, even though it just doesn't work.

 

The reason why it's not worth discussing any actual biological differences across gender and race, is because when they do exist, shouldn't they be accommodated anyway? We are not equally capable human beings, but despite that we still have an equal right to access food, shelter, take part in society, start a family of whatever kind, have bodily autonomy and so on do we not? That's why it's not worth considering biological differences to be an argument against feminists and anti-racists. It's the fallacy which people on the right make because they have a caricature of communism as this evil system which assumes that everyone is identical and treats them as such(despite capitalism being the system which does this in practice), and tbh part of the reason we're a bit bored of this is because the right has been at it for YEARS. Richard Spencer coined the term "alt right" in 2010 from what I heard, it's quite ridiculous. At this point, I'd hope more of those who feel able to do so are prepared to take to the streets and write to venues which host far right speakers, etc, rather than paying attention to their arguments. And I'm not sure it's useful to make a distinction between fascists and those who want a white ethnostate or something similar. People who actively argue for an ethnostate(incidentally it's not even an ethnostate, I heard this point made once and white is not an ethnicity! It's a racial state...) or eugenics etc all deserve our anger imo, because there have never been peaceful ways to enact those intentions.

 

But yeah...the mainstream media won't answer right wingers because it largely is right wing itself. And that's because states are largely full of politicians who depend on the power of capitalists to keep hold of their position in government, so the media tends to reflect that-it has to accommodate politicians so it continues to get reports and interviews from them. Of course independent media can break away from this, but they're still socialised to follow certain patterns.

 

Sorry I feel like an annoyingly loud person in political stuff on here.

[RK800]

What they are is incredibly bad for humanity, and for all life.

[ThaHoward]

It's called action and reaction. 

[Tarfeather]

 

Quote

In the anarchist parts of facebook

Wait, isn't facebook the worst possible platform to organize something such as anarchist movements.. I mean, sorry. Carry on.

 

1 hour ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

(and are also prepared to take action to prevent their views from spreading-imo doxxing someone whose videos can be linked with violent acts against marginalised people irl is necessary at the moment, with the current political climate).

That depends what you mean by "linked". If someone makes a factual video about all the bad things Wall Street did, and then someone else goes out committing violence against the bankers involved, then I hardly think that the person making the video is responsible. If someone directly calls for violence, that's a different matter.

 

Quote

The reason why it's not worth discussing any actual biological differences across gender and race, is because when they do exist, shouldn't they be accommodated anyway? We are not equally capable human beings, but despite that we still have an equal right to access food, shelter, take part in society, start a family of whatever kind, have bodily autonomy and so on do we not?

From what I've absorbed so far, at least for the more intellectual alt-righters, they don't even argue that point. Rather, they argue while all those values are important, pragmaticity is also important. So, to play devil's advocate, the argument could go that even though women should have equal rights to men, it is important that they fulfill their role as caretakers of children, because otherwise those children would grow up without a decent upbringing. In this case, the right of the child to a good mother and a good home, could override the right of the mother to do whatever she wants.

 

I'm not saying any of this is true. I'm saying it's possible to make such arguments, and in fact, they are in a very good position to make such arguments, because certainly the way society is currently set up, something is going very wrong indeed. Where we radical leftists would suggest solutions such as public healthcare, free education, social programmes, etc., alt-righters instead believe in a return to "traditional family values", "white-only societies", etc. When they are actually making logically consistent arguments for that, it's on us to prove them wrong, or give better alternative solutions, not to instantly dismiss them without considering their viewpoints.

 

Quote

At this point, I'd hope more of those who feel able to do so are prepared to take to the streets and write to venues which host far right speakers, etc, rather than paying attention to their arguments.

What would this accomplish, other than to further legitimize the stereotype of radical leftists as immature, noisy losers who can't tolerate opposing viewpoints, can get nothing done and have no real solutions to offer? Like, seriously, what you are recommending there is exactly the kind of behaviour that is giving the whole movement a bad rep, and is ultimately harming our cause.

 

Quote

And I'm not sure it's useful to make a distinction between fascists and those who want a white ethnostate or something similar. People who actively argue for an ethnostate(incidentally it's not even an ethnostate, I heard this point made once and white is not an ethnicity! It's a racial state...) or eugenics etc all deserve our anger imo, because there have never been peaceful ways to enact those intentions.

That's a fallacy. The fact that these ideas have never been enacted in a peaceful way, does not automatically mean that any attempt to enact these ideas will necessarily be violent. You're basically committing the same error there, as the people who think it's conclusively proven that communism can't work because the USSR was a thing.

 

Quote

But yeah...the mainstream media won't answer right wingers because it largely is right wing itself.

Right wing on economics. But their political views very much don't align with the alt-right, outside of that specific issue.

[Camicon]

The alt-right is advocating for an aggressively authoritarian, white ethno-state, and have built a cult of personality around their chosen figurehead. And if you don't think their racist views are based upon and propagate a narrative that paints white people as superior to everyone else (making "everyone else" necessarily inferior) then you haven't been paying much attention to their rhetoric.

 

The difference between the American alt-right and 1930-40's Nazis is opportunity. The American alt-right has no institutional power that they are able to organize and push in a concerted effort, across all levels of government, throughout the country. Nor is the country in such a destitute state that the populous is widely open to their message. It is not at all inaccurate to call the American alt-right "Nazis"; that's what they promote and aspire to. And if the political left had any balls at all they would take that narrative and run it until "alt-right" was synonymous with "Nazi".

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

9 minutes ago, Tarfeather said:

That depends what you mean by "linked". If someone makes a factual video about all the bad things Wall Street did, and then someone else goes out committing violence against the bankers involved, then I hardly think that the person making the video is responsible. If someone directly calls for violence, that's a different matter.

I said marginalised people specifically here-that doesn't include bankers, it includes anyone who makes videos which argue against people on the basis of an identity which is very much decided for them rather than being something they choose, because those videos attack people for who they are rather than what they do.

12 minutes ago, Tarfeather said:

From what I've absorbed so far, at least for the more intellectual alt-righters, they don't even argue that point. Rather, they argue while all those values are important, pragmaticity is also important. So, to play devil's advocate, the argument could go that even though women should have equal rights to men, it is important that they fulfill their role as caretakers of children, because otherwise those children would grow up without a decent upbringing. In this case, the right of the child to a good mother and a good home, could override the right of the mother to do whatever she wants.

The reason they don't argue that point is so no one has a chance to address it in combating them. We should not let that point die just because it isn't brought up explicitly by these people, rather it has to be addressed since it is a fundamental flaw in the idea that their views can be justified based on biological differences. What I would answer to your above point, is that it is not within a parent's(let's just be explicit that this could be any gender) ability to properly look after children, if their need to do so causes them to go into unemployment and, due to an inadequate social system, poverty. Therefore, if you are to argue that it is necessary for a parent to be with their child then I will say yes, and society must accommodate them for it! Otherwise that society risks putting children in poverty.

18 minutes ago, Tarfeather said:

Where we radical leftists would suggest solutions such as public healthcare, free education, social programmes, etc., alt-righters instead believe in a return to "traditional family values", "white-only societies", etc. When they are actually making logically consistent arguments for that, it's on us to prove them wrong, or give better alternative solutions, not to instantly dismiss them without considering their viewpoints.

I'm sorry if this comes off as rude, but I'm curious as to what sort of a system you believe is the solution? To me, the core elements to my own politics and why it is "radical", as in cutting to the core of the problem, is that I don't just advocate for public healthcare, or anything, and in fact I don't quite so readily agree on other elements-what I aim for is workplace democracy in the form of stronger unions, more cooperatives, the targeting of companies complicit in white supremacist, imperialist, homo/transphobic and so on agendas where possible, supporting policies which move us towards open borders, being against deportations and border control agents and so on. I'm not attacking your views but radical leftism has to go beyond just advocating for localised policies and challenge the system in place which underpins the current problems. And considering how eager people are to pretend radical leftists such as communists and anarchists are a tiny violent minority which the rest of the left also has a duty to challenge, personally I don't want to see people who dismiss a large proportion of active leftists then go on to question whether the left is doing enough against a specific(let's be honest here) hate group.

 

Just going to skip ahead now and say that while the media may not be socially on the same wavelength as the alt-right, the distinction between some of these people is pretty meaningless. As the above poster mentioned, the alt-right are very similar to Nazis, they just think they're against the status quo and decide to be against the state as well since they don't have the power which Nazis did in the 1930's. A lot of the wind was also taken out of their sails when a whole bunch of their members concluded they'd won when Trump came into power(including Alex Jones if I remember correctly)-not the sort of thing which would happen if the movement really had such cohesive goals outside of continuing and worsening the status quo.

[SorryNotSorry]

This is hardly new.

 

A couple of decades ago, David Duke proved that even flaming racists could get a measure of respect by ditching their thug outfits for three-piece suits and not peppering one's speech with swear words. 

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

17 minutes ago, Camicon said:

The alt-right is advocating for an aggressively authoritarian, white ethno-state, and have built a cult of personality around their chosen figurehead. And if you don't think their racist views are based upon and propagate a narrative that paints white people as superior to everyone else (making "everyone else" necessarily inferior) then you haven't been paying much attention to their rhetoric.

 

The difference between the American alt-right and 1930-40's Nazis is opportunity. The American alt-right has no institutional power that they are able to organize and push in a concerted effort, across all levels of government, throughout the country. Nor is the country in such a destitute state that the populous is widely open to their message. It is not at all inaccurate to call the American alt-right "Nazis"; that's what they promote and aspire to. And if the political left had any balls at all they would take that narrative and run it until "alt-right" was synonymous with "Nazi".

Hey, some of us do run with it. Agreed with all your points btw, the alt right is just what happens when Nazis have to wait a while for an opportunity. Though it's not all that different a practice either, since fascists aren't all that honest about their politics-Hitler wanted the Nazi party to catch the eye of socialists as well, and cloaked some of their symbolism in the red and black because of it, and Stalin is another example. So fascists going from saying they're anticapitalist to saying they're antistate is almost less deceptive than in the past.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

Also @Tarfeather anarchist facebook is more for socialising and discussing theory and tactics, than organising, there are actually usually rules against that. It's still good for seeing what sort of stuff is being accomplished in the rest of the world though.

[Camicon]

13 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

Hey, some of us do run with it. Agreed with all your points btw, the alt right is just what happens when Nazis have to wait a while for an opportunity. Though it's not all that different a practice either, since fascists aren't all that honest about their politics-Hitler wanted the Nazi party to catch the eye of socialists as well, and cloaked some of their symbolism in the red and black because of it, and Stalin is another example. So fascists going from saying they're anticapitalist to saying they're antistate is almost less deceptive than in the past.

Oh, I mean left political parties. I have yet to see any prominent left-leaning party run with an "alt-right are Nazis" narrative.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Camicon]

12 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

"Anyone I disagree with is a Nazi."

Except, in this case, they are Nazis.

 

They subscribe to the Nazi ideology, chant Nazi slogans, update and use Nazi propaganda, and so on.

 

They're not Nazis because people disagree with them; people disagree with them because they are Nazis.

[Telecaster68]

Much of the alt right practice is fascism, in the Mussolini-originated sense, not a synonym for Naziism.

 

Demagoguery, corporatism, construction of an 'other' to hate, anti free speech, construction of a narrative presenting the powerful as victim, thuggery... and the 'separate but equal' ideology underpinned apartheid and never works out the better for the previously less-empowered ethnic group. And all covered by pseudo intellectual apologist sophistry. 

 

Words are easy. Watch what they do when they get any kind of power.

[ThaHoward]

38 minutes ago, Camicon said:

Except, in this case, they are Nazis.

 

They subscribe to the Nazi ideology, chant Nazi slogans, update and use Nazi propaganda, and so on.

 

They're not Nazis because people disagree with them; people disagree with them because they are Nazis.

How do the Alt-Right subscribe to National Socialist ideology?

[Telecaster68]

7 minutes ago, God. said:

How do the Alt-Right subscribe to National Socialist ideology?

I'd say it's fascism rather than Naziism, but if you can't easily see the parallels, you're being obtuse.

[ThaHoward]

Everything have parallels if you want to. Bernie Sanders was the most leftwing candidate. He is a self declared Socialist. Stalin was a Socialist.

 

Those who support Bernie Sanders subscribe to Stalinism!

 

I'm not a fan of the Alt-right, but Nazism was far worse and openly wanted to end democracy and eradicate lesser human beings. 

[Telecaster68]

Socialism is not Stalinism. You're more intelligent than that, God.

 

I note that you're implicitly conceding the parallels though.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

@Camicon Hence why some of us go off of political parties altogether. There are some fantastic satirical songs about the sectarianism of communist parties as well, I guess I'm just saying that imo a lot of leftist politicians are kind of ridiculous. "I'm so radical, I put 90% of my energy into raising money so I can get into power and put through my radical policies...that is, if I have time in between raising money to stay in power long enough to do so."

[Lucas Monteiro]

2 hours ago, Camicon said:

The difference between the American alt-right and 1930-40's Nazis is opportunity. The American alt-right has no institutional power that they are able to organize and push in a concerted effort, across all levels of government, throughout the country. Nor is the country in such a destitute state that the populous is widely open to their message.

History is nothing more than repetitive patterns. I don't doubt anything that if given some cathastrophic events, the American alt-right could raise to the institutional power. People forget, but it doesn't take too much for irrational and sentimental political attitudes to happen. Just look at some political leaders in Europe or America, and you will see.

[ThaHoward]

9 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Socialism is not Stalinism. You're more intelligent than that, God.

 

I note that you're implicitly conceding the parallels though.

But Stalinism is a form of Socialism, do that mean that all types of Socialism is Stalinism? Nope. And that was the point..taking something out of proportions with the most extreme. Alt-Right are not a form of Nazism. But for the sake of the argument, both are radical right doctrines, do that mean they are the same? Nope. If you want to take alt-right seriously saying they are Nazis really isn't the way to go.

[Telecaster68]

I agree they're not Nazis. They're fascists.

[umbasa]

2 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

This is hardly new.

 

A couple of decades ago, David Duke proved that even flaming racists could get a measure of respect by ditching their thug outfits for three-piece suits and not peppering one's speech with swear words. 

Yep, it happened in the UK.

 

In the 70's, the National Front was the first step towards respectability.

 

When that was not palatable enough...

 

In the 80's, came the British National Party.

 

And when that was still seen as a little too racist...

 

In the 90's entered UKIP. The ultimate form of respectable racism.

 

So much so they hoodwinked an idiot, ham-loving prime minister into calling an EU referendum out of an unwarranted fear of a conservative exodus (to UKIP). After being granted exactly what they wanted, UKIP then did the tried and tested strategy of drumming up anger towards foreigners because the economy was down.

 

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. And predictable.

[Camicon]

1 hour ago, God. said:

How do the Alt-Right subscribe to National Socialist ideology?

Oh, you're playing the "the name is X so they must be X" game? I guess the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea isn't an authoritarian autocracy. Whew, dodged a bullet there! Turns out people have been all upset with North Korea for no reason at all, they're actually super nice! Just look at their name!

 

Seriously though, the Nazis may have been nationalist but they were not socialist, same as the "alt-right". This difference, like I said, is that the "alt-right" have not been given the opportunity that the Nazis had. For now, all their talk and bluster remains talk and bluster.

 

But we don't define ideologies or the people that subscribe to them based on what they do, we define them based on what the promote and believe. And the "alt-right" promote and believe the same things that the Nazis did, if with a little more care and a lot more dog whistling than their early-mid 20th century counterparts. Not because they are ideologically distinct, but because the social landscape in America is far more hostile to their ideology than the social landscape of the Weimar Republic was. You can bet your bottom line that if the US experienced another Great Depression right now the "alt-right" would drop all pretext and ostensible difference between themselves and Hitler's party.

 

50 minutes ago, Lucas Monteiro said:

History is nothing more than repetitive patterns. I don't doubt anything that if given some cathastrophic events, the American alt-right could raise to the institutional power. People forget, but it doesn't take too much for irrational and sentimental political attitudes to happen. Just look at some political leaders in Europe or America, and you will see.

No doubt. That's why people need to take this seriously. The Weimar Republic was progressive by today's standards, and then some art-school dropout named Adolf took advantage of some seriously bad economic circumstances and captured a plurality of the vote based on an explicitly racist, exclusionary, imperialist platform.

 

44 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I agree they're not Nazis. They're fascists.

A Nazi is a racist (generally anti-Semitic) fascist. The American "alt-right" are most certainly Nazis.

[umbasa]

44 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I agree they're not Nazis. They're fascists.

Fascists with fringe Nazi supporters and sympathisers. At that point... I mean, it doesn't look good if it ends "with fringe Nazi supporters and sympathisers."

[umbasa]

1 hour ago, Camicon said:

Except, in this case, they are Nazis.

 

They subscribe to the Nazi ideology, chant Nazi slogans, update and use Nazi propaganda, and so on.

 

They're not Nazis because people disagree with them; people disagree with them because they are Nazis.

Careful, you're in danger of a both sides / whataboutism being thrown at you.

[ThaHoward]

8 minutes ago, Camicon said:

Oh, you're playing the "the name is X so they must be X" game? I guess the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea isn't an authoritarian autocracy. Whew, dodged a bullet there! Turns out people have been all upset with North Korea for no reason at all, they're actually super nice! Just look at their name!

 

Seriously though, the Nazis may have been nationalist but they were not socialist, same as the "alt-right". This difference, like I said, is that the "alt-right" have not been given the opportunity that the Nazis had. For now, all their talk and bluster remains talk and bluster.

 

But we don't define ideologies or the people that subscribe to them based on what they do, we define them based on what the promote and believe. And the "alt-right" promote and believe the same things that the Nazis did, if with a little more care and a lot more dog whistling than their early-mid 20th century counterparts. Not because they are ideologically distinct, but because the social landscape in America is far more hostile to their ideology than the social landscape of the Weimar Republic was. You can bet your bottom line that if the US experienced another Great Depression right now the "alt-right" would drop all pretext and ostensible difference between themselves and Hitler's party.

 

 

Oh no the National Socialist weren't National Socialist, they were uhm Alt-Right? Nazi is just short for  Nationalsozialismus. Guess one time what that means. All history books and papers on politics regarding Germany and national socialism since the interwar era have to be re-written following this revelation, the Nazis are not Nazis!

 

But a major difference between Alt-Right and Nazism is that the national socialist leaders actually openly sai they wanted to get rid of democracy and inferior humans from Germany. nd before and after their election to power they used their paramilitary forces to terrorize the population and then used their position of power to gain complete control of the nation and do what they always promised to do.

 

Now I haven't seen profilic members of the alt-right say these things, sure there may be indiviuals, but then they are fringe elements and not the leading members of the group(s), let alone the majority of it. 

[Telecaster68]

It's one of the differences, I agree. But strictly.speaking Nazi is a contraction of National Socialist in German, Hitler's party, and its policies were pretty specific to 1930s Germany. It's also too easy to get taken down those kind of rabbit holes when the general principles are clearer in comparison to fascism which had more of a worked out intellectual basis (I use the term loosely... Mussolini was considered an intellectual early in his career).

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, God. said:

Oh no the National Socialist weren't National Socialist, they were uhm Alt-Right? Nazi is just short for  Nationalsozialismus. Guess one time what that means. But a major difference between Alt-Right and Nazism is that the national socialist leaders actually openly sai they wanted to get rid of democracy and inferior humans from Germany. nd before and after their election to power they used their paramilitary forces to terrorize the population and then used their position of power to gain complete control of the nation and do what they always promised to do.

 

Now I haven't seen profilic members of the alt-right say these things, sure there may be indiviuals, but then they are fringe elements and not the leading members of the group(s), let alone the majority of it. 

And God brilliantly demonstrates my rabbit hole point.