Monday, August 29, 2016

The Alt Right: A Quick Overview

Hillary Clinton’s recent speech mentioning the Alt Right has grabbed headlines, and now it seems everyone is talking about the Alt Right. It’s bloody everywhere.

The trouble with Clinton’s speech is that she seemed to identify the Alt Right with Breitbart, but Breitbart is Alt Right-lite at best, and not properly representative of the Alt Right. For example, Breitbart is pro-Israel, but the Alt Right is hostile to Israel and extremely anti-Semitic.

Moreover, Milo Yiannopoulos (until recently anyway) was not really Alt Right either, and he is more a cultural libertarian who hates political correctness and feminism, and was a mere “fellow traveller” of the Alt Right (though he now seems to be claiming the mantle). And even the quasi-libertarian Paul Joseph Watson seems to be identifying as Alt Right now.

In reality, a lot of the hardcore of the Alt Right seems to hate Milo Yiannopoulos and keep their distance from Breitbart (which they regard as being too soft), however.

If you want to understand the Alt Right, go and read their blogs and listen to their YouTube channels:
Alt Right Blogs
Alternative Right
Occidental Observer
The Right Stuff Radio
The Right Stuff Blog
Radix Journal Blog
Occident Invicta, The Unconquered West
Counter-Currents Publishing
The Alternative Hypothesis
Bay Area Guy, Occident Invicta, The Unconquered West
Social Matter. Not Your Grandfather’s Conservatism

Alt Right YouTube Channels
Millennial Woes YouTube channel
Pale Hominid
Red Ice Radio YouTube Channel
If there are core principles that seem to unite the Alt Right, they are as follows:
(1) race realism, as pointed out by Jared Taylor in the Guardian.

(2) anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
You can see this from how they promote themselves:

This is often combined with an open demand for authoritarianism (or very limited democracy), Holocaust denial and admiration of Nazi Germany.

And, yes, these people really do have a bizarre and pathological obsession with Jewish people and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, e.g., their meme of the Triple parentheses.

The left should strongly oppose the Alt Right, but I fear the cultural left will do a feeble job of doing it.

Why? Because once you ditch the crazed aspects of the Alt Right, some of these people – like the populist right – are raising real issues like the failure of neoliberalism, open borders, and multiculturalism. But they are going in the wrong – and a disastrously wrong – direction.

What does the Alt Right represent?

I keep telling people: the major development here is that the American Alt Right marks the continuing collapse of the American libertarian movement. Although some, maybe quite a few, were former liberals too, nevertheless more and more libertarians are gravitating to the Alt Right.

But, at the same time, there is a strange schizophrenia to the Alt Right on economics. All of them at least recognise that open borders would be catastrophic, and so they have abandoned this.

Broadly, from what I have seen, they are divided into the following groups:
(1) a group that have retreated to something like Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s views but are statists who accept a national government with national borders for a white ethno-state.

(2) a statist group who want a white ethno-state but with pragmatic economics, even though emotionally they seem to like Ron Paul-style libertarian or Austrian economics.

(3) a statist group who want a white ethno-state but who are left-wing on economics.
In fact, one could go so far as to say that the left-wing of the Alt Right are basically National Socialists, and, most probably, they will break with the libertarian wing eventually.

Trolling the Alt Right
In light of all this, I see a serious problem with the Alt Right.

On the one hand, the Alt Right is anti-Semitic and obsessed with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

But, on the other hand, they have a wing that still loves much of the libertarian economic theories created by (gasp!) Jewish intellectuals like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard:

I dunno, dudes. Did you put any thought into this lame-ass movement? Was this just a minor oversight?

Or could it be that the Alt Right is really… the (((Alt Right)))?!

You tell me.

P.S. the cartoon is facetious trolling of the Alt Right, by subverting their memes, not trying to blame libertarianism on the Jewish people. Don’t make me point this out in the comments section!


  1. Most political movements are coalitions between random groups with little relation to one another.

    How did evangelical Christians form a coalition with pro business free marketers, when it was once evangelicals who blamed big business for pushing for women's working laws to push them into the workforce and away from families?

    1. In the end, the right has a deep seated hatred of communism and Marxism. That hatred of the left binds them.

  2. The original Alt Right are Nazis and eugenic race freaks. But I think that the Breitbart crowd is going to steal the title and claim it as their own while marginalising the Nazis.

    1. Have the altright types ever explained their fascination with eugenics given the, uh, demographic profile of those who openly embrace white supremacist politics? Here in the US, at least, those who openly embrace white supremacy tend to be dull, uneducated criminals who are hooked on drugs (which, ironically enough, is how white supremacists describe the "Jew's attack dogs", known to us as the black population of the US). These aren't exactly the type of people I would want to base a eugenics program creating Aryan supermen around.

    2. I am not sure if all Alt-Rightists are working-class whites. Some people within the Alt-Right/Dark Enlightenment ideological galaxy appear to be educated, many of them working in the tech industry.


      But you make a good point, and there are some distinctions between "regular Joe" white supremacists and some of the more genteel scientific racists like Jared Taylor. Some people on the American Far Right consider Taylor to be a philosemite and I recall in 2006 there was some kind of confrontation at an American Renaissance conference between David Duke and Taylor over the “Jewish question.”

      I know some people consider the SPLC to be a SJW organization but they do a decent job tracking Far Right movements. Here is their article on the spat at the American Renaissance conference:

      YouTube video of the David Duke incident at the American Renaissance conference:

      At about 2:30 into the video people start to cuss at Duke.

      If one wanted to you could read Far Right message boards and blogs and see discussions of the different factions of the Far Right on issues like the Jewish question.

      The more populist sections of the Alt-Right would probably blame white working-class dysfunction on environmental factors and oppression by some enemy group (probably the Jews) while some of the members of the Alt-Right who put more emphasis on human biodiversity (HBD) might say that poor white people are genetically inferior and thus deserve their fate.

    3. Its sort of like how Metapedia(nazi wikipedia) accuses Conservapedia(conservative wikipedia) of being "cultural Marxists" for talking about racism. While Conservapedia believe that Hitler was a far-left socialist and that everything statists is leftist, and that everything leftists is bad, except of course government programs and laws Conservaprdia supports.

    4. "while some of the members of the Alt-Right who put more emphasis on human biodiversity (HBD) might say that poor white people are genetically inferior and thus deserve their fate."

      Charles Murray comes to mind

  3. LK, that meme is gold. Given some white supremacist organizations have embraced european neopaganism after realizing the hypocrisy of belonging to a religion that worships a devout Jew as God, I wonder if we'll see a similar reaction once the (((Alt Right))) realize the inconvenience of hating Jews while being indebted to Rothbard and Mises.

    You've touched on the altright growing out of the ashes of the American libertarian movement in the past; while you didn't say it in this specific article, you've mentioned the (((Ron Paul))) faction as a particularly important faction among these types. I think it's important to recognize how neoconfederate, state's rights ideology informs this style of libertarianism. Take marijuana laws, an issue where (((Ron Paul))) is able to get some mainstream appeal in the US-while his ilk oppose federal laws prohibiting the consumption of marijuana, they'd be perfectly okay with Alabama having a law that executed pot smokers. It's not too much of a stretch to see how "Pot consumption should be left to the states!" can logically lead to "Prohibiting black people from entering my place of business should be left to the states!"

    I suspect many of those who went from (((Ron Paul))) to the (((Alt Right))) found the neosegregationist elements of his platform very appealing. If that is the case, the transition between the two groups is quite sensible.

  4. The American libertarian movement has always had to twist itself into odd shapes on issues like free trade and immigration in order to gain followers on the American Far Right, followers who are often racist. How do you argue for open borders but also try to maintain some sort of white-dominated ethno-state?

    Some of the more mainstream libertarian groups like the Cato Institute don’t really need to engage in ideological gymnastics because they are closer to the establishment wing of the American Right and are pro-immigration and anti-racist, which is probably the more principled libertarian position.

    In any event, American fascists have always been less statist than their European counterparts. I suspect this is due to the influence of the American South and that region’s emphasis on cheap labor, small government, anti-union policies, and highly polarized racial politics. Much of the American Far Right tradition has come from the South or was in various ways influenced by Southern political culture.

    Michael Lind on the impact of the South on American politics and economics:

    1. The U.S. South was also the biggest support base of the 16th Amendment. Look at the 1924 Democratic platform, when the Democratic Party was almost exclusively limited to the South, and only won the former Confederate states (plus Oklahoma). It's not right-wing.

      Likewise, the original reaction against the (((New Deal))) came from the Great Plains, not the South. Nevertheless, by the late 1940s, southern legislators, even those who had overwhelmingly supported such socialistic programs as the TVA were condemned by (((labor unions))) for supporting right-to-work laws (first developed in then-Democratic Arkansas) and other anti-union measures.

      The same Deep Southerners (though not Texans or Arkansans) who had overwhelmingly voted for FDR in 1944 overwhelmingly voted for the ideologically far-distant (((Goldwater))) 20 years later, purely due to the race issue. The entire Deep South (and much of the shallow South) still went for Stevenson in 1952, though South Carolina did so by two points in 1952. The first Republican to win the White vote in any Deep Southern state was Eisenhower in 1956.

      In short, southern economic views have been historically complicated. Texas never had as much anti-Black voting as the Deep South (cf, 1928), but in 2012, only 19% of Whites there voted for Obama -the same percentage as in much more traditionally racist Georgia.

    2. Also, that Salon article is clear, simple, and idiotic. There's a reason the population of Texas has grown faster than that of CA and NY combined since 2010, something Lind's uncritical readers will never be able to understand.

    3. Was the lack of triple parenthesis around (((Eisenhower))) a typo? His administration, particularly (((John Foster Dulles))) at the state department, was appreciably influenced by the (((American Council For Judaism))).

  5. Clinton is just trying to smear Trump of course, and you are right to point out what a crock this.
    As for the alt right? The world is full of fringe loonies who come and go. Has anyone got a reason to believe they are more numerous or powerful than say the the few remaining Maoists or Raelians?

  6. The triple parenthesis thing is hilarious. What sort of mind sits around thinking such stuff up in the first place?

  7. The website "Daily Stormer" claims to be the web's largest alt-right website. They are openly supportive of Neo-fascistic ideas and have sections on things like "the Jewish problem" and the "race war". The have supported Trump, feature David Duke, and one glance at the comment section should tell you how there heroes are(Hitler, Pinochet, Putin, Franco and a whole host of right wing strong men).

    The alt right seems to be the neglected fringes of the western worlds right wing. Where else can neo-reactionaries, monarchists, Christian theologians, paleoconservatives, white nationalists, national socialists, and ancaps all come together to discuss the pressing issues of white genocide and the globalist Marxist takeover? The only people who aren't allowed are those nasty neocons who are seen as a bunch of ex-Trotskiest Jews whose globalist ambitions are just as bad as anything on the left. Moderate conservatives are generally shunned as well.

    What does seem to unite them is "race realism/racialism" and general crankery. Central banking, global warming, vaccination, public education, and the media are frequent topics of discussion. They are all generally speaking right wing populates and nationalists in their beliefs. Most seem to play around with the race science of people like J. Philippe Rushton. His most interesting theories were that genital size had an inverse correlation with intelligence. East Asian males and females, he believed, had on average, smaller external genitalia but larger cranial capacity, IQ's, and a high preference time. On the other end of the spectrum there are sub-sharan Africana who have large external genitals but smaller brains, low presence time, and small IQ's.

    Ancaps like Stefan Molyneaux and Hans Hermann Hoppe have referenced racial science as have National Socialists who advocate pretty massive government intervention.

    How long can this coalition of right wing misfits stick together? I imagine at some point the general insanity of the moment will cause it to friction. Libertianrsgn will accuse the Fascists of being economic leftists and statists. The Fascists will call the Ancaps cucks. People will be accused of being "controlled opposition" and ideological purity tests combined with paranoid conspiracies will prevent the movement from going anywhere.

  8. As a convert to the Alt-Right, I believe this the best review of the "movement" so far except for two points.

    First, the claim that we anti-semitic rather than counter-semitic. You failed to mention the favorite author of the Alt-Right on the JQ i.e. Kevin B. MacDonald.

    The problem with Jews is very simple for you leftist biology denialist.

    Jews are an intelligent and ambitious people who desire to lead every society in which they find themselves.

    As a result, they created a "Culture of Critique" within Jewish society for their host culture society as means of tearing down the native elites and traditions and installing themselves into those positions until they get purged or destroy their host societies.

    It is not a evil worldwide"conspiracy" but trait of Jewish culture toward the "Goyim."

    It is called the "Law of Competitive Exclusion" but the AltRight/Darwinian Right says this biological principle of population biology doesn't stop with animals but occurs between the ethnic/racial groups competing for social dominance.

    You don't have room at the top for a nativist white elite in Western Civilization and a Jewish elite and thus there is going to be conflict between our peoples.

    If you deny this you are essentially a creationist regarding human ethnic/racial conflict. You simply have to look at the change in the demographics of the Forbes 400 list from the 1990s to today and you see that whites haves drop from 75%+ to less than 40% in favor the Jewish elites who have done nothing but gain after every economical crisis/shock.

    The left fails understand politics because or class conflict idea as the driver rather the proper understanding of history as "elites versus elites."

  9. Part 2:

    Second, your so-called "trolling" of the AltRight with you pathetic idea what we are all in love with Uncle Milton and Murray Rothbard. You really think this doesn't come up on literally every single economics post on /pol/?

    As stated above the only libertarian they like is the non-Jewish Hans-Hermann Hoppe and I have trying to purge that libertarian/Southern baggage from the movement.

    The favorite economist of the alt by is Gottfried Feder a proto-Keynesian NS from the German Nationalist School.

    The hard core of the Alt-Right likes the Nationalist economist of the American School, the German Historical School and more modern Asian Tigerl eaders like Lee Kuan Yew.

    The primary economic program concern of the Alt-Right is the absolution of usury regarding National Budgets. They refer to the Mefo-Bills the National Socialist end run around the Rothchild/British Banking Cartel extorting of Germany after WWI.

    I suppose you call this a "Anti-Semetic Conspiracy theory" and the treaty of Vienna as perfectly fair and reasonable.

    The reason I left the idea "democratic socialism" for Strasserism is because after BLM shit on Bernie Sanders the left (including this blog) doubled down the narrative that this was result blacks being in a lower classes rather than the obvious racial reason.

    You simply had to be twitter to understand that class wasn't the issue at all. It purely a racial issue and the fact that non-whites fundamentally hate white people on a biological level. You have live the experience to understand and you upper middle class leftist cannot understand why democratic socially is totally impossible with multi-racialism.

    The Left simple refuse to believe other than "economic class" drive history and social conflict. You are simply wrong. Race and Ethnicity i.e. the folkish extension of family relations to the broader society is what drives history.

    The leftist views denies the existence and importance family entirely as a concept. You substitute the narrative of State and class, weak versus strong, oppressed and oppressor as the be all and end all of human social relations and it is pitiful.

    Families do not exist to the left and thus they understand nothing of how real societies can with hierarchies without being a neatly weak versus strong narrative

    1. "As stated above the only libertarian they like is the non-Jewish Hans-Hermann Hoppe"

      This is B.S. I have heard Alt Righters say they still like the economics of Rothbard or Ron Paul or Mises or other Austrian economists, e.g., Mike Enoch

    2. LK, I wonder if this is the same insightful Septeus7 once who said this:

      The Austrian school denies the existence of human beings with their apriori assumptions about human action which deny the possibility of human creativity which of course is man's most defining characteristic.

      The Austrian school also denies the existence of accounting.

      That’s all true, of course, even though we try to keep it very secret and we never tell it to outsiders.

    3. Bob Roddis@August 31, 2016 at 6:44 PM

      A much more interesting question is whether you can define what a market clearing price is, Mr F*cking Idiot.

  10. Former alt righter here. I am, for the most part, sympathetic to many of these people. What motivates them is the sense of isolation, alienation, and hopelessness that is pervasive everywhere neoliberalism rules.

    That, and the constant accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia against people who really have no real power, was bound to make certain people (myself included) embrace it.

    I love this site because this is really the one place where the truth gets stated.

    We would all have a much higher standard of living, and a world much closer to what typical liberal arts progressives wanted. Political correctness has done nothing positive.

    1. I don't doubt the insanity of cultural leftism and SJWism and PC culture has helped to create the Alt Right.

  11. Just a little question. If Bretibart it's (wasn't) really Alt-Right, then what it is (was before Clinton speech)?

    They seem to fit nowhere in any political spectra!

    1. Breitbart? Breitbart was a Glenn Beck-style conservative site before Trump.

      With Trump, it has become a populist conservative site, civic nationalist, hostile to illegal immigration, increasingly hostile to free trade and much of what Trump is talking about.

  12. Alt rightist here. I don't have much to contribute to the conversation at the moment, but I felt compelled to say that the libertarian aspects of the alt right seem greatly exaggerated. It is true that a number of alt right types are former libertarians, or retain some libertarian ideas, but in my experience it simply isn't something that features prominently in the movement (it is certainly eclipsed by other issues). What animates the alt right is a romantic and idealistic vision, not an economic one.

    1. And yet I have heard Mike Enoch on Red Ice say he wants a broadly libertarian economics for his ideal Alt Right society.

      Care to comment on this?

  13. An intellectual connection between libertarianism and fascism is Ayn Rand through her Nietzschean elitism.

    Also, there is clearly a case against democracy from a libertarian perspective, without it having to turn into the Alt Right.

    10. Bryan Caplan – The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies

    "In The Myth of the Rational Voter economist Bryan Caplan employs economic reasoning and empirical evidence to explain why democracy leads to poor public policy. The average voter has a strong incentive to be rationally irrational about politics and the economic ignorance of elected politicians is evidence of this. This book provides no less than the microfoundations of political failure. Also recommended is Randall Holcombe’s From Liberty to Democracy: The Transformation of American Government. Holcombe uses a public choice perspective to show how the rise of democracy leads to a decline of liberty."

  14. To the writer of this article: I invite you to debate me on my channel.

    1. Maybe. I'm on Twitter if you want debate:

    2. millenial woes (((i am))) not native english speaker but i will not deny a good heatlhy debate if you like?