• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What is the purpose of the term "alt-right"?

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,527
355
925
To call someone a Nazi without the risk of actually saying it. It's a lazy form of character assassination.
The agenda laiden, bullshit answer.

The term came from Richard Spencer, who was using it as a term to re-brand white nationalists as something more presentable. So that's where alt-right = nazis comes from. Then as that movement grew the term began to be used to a whole range of people on the right and gets thrown about way too casually.

I've seen people on here say "alt-left" a bunch. But it's not really a thing because that's not really a label anyone has ever used for themselves. It's just people on the right getting annoyed at getting called alt-right, which is understandable because as I said alt-right is now used so frequently.
The correct answer.



Also, square a right wing, nationalist, please.

How do you do that?

You actually can't because it's counterintuitive.

Globalists, capitalists, free market proponents, libertarians - those people are genuinely right wing.

The 'alt right' people and other nationalists (see: Trumptards) are actually left wing.

They're the same as Berntards, they just want the government to focus on a different kind of policy.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
781
1,777
355
Well there is clearly no point really engaging anymore. But I will just say, every time you right wingers complain "Waaah the left won't debate us" think back to this, I offered my arguments and was met with nothing but bad faith and ad hominem. How you guys are acting is basically no different to how the woketards of Resetera/PoliGAF acted whenever they came across views they didn't like. (though in fairness I won't be instabanned by some hillbot cultist)
There is a point though.

If you want to explain what the Alt-Right is then maybe don't focus on people who are fundamentally against some of the basic principles.
I don't believe that many of the people branded "Alt-Right" are honestly secret white supremacists.
Especially when they are openly against identity politics (of which white supremacy is a part).

Even fear mongering like "white genocide" or dreams of setting up an ethnostate seem to not be on the agenda of many who are lumped in with the "Alt-Right" label.

All you've really managed to successfully do is demonstrate that, even when asked directly what the Alt-Right is and given examples of individuals who are blatantly not Alt-Right, some people will just resort to stomping their feel and saying "they are Alt-Right but they just keep it secret".

I mean, how the hell does a "dogwhistle" work if the people it's targeting aren't in the know (or aren't actually dogs to complete the analogy).
This is the curious thing. If Peterson etc are dogwhistling to the Alt-Right then that "whistle" only reaches people who are already there.
So how can that work as a recruitment tool?

The difference between here and the other places is that we can have the argument here. It doesn't work if your starting position is "everyone is my enemy" and the moment you catch a whiff of disagreement you go into full "I am the only one who knows the truth" mode.

Shit, maybe Peterson really is some secret Nazi but the evidence suggests otherwise.
Think about it. He opposes the left so the left smears him.
His philosophy though is fundamentally in opposition to white supremacy.

It ends up where you are arguing that the guy telling you his worldview is only doing so to trick you into believing in a totally different worldview.

It's not even like Scientology getting you in on the ground floor and then saying later on "and NOW for the really crazy shit".
Your scenario as it is laid out is like a Christian trying to convert people by pretending to be an Atheist and constantly picking holes in Christian ideology but secretly deep down they are tricking you into loving Jesus. It makes no fucking sense.

Personally, I think you've been duped. Tricked into believing something that isn't real.
Maybe you think "he's gaslighting me" but maybe I think others have been gaslighting you.

Some stories just seem too convenient. "Little Jimmy started listening to funny Joe Rogan but within two years he was stalking the streets looking for women to harass and minorities to abuse but then one day he listened to HBomberguy on YouTube and now he runs an LGBTQ friendly refuge for refugees".

I dunno. I never trusted that stuff.

The alt-right exist. White supremacists exist. All kinds of shitty and horrendous human beings exist.

I would just say be careful who you label and be mindful of why you are even labeling them to begin with.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,144
1,659
530
It's pretty well documented at this point how the far-right gamed the Youtube Algorithm

Funny you used this to prove you point, when it actually works against your point.



Notice as he watched more of the IDW his viewership of right wing content went down, and viewing left wing content went up. Also the guy in that article never became a radical.

Mr. Cain never bought into the far right’s most extreme views, like Holocaust denial or the need for a white ethnostate, he said. Still, far-right ideology bled into his daily life. He began referring to himself as a “tradcon” — a traditional conservative, committed to old-fashioned gender norms. He dated an evangelical Christian woman, and he fought with his liberal friends.
unless you consider traditional gender norms and dating a christian woman radical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
927
414
515
I covered the New Right (including the alt-right) not too long ago in a review of/reflection on a new book about them. "Alt-right" encompasses a wide range of views, which get extremely cloudy when they intentionally engage in trolling and being politically incorrect. and at the same time their opponents use it as a pejorative.
As a follow-up to my "Ship of Fools" thread, I'll start a discussion on another interesting book I read recently.

The author: Michael Malice was planning to get onstage at Charlottesville to tell the crowd who he thought were the five best contestants on RuPaul's Drag Race and why, though he changed plans after things there really got bad. A New York Jew with a razor wit and an appreciation for trolling, he's appeared on many podcasts, including Joe Rogan's.

Definition of terms: "The New Right" is "A loosely connected group of individuals united by their opposition to progressivism, which they perceive to be a thinly veiled fundamentalist religion dedicated to totalitarian principles and intent on totalitarian world domination via globalist hegemony." The Alt Right is the faction which focuses on race.

A few threads from the book:
The enemy: The general view among the New Right is that the last generation of conservatives have been on a long cultural losing streak because they thought they were in an honest debate, and allowed the left to set the narrative. What's actually going on is neither honest nor a debate. It's more like the persecution of heretics, with conservatives adopting the same policies as progressives, just a few years later. Mencius Moldbug formulated the concept of the Cathedral, pointing out that "the left is the party of the educational organs, at whose head is the press and universities. This is our 20th-century version of the established church."

"The left does not win its battles in debate. It doesn't have to. In the twenty-first century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media. Narrative is everything. I call it the Democrat-media complex." (Quoting Andrew Breitbart)

The roots: While the New Right is in broad agreement about what they're against, there are extreme differences about what they are for, and many competing ideas are contradictory - everything from anarchism to various ideas about ethnostates to a restoration of the Stuart monarchy. Malice points out a kind of prefiguring of the New Right in the alliance between Pat Buchanan (culturally conservative, nationalistic, concerned with western civilization, frequently accused of racism and anti-semitism) and Murray Rothbard (the irreverent Jewish anarcho-capitalist whose biggest concern was opposing wars, and sought allies everywhere from States' Rightists to the New Left because virtually no one agreed with him in opposing both big government at home and government violence abroad). Both were anti-establishment, and concluded that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," so Rothbard came on board the 1992 Buchanan presidential campaign.

Another important figure is William F. Buckley, who was able to set the bounds of acceptable conservatism for much of the Cold War era. Some would applaud that he got rid of conspiracy-theory types and racists (while also getting rid of the anti-war right on behalf of the CIA). However, defining who exactly deserves banishment is virtually impossible even if the person doing it were honest and unbiased (they never are). Now, Buckley is dead, and there is no one on the right with the same power. It's the Wild West on the fringes of the right.

On Gamergate: it was an important moment in proving the existence of the Cathedral, the idea that what is being presented as fact is actually a carefully coordinated movement by elites to establish and impose their view of what reality is and how it should be. The GameJournoPros list created the appearance that different outlets were independently coming to the same conclusions, even though it was quite coordinated. One result of Gamergate was to position against the Cathedral a group of people whose hobby consists of figuring out the rules of a world someone else created and beating it.

Is he sympathetic to them: Malice appreciates good trolling the way snobs appreciate fine wine. "Trolling is meant to be clever. At its best, it is the art of turning an audience into a performer by exploiting their flaws for comedic effect." The evangelical left defines what is acceptable, and views everything outside their box as wrong and bad. They try to put limits on humor. This makes them ideal targets for humor.

Malice - an anarchist - also shares the new right's contempt for the establishment. However, he says "You're supposed to take one red pill, not the whole bottle." Some strands of the new right dismiss everything he says because he's Jewish. Racial determinism removes reason. He expressly hopes this book will turn some of the persuadable people broadly within the new right away from anti-semitism and other really negative strands.

Final thoughts: I definitely recommend the book. You'll probably find things that challenge your worldview, and expand your understanding of the political spectrum, the way culture develops and drives politics, how the left got control of media and academia, and much more. It's also filled with humor, both subtle and outrageous (recent quote: you are such an automaton without a soul that you make Marco Rubio look like Aretha Franklin). Check out some of his podcast appearances, and you'll figure out pretty quickly if you appreciate what he does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
4,063
4,748
535
what is the purpose? IMO it is largely a media creation. alt right was often used during 2016 during the search to prove that Trump is literally Hitler. right around the time everyone on the left started writing books about Authoritarianism and feigning shock that a person running for the President of the United States is somehow an authoritarian (why this never applied to Hillary Clinton is evidence of the media bubble's Blind Spot). lots of people started reading about fascists and authoritarians and because we lived in the world before Election Day 2016, historical actual Nazis and modern day people that make cartoon frog memes were not considered the same thing. a new term had to be coined.

at first, it became necessary to highlight the use of memes and the internet. because this was also a story about the media marketing itself, by doing many stories about social media (which is new yet nontheless dominated by traditional media simply as a means of market saturation), the NEWNESS of it was crucial to sell. it needed a hook, like any consumer product, so the media came up with Alt Right.

i think at first it was supposed to talk about a specific trend of Very Online rightwing activists. but over time, it has become more and more close to the use of "Nazi" or "fascist", a label to slap someone that designates them as "toxic". it can be used by the media to talk about right wingers but is often used by leftists in the act of tearing themselves apart. accusing someone of being Alt Right is a serious thing but it is also a thing that can happen because you dislike a comic book movie. when you are "toxic" your speech is of no value, your opinion is irrelevant, and wrong. it is the modern Scarlet Letter, a symbol through which you are branded and shamed in the public eye.
 
Last edited:

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
1,782
1,566
480
Ugh, sorry for my awful grammar. That's what you get for thinking one thing and then writing another. Can some mod fix the title please?

Anyway I see the alt-right is usually associated with white supremacy. Ok then but if you ask the left if people like Candace Owens is alt-right, they will say yes. So Candace Owens is a white supremacist?
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2007
3,997
262
895
It only takes a quick Google-search to find the answer...



The term "alt-right" is a neologism first used in November 2008 by self-described paleoconservative philosopher Paul Gottfried, addressing the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called "the alternative right".[8] This talk was published in December under the title "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right"[9] in the conservative Taki's Magazine, becoming the earliest published usage of the phrase in its current context according to Slate. In 2009, two more posts at Taki's Magazine (one by Patrick J. Ford and the other by Jack Hunter) further discussed the alternative right.[10] Since 2016, the term has been commonly attributed to Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right.[11][12][13] A white supremacist,[14][15][16][17] Spencer coined the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism and has been accused by some media publications of doing so to excuse overt racism, white supremacism and neo-Nazism.[18][19][20][21][22]


H. L. Mencken abhorred religion. Prior to Trump, the Republican party (often cited as the right-leaning party) frequently ran using religion as a major talking-point. Those on the right who didn't like religion got fed up with such stupid candidates. Thus, the alternative-right was created.

H. L. Mencken and Richard Spencer also displayed significant anti-Semitic and white-supremacist views. Thus, the term "alt-right" was usurped by white-supremacists and neo-Nazis.
 

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
927
969
250
The term alt-right is just an attempt to keep the hive mind strong by scaring people from earning a "terrible label"
 

somerset

Gold Member
Apr 15, 2019
422
586
420
Why alt-right? A *very* important question- so a history.

On the Internet, a certain kind of conservative pundit with a small 'c' noticed their values and those increasing spouted by the neo-con/neo-liberal types were diverging. Big 'c' conservatives were sounding more like Obama and Clinton by the day.

So these Intenet alternative media pundits started thinking of themselves as an *alternative* to the now corrupt old school right, or 'alt-right'- and many of them so labeled themselves. So far, so good.

*Now* certain statist biggies like Alex Jones were faced with a dilemma. Do they call themselves alt-right or not. They were warned by their handlers that going the official alt-right route was going to be a bad idea, so they held back.

Now the alt-right term started to be adopted by the mainstream media and Soros controlled indy media as a form of abuse. A purposeful conflation with the term *far right*- ie., 'racist'. To be alt-right meant you were now beyond the pale and in need of deplatforming.

But the Deep State, following on from the age old tactics of the cult controlled communist movements of the 20th century, understood the *newspeak* label could have a far better use if used to denigrate *any* opponent of the mainstream or Soros fake alternative media.

Better, the Deep State realised that getting all its media teams under the alt-left umbrella, while never allowing that term in public, would be an amazing mirror effort of usefulness.

Today those that call themselves 'alt-right' tend to be the rabid pro-cult, pro-Iran war types. Those who do *not* label themselves alt-right are rarely alt-right even tho the alt-left calls them alt-right in order to paint a target on their back.

And for ordinary people the whole thing becomes a giant mess that few now care to even undertstand. This form of political jumble defined the decades in the run up to WW2.

The big deal is the clouding of the fundamental concepts of good and evil. Reads the threads here, for instance, and despair. The Deep State has neatly eliminated the awareness of such things, getting the dribblers to see things from the bottom up, where all the sad little details become hooks for the mind. On a forum like this, if you aren't talking 'bottom up' you seem 'odd' and 'out of touch'.

Top down is the way alphas think- the big picture and the puppet-masters pulling the strings. The 'names' of given politicians and dribble about their lives matters not.

Hitler 'spoke' to the people, but he took absolute control cos he was a top-down thinker- and that one fact blew away his natural germanic competition, who had lost themselves for years in all the 'little details'. But his greater purpose was in the name of *evil*- the ends justify the means- and the fate of the individual 'little' people doesn't matter when the 'race' is taken into account.

I think I matter- I bet you think *you* matter. But most of the time, in most of Human History, the 'masters' do not think you or I matter. This is why the only concern is whether good or evil is currently dominant. For even in a 'good' time, we are of little account, but in an 'evil' age, our masters are literally chomping at the bit to *expend* us to their advantage.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
33,372
5,260
1,340
the purpose is to pigeonhole people on the right, it's a smearly stramanly doggy dog eat dog world out there
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
927
414
515
It only takes a quick Google-search to find the answer...



The term "alt-right" is a neologism first used in November 2008 by self-described paleoconservative philosopher Paul Gottfried, addressing the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called "the alternative right".[8] This talk was published in December under the title "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right"[9] in the conservative Taki's Magazine, becoming the earliest published usage of the phrase in its current context according to Slate. In 2009, two more posts at Taki's Magazine (one by Patrick J. Ford and the other by Jack Hunter) further discussed the alternative right.[10] Since 2016, the term has been commonly attributed to Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right.[11][12][13] A white supremacist,[14][15][16][17] Spencer coined the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism and has been accused by some media publications of doing so to excuse overt racism, white supremacism and neo-Nazism.[18][19][20][21][22]


H. L. Mencken abhorred religion. Prior to Trump, the Republican party (often cited as the right-leaning party) frequently ran using religion as a major talking-point. Those on the right who didn't like religion got fed up with such stupid candidates. Thus, the alternative-right was created.

H. L. Mencken and Richard Spencer also displayed significant anti-Semitic and white-supremacist views. Thus, the term "alt-right" was usurped by white-supremacists and neo-Nazis.
Your history of the term is great, but then there's a lot of slander of Mencken and Gottfried. Mencken was the ultimate crotchety old man who insulted many groups of people; to boil that down to "anti-semite" is wildly misleading. Taking the Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source for such accusations is naive. Gottfried is a Jew whose parents fled the Nazis.
 
Dec 22, 2007
3,997
262
895
Your history of the term is great, but then there's a lot of slander of Mencken and Gottfried. Mencken was the ultimate crotchety old man who insulted many groups of people; to boil that down to "anti-semite" is wildly misleading. Taking the Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source for such accusations is naive. Gottfried is a Jew whose parents fled the Nazis.
Slander? C'mon now.

Alright, I'll clarify: Mencken was anti-Semitic AND racist against other groups too. I'd hate to slander a bigot by leaving out his other prejudices as well. I'm glad you caught that.
He was also a damned fine writer, too, so he did have a few redeeming qualities.

Gottfried is the president of the Mencken Club and is indeed Jewish which is a rather odd mixture of traits, to be sure. However, you may also notice that I didn't mention Gottfriend; the Wiki did. From the little I know about him, he seems like a fine enough person. I'm not sure where the slander comes in.

The title of the thread is asking about the term. Thus, the history of the term.
It's been usurped by people like Richard Spencer, and is now essentially synonymous with white-supremacy. It's pretty straight-forward. It's not some weapon of the left (though it certainly can be, at times). It's used voluntarily by people who identify with the party, just like all other political terms.
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
927
414
515
Slander? C'mon now.

Alright, I'll clarify: Mencken was anti-Semitic AND racist against other groups too. I'd hate to slander a bigot by leaving out his other prejudices as well. I'm glad you caught that.
He was also a damned fine writer, too, so he did have a few redeeming qualities.

Gottfried is the president of the Mencken Club and is indeed Jewish which is a rather odd mixture of traits, to be sure. However, you may also notice that I didn't mention Gottfriend; the Wiki did. From the little I know about him, he seems like a fine enough person. I'm not sure where the slander comes in.

The title of the thread is asking about the term. Thus, the history of the term.
It's been usurped by people like Richard Spencer, and is now essentially synonymous with white-supremacy. It's pretty straight-forward. It's not some weapon of the left (though it certainly can be, at times). It's used voluntarily by people who identify with the party, just like all other political terms.
I don't think you are the primary source slandering Mencken and Gottfried. It seems to me that you are drawing on wikipedia (and possibly other sources) which parrot the accusations of the SPLC. The SPLC is basically slander institutionalized, and has thankfully been largely discredited, though citations of their work still remain.

Mencken's style of writing involved a lot of what we'd probably call "roasting" now. He insulted many groups including politicians, southerners, married men, ministers, and on and on. It's almost the Homer Simpson method for getting out of jury duty, "Just say you're prejudiced against all races." If you took that quote and then said Homer advocated being anti-Semitic, it's not just leaving out a few bonus prejudices; it's misleading.
 

CausticVenom

Member
Apr 27, 2018
710
377
325
The agenda laiden, bullshit answer.



The correct answer.



Also, square a right wing, nationalist, please.

How do you do that?

You actually can't because it's counterintuitive.

Globalists, capitalists, free market proponents, libertarians - those people are genuinely right wing.

The 'alt right' people and other nationalists (see: Trumptards) are actually left wing.

They're the same as Berntards, they just want the government to focus on a different kind of policy.
I consider myself libertarian and right of center. Not sure if you mean "right wing" as in an absolute claim of being "moderate right" like the Republican Party or a broad spectrum.
 

mid83

Member
Mar 4, 2014
1,558
294
380
As many others said, alt-right is a dog whistle for evil racist Nazi, which is now being applied to anybody who isn’t a far left progressive.

Go browse any far left community and you will see not only actual Nazis being called Alt-right, but mainstream conservatives, moderate conservatives, centrists, and moderate Dems are Alt-right these days. Some people try to use some nuance and call non far right folks alt-right adjacent, but at the end of the day, it’s just a way for the far left to label anybody who doesn’t follow their ideology as an evil racist Nazi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

gradient

Resident Cheap Arse
Oct 25, 2017
681
1,548
425
They over-used and mis-used the previous designated alarmist terms so much that they needed a new one. That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

JareBear

Gold Member
Nov 5, 2016
10,317
12,198
780
I don't care where (just far)
I always thought the purpose of the term was to differentiate actual normal right wing people from the lunatics. Just like, as a liberal, I don’t want to be associated with the antifa losers who ambush people with bike locks, I would think upstanding right leaning people don’t want to be associated with dudes who drive cars into crowds of people either.

Problem seemed to arise when the term was legitimized by some fringe lunatics and then everyone who didn’t agree with liberal ideals got falsely and unfairly labeled “alt-right.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: monegames

Gun Animal

Member
Jan 22, 2013
1,956
147
480
O'ahu, Hawaii
To be clear, Spencer didn't coin the term "alt-right" per se. He ran a website called "Alternative Right" many years ago, then took credit for coining the term some time after the election. The term Alt-Right probably originated on MyPostingCareer, a right-wing spinoff of Something Awful, but there's no way to know for sure.
 
Last edited:

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
927
414
515
I feel like most of the people on this forum are alt-light.
What is the purpose of the term "alt-light"?

To imply that people are something sort of like Nazis, with reduced chance of being held accountable for any particular accuracy or hypocrisy because the term doesn't actually mean anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,005
2,998
1,210
I mean, people on the right don't use that term.
Except it originated from the right. Can't blame the left for using a term that rightwingers came up with to describe themselves.

If you think Trump supporters are racist, why not say so? If you think all these Youtubers being banned are racists and Nazis, why not say it?
I can link you to a site where they do exactly that. Feel free to go there.

I mean there is no equivalent term "alt-left"
Thats interesting because Trump himself has used that specific term before.


Hopefully this, along with other posts in this thread, have clarified things :messenger_horns:
 

The Giant

Member
Jan 25, 2012
3,440
49
510
I find you americans so annoying with your right this, left that. blah, blah, blah. Who gives a shit. Be like us aussies, we don't give a fuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,498
1,017
1,185
Taylorsville, Ky!
Your history of the term is great, but then there's a lot of slander of Mencken and Gottfried. Mencken was the ultimate crotchety old man who insulted many groups of people; to boil that down to "anti-semite" is wildly misleading. Taking the Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source for such accusations is naive. Gottfried is a Jew whose parents fled the Nazis.
Paul Gottfried is one of the finest, most intelligent commentators we have been graced with. Too bad he is pretty much unknown. He is a paleoconservative, sort of a Pat Buchanan type. Most paleoconservatives are trad Catholics, but there are some Jews and Lutherans in the mix.

The Alt-Right thing I think started as just any "alternative" to mainstream neoconservatism that was right of center. I think now it is different than that. I would say the #1 factor that defines the alt-right is the rejection of egalitarianism as either a reality, as practical, and as a desirable moral precept. All other political strains accept the modern dogma of human equality, and are willing to exile any heretics on that idea from polite society. Most nationalists are not alt-right in that sense, at least not the ones who are growing in power in the west. Certainly not Trump and his civ-nat magapedes.

Spencer started as a paleoconservative. The difference between paleos and the alt-right is that paleos maintain a belief in Christian universalism that keeps them from ideological acceptance of human biodiversity. Major alt-right figures like Spencer reject Christianity and feel that Christian moralism is one of the reasons for western cuckoldry in allowing other races to move in and take over their patrimony. As a Catholic, I think they are wrong. I think we can stop mass migration, and even reverse it to a large degree, without violating any Christian principles.
 
Last edited:

AV

Gold Member
May 31, 2018
1,987
3,460
550
Leeds, UK
Words that no longer have any concrete meaning due to internet misuse:

Alt-right
Toxic
Literally
Nazi
Snowflake

If you regularly use any of the above to mean anything other than their actual definition, you should quit while you still have dignity.