When Donald Trump hired Breitbart's Steve Bannon to lead his campaign, the alt-right rejoiced. Not only had one of their own made it into the halls of power, he was seated at the right hand of the candidate who has done more to advance their politics of white nationalism, men's rights and conspiracism than any nominee in a generation or more.
As the Trump campaign embraces its alt-right identity, mainstream conservatives are confronted with a challenging future. A break with the alt-right might slim the right's ranks, but merging with it endangers the future of conservatism altogether.
Breitbart, the right-wing news organization Bannon runs, is key to the story of the alt-right's power in this election. Tell an adherent of the alt-right that Breitbart is an alt-right site and they'll scoff. (If you're a guy, they'll call you a "cuck," a reference to emasculated white manhood. If you are a woman, they'll use a different four-letter c-word.) Breitbart isn't the beating heart of the alt-right but the entering wedge, the link between the alt-right and the mainstream right.
There is no difference between right-wing populism, "Lew Rockwell libertarianism" and neo-recationary/neo-fascist ideology; they intersect. Murray Rothbard, who wrote the "manifesto" of right-wing populism in support of David Duke in 1992 (http://archive.Lewrockwell.Com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.Html), would have been annoying alt-right voice had he lived today. Rothbard was also an avid supporter of historical revisionism (https://mises.Org/library/case-revisionism-and-against-priori-history). Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jeff Deist, and their ilk at the Mises Inistute form another aspect of this fractious movement.
Before Trump, there was Ron Paul. Before Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, George Wallace -- all the way back to the Klan and the Confederacy.
I'm proudly alt-right if Breitbart is considered alt-right. Seriously, the term "alt-right" is just an insult. But if alt-right really means certain nationalist ideologies, then I am proudly an alt-right winger and I don't care.
You're falsely saying neo-reactionaries, neo-fascism, libertarianism, and right wing populism are the same. They are NOT. Libertarians and RWPs can have classical liberal views which are kind of contrasting to neo-reactionary views. Neo-fascism is a "modern" form of fascism which is a totalitarian ideology, and Libertarian ideology advocates for more freedom. Right wing populism on the other hand is just anti-establishment right wing nationalism.
Browse this (https://www.Splcenter.Org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right) or perhaps this (https://thelibertarianalliance.Com/2016/08/27/the-altright-paul-gottfried-interviewed-by-sean-gabb/), which highlights that the alt-right is where many "disillusioned libertarians" go once they come to realize that they, at bottom, are reactionary racists.
This is an anti-liberty, white power crowd.
Not once have I mentioned the term nationalist, which is also a strange position for a libertarian, who is supposedly anti-authoritarian. Try reading instead of buzzing around. This regards white supremacy, exclusively equating the white identity with the nation-state.
Nationalism in a nation-state is authoritarian. Authoritarianism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive. And you may be too heavily influenced by Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, or other members of the reactionary right to see this. Rothbard was a kook who supported Klansman Duke (http://archive.Lewrockwell.Com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.Html) and laid out a manifesto on right-wing populism. Rothbard also broke with the libertarians in 1989.
What does it have to do with authoritarianism? Nationalism is just healthy patriotism, I don't see the correlation with nationalism and authoritarianism. Also I never said I supported reactionary views, especially given I'm a radical Classical Liberal who despises reactionary ideas.
Nationalism and patriotism are not the same. Patriotism denotes love for the land. Nationalism regards an ideology in which the nation-state is promoted as ideal and simultaneously tied to a specific ethnic group/national identity, a culture, a language, etc. Regardless, why are you defending indefensible, anti-libertarian bupkis like right-wing populism (see Rothbard)?
@NHN Ethnic group, I don't care given I'm not an ethno-nationalist. But there's nothing wrong with wanting the nation to have its own identity, culture, language, etc. and not be watered down by multiculturalism or mass migration from one area. None the less, this has nothing to do with libertarian/authoritarianism. Also, stop misreading my statements. I don't care for Rothbard. I mainly support the right wing populist groups in Europe that advocate for ideas such as nationalism, monoculturalism, immigration reform, leaving the EU, etc. Not all right wing populist groups are necessarily authoritarian. Look at groups such as the FPO or UKIP, they are fairly libertarian and right wing populist at the same time. That being said, I am completely in opposition towards authoritarian right wing populist groups such as the French national front, or even the Golden dawn (which is just a neo-fascist and wanna-be neo-nazi group)
It does matter. If you oppose a multicultural society, you do so by having government opt for an ethnically pure society; that's authoritarian and, in your case, white nationalist. A libertarian wouldn't care about the ethnic makeup of the nation-state.
You're going in circles. Nationalist ideology places an ethnic group ahead of others in a monocultural society. It doesn't matter what ethnic group or sexual minority you de facto belong to; some among the alt-right extremists are Middle Eastern and Jewish; some are homosexuals. It is that you identify the outside culture as a threat to "your" monocultural society. And the means by which you keep out that "threat" of other cultures is through the force of government. That's the reactionary-authoritarian schema.
@NHN No, I don't see outside cultures as a threat. I just don't want societies to be watered down by multiculturalism, so the world can remain multicultural. And I never said authoritarian force should be used for cultural assimilation, but assimilation should be encouraged and immigration should be in balance, that's literally it. Also, I have no problem with a small minority of people not assimilating and living in ethnic enclaves, so long as they don't cause trouble.
And you're digging that hole deeper with each reply. As you "have no problem with a small minority of people not assimilating and living in ethnic enclaves," this means that an ethnic majority population is a necessary element in your favored monocultural society. And as this regards America and not the authoritarian Shinzo Abe's Japan, this does in fact involve a neo-reactionary, ethnonationalist turn.
This is bizarre. That was a direct quote. You stated: "I have no problem with a small minority of people not assimilating and living in ethnic enclaves, so long as they don't cause trouble" which means that you imply a standard of ethnic majority population in said culture.
Ethnicity, or ethnic group, is an ethnically homogeneous group. And the presence of Chinatowns, or Little Armenia in LA, are signs of multiculturalism. How do you mean that these should be "watered down"? Forced assimilation to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture? I am trying to understand your position.
@NHN You didn't define ethnicity, I never said anything about ethnic nationalism. I never said Chinatowns or other enclaves should be watered down on. All I said was that cultures should not be watered down by multiculturalism, because a multicultural world is better than a multicultural society. Monoculturalism around the world will preserve cultures, wheras multiculturalism will do the opposite.
You're talking in circles in order to circumnavigate the obvious fact that you're a reactionary-authoritarian ethnonationalist. Nationalism is by its very nature tied to the polity's dominant ethnicity (another name for ethnic group, which is a subcategory of race). And multiculturalism is a concept relevant to society, not to the world. And as you reject multiculturalism in place of monoculturalism, this is ethnonationalism by another name.