If you perchance pass through Trump Central Station aka Breitbart News of late, you may notice the ever-continuing reports they put out on the race war they are stoking for clickbait. This takes the form of their looking through the news cycle in order to report on various crimes committed by black people. They try to disguise their blatant racist fear-mongering in different ways in the hopes of making it seem like they are the defenders of 1) Police 2) Law and Order 3) White Women 4) The Black Community 5) America from Obama's "black revenge." The Breitbart agenda appears to be to affect and instill fear of black people. Their blatant appeal to a racist demographic has the added effect of increasing racist emotions and views through the use of the traditional right-wing propaganda technique of sophistry (cleverly concealed lies) combined with outright blatant lies. Which they are well known for in general and from their past when they got a black woman fired over their lies.
Breitbart has recently gotten the reputation as the pre-eminent preserve of the Alt-right community or movement. Oddly enough, their star writer, Milo Yawnopolis, while receiving the lion's share of media attention as the leading spokesman for the Alt-right movement, insists that he is not even a member of that movement or community. He says that because he is a Zionist and supports Dubya Bush and that past group and agenda, therefore HE is not an Alt-right believer - since they are not those things he tells us. He also makes the point of defending the Alt-right as being misjudged by the "media" as being a racist movement - when in reality the racist contingent of the Alt-right is really a tiny percentage of the movement.
That is an interesting take on the Alt-right seeing as that the naming of the movement was by Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute and right-wing website Taki's Magazine. Richard Spencer is one among many on the fringes of the right-wing who have for years promoted a pseudoscientific rationale for making distinctions between people based upon their ethnic or racial backgrounds, i.e. scientific racism. That isn't the racism of the person who emotionally expresses racist views based on their upbringing or perception of the world. That is the racism of the cool clinical ideologue who seeks to make it clear that their views are supported by rational scientific methods. Like Nazis, for example.
They never present any actual biological proof of their racist theorizing, but they pretend that it must exist because of slight differences in the very little data that they can scrap together. The problem they face is the truth of human biological diversity. While humans are diverse in many biological ways as we all know, the degree of that difference beyond the superficial looks and sizes, is extremely slight.
If you look inside, humans are basically the same. If you look at the brain cells, the supposed seat of cognition and mentality, you will not be able to find much difference between any healthy person. Scientists in modern times reached the consensus many years ago that there is no biological basis for the supposed scientific-racist ideology of the Nazis and the Alt-right; i.e., the belief that character and mental differences between people are determined at the biological level.
Which is why in every racial or ethnic configuration on Earth you can find very smart and kind people, or stupid and mean people, or confident and talented people, or shy and average people. The same types of people are found in all countries and all cultures in every type of racial or ethnic configuration. If the Alt-right racist ideology was true then that wouldn't be the case. So they rely on statistics taken out of contextual frames of reference to concoct convoluted proofs of racist theories. If more people of a certain ethnicity do worse on a test or are incarcerated more often than another ethnic division, then that is proof to them they are right about biological differences determining those outcomes. All other causes are irrelevant to them because they are not starting with a search for truth, they are starting with an idea of truth being a certain way, they then search for ways to make any data they can find dance to their racist tune. This is called confirmation bias: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias.
Milo Yawnmonopoly of course disagrees with them, seeing as he does the obvious place that any racist ideology leads to in the modern world - but at the same time he tells us that the Alt-right should not be tarred with a wide brush stroke as being all racist, because you know, he says so. And he is the face of Breitbart News, which in no way can be seen as promoting racism. Right?
Alt-right racist ideologues like Derbyshire or Sailer or Spencer would disagree with Milo Yawnknucklehead's assessment of the Alt-right. And really, if you take away their openly racist promotion of "our racism is based on truth, justice, and the American way," what do you have left of the Alt-right that makes it different from the regular right? Dislike of Dubya Bush? Wellll, wasn't Dubya and co. discarded by almost the entire right-wing as they mostly went all Tea Party on us?
After the crash of the economy and the mess in Iraq, the right-wing was very quick to make Dubya and co. a caste of untouchables. Memories of them had no place in Conservatism 2.0 as they tried to dig themselves out from under the wreckage of the economy and the 2008 elections.
How about Milo's support of Zionism as making Milo different from the Alt-right? Are Alt-righters anti-Israel as he claims? Now this is where our boy Milo Yabadabbadont is shown to be playing games with his claims about the Alt-right. If the truth of the Alt-right is as he claims; i.e., that only a tiny percentage are racists - then why does he make the point of saying his difference with the Alt-right is that he supports Israel? Because the media is intent on portraying the Alt-right as a racist movement outside of the mainstream right-wing, which is very pro-Israel. Milo, knowing his future in the right-wing media depends on not offending Israel, makes a point of always saying he is not with the Alt-right because he is a Zionist. This is because blind devotion to Israel fell out of favor with the rise of the Tea Party. And the Alt-right is mostly just a rebranding of the Tea Party (with many racists as well), and many of them believe in the various conspiracy theories that have been around for years and years and have found a new life online - you know the ones, the ones having to do with Jews in control of the world banking system, media, and so on. Milo does not want to be seen as one of those people who follows the Alex Joneses of the world.
The Alt-right doesn't really exist like Milo Yomamasaidknockyouout wants us to believe. According to his description, it is essentially the Tea Party, but it isn't. How is his description of the Alt-right any different from the Tea Party - both support overt nationalism and patriotism, are not happy with the establishment Bush GOP types, are not happy with supporting foreign financial and military adventures and spending, and also include a bunch of racists, and anti-Semites, and people who strive to keep up with the Alex Joneses?
Was the Alt-right concept in truth invented by racist ideologues, specifically by those who believe they are inherently superior to black people, who appear to want to use that ideology to advance agendas which in the end are all about keeping the scary black man away from them and their wimmin folk?
I do not say that at all. And Milo does not support them racist Alt-right folks, no not one bit. He is just the face of Breitbart News, and they do not in any way, not even every single day do they devote time and space to stoking fear and hate of black people. Just like according to Milo the Alt-right is not really racist, they are also not really misogynists either. Nope. Nor is Breitbart News. But that is for another discussion.