This Guardian piece by Matthew Lyons has some kind of truth content to it, hidden in its politically correct way of putting things. There is not only a racialist component to the ‘alt right,’ i.e the views of Spencer and his friends calling themselves ‘alt right,’ but also an anti-feminist content. Still, there are questions at to how large a part of Spencer’s world view this content is, and as Lyons points out, there is also recruitment of female ‘alt righters.’
But what is wrong with this article is not so much its focus, as the near total lack of source quotes. It continues with this silly habit of saying very specific things about the meaning or views of ‘alt right’ individuals without providing any basis for classiying an individual as ‘alt right’ or providing an evidence, the views assigned are the ones present. It is in the end, a simple game two-part game: 1) arbitrarily calling Right-of-center people ‘alt right’ when you want to associate them with Spencer – while associating him with neo-Nazi’s, 2) simply making things up about what the ‘alt right’ does or offers as views.
Without sources, an article like this is close to meaningless, ‘objectively’ constituting yet another sociological fantasy of liberal Center-Left feminists. We have already heard quite a number of these, and the question has been raised whether this kind of liberal individual, is not wholly delusional.
True, the article provides some background sources, but regarding its actual topic of anti-feminist alt right ideas, there seems to be only one relevant quote: ‘Both sides of this internal alt-right debate agree that women have no business controlling their own bodies. As Greg Johnson of the alt-right website Counter-Currents put it, “in a White Nationalist society … some abortions should be forbidden, others should be mandatory, but under no circumstances should they simply be a matter of a woman’s choice”.’ And what do we see happening with this quote? It is an obvious straw man fallacy, as Johnson says the decision ought not be simply left to women, while the view assigned to him is that women ought to have no say at all. So, this is junk journalism.
Also Donnovan is noted, which seems relevant, but again this is a rather limited number of sources, and no quote is provided wherein Donnovan identifies as ‘alt right.’ Then too there is no actual evidence offered by Lyon, that Donnovan identifies as a homosexual (though that may be true for all I know). It seems all, well, rather queer.
I did like Lyon’s piece, http://threewayfight.blogspot.com/2010/09/alternativerightcom-paleoconservatism.html Of course, this does not appear in the Guardian and also says ‘AltRight authors (almost all of whom are male) also vary significantly in their attitudes toward women…. What is interesting is that AltRight also publishes pieces that reflect feminist influence.’
Well, that’s rather a shift in views…. It sounds like Lyon’s is taking the Guardian for a ride. Why that would be – I do not care, as I am not familiar with Lyon beyond these two pieces. Also this just all seems quite unusual – though I did think the attack on Johnson, was something the Guardian editors ought to have noticed as being rubbish. Yet having been to Manchester I can assure you – they are all on drugs. Very depressed about Brexit!
…I would not want to say, Richard Spencer ‘hates’ people of colour, much less women. I do not want to get into wide-scale defenses of ‘alt right’ thinking, as in a sense, it is all rather tedious. But still I find it interesting to reflect, the Guardian seems to require a way of putting things, that is not a reasonable manner for putting things. With Spencer, there is tribal assertion and crudity, but to speak of ‘hatred’ is just so much demonising – it’s own kind of crudity.