While many people don’t know what the term Alt-Right really means, if they’re getting their cues from the mainstream media, they think it’s a formal group or caucus that’s the racist wing of the Republican party. In shorthand the alt-right is the equivalent of calling someone a libtard, tea-bagger, or faux-news-watcher: mostly it’s a slur and not a label that most self-identify with.
While it’s not a formal movement or group (and usually a slur), a few would occasionally say "I’m not mainstream right: I’m alternative-right" to denote separation from establishment party — but that’s like the difference between a black guy using the N-word, and a white guy using it. If the media or someone on the left is using it, it’s not meant in a jovial or sincere manner. Thus most that uses alt-right are guilty of bigoted broad brushing.
It started from the blaspheming trolls (online Alex P. Keaton’s): those that would question the politically correct SJW’s (Social Justice Warriors) on-line, break all the rules, and say the unsayable: and by doing so, would get hate-labelled. If they questioned the orthodoxy on their favorite triggers: quotas, immigration/multiculturalism, islamic terrorism, feminism, gay-activism, and safe-spaces or speech codes, it resulted in accusations of being called racists, nationalists, islamaphobe, misogynist, homophobe or just bigot respectively by not respectfully. Since they were already getting called names, the younger (non-mainstream conservatives) mocked the other side even harder, and went tipping sacred cows and calling out the hypocrisy of SJW’s (tolerance by force, diversity thru segregation, eliminating racism via identity politics, and so on). Which results in more accusations, and so on.
When you can’t argue on the merits of what’s being said, then you attack with distractions: who said it, how, or just cry-wolf: tar one with racism, then use that one to tar the rest. While ignoring your own side’s worse behavior. And that’s what’s happened here. There are surely a few real bigots in the alt-right, and there’s definitely a few more touting the superiority of Western-European Judeo-Christian values over say the Islamization of the west, or multiculturalism causing friction by mixing, which is quite a bit more nuanced than hood-wearing xenophobes, even if the far-left hears dog-whistles in everything and every one they don’t like.
If we’re objectively comparing numbers of bigots, they seem far more common in DNC subgroups like BLM/Black Lives Matter, New Black Panthers, Occupy Everything, La Raza, anti-Christians, BDS, and so on. Which isn’t to say that makes either sides behavior OK. But the media/left is nose-blind to their own flaws: and they don’t get the irony. So the hate-branded-alt-right seems far less afraid to step on toes to make points, because that’s not what racism really means. And the left sees everything the alt-right says (especially denials) as proof of what they had pre-concluded all along.
Also, since the alt-right is hate-label, it’s also an ideological contagion: if you get near it, you have it. It’s kind of a litmus test: you either agree with everything in far-left politically-correct orthodoxy, or you’re a blasphemer too. Milo Yiannopoulos posted an article explaining what the alt-right was, and bing, he’s their spokesman. Steve Bannon allowed Milo to publish on Breitbart.com and bam, he caught it and now he’s their leader… and boom, Brietbart is their publication. Trump hired Bannon to run his campaign, and thud, now Trump is alt-right too (despite him having many left of center views). For writing this, without absolutely disavowing everything to do with the right (mainstream or alternative), I’m a carrier. You are too, if you don’t immediately call me names publicly (in the name of tolerance), take a scalding hot shower, and delete your browser history of having ever read this. While that’s slightly overstated for effect, and some of those guys named above do sympathize or support a few of the alt-right causes (in degrees, and aren’t mainstream right), the truth is the left is culturally challenged by nuance. If we judged by the Democrats by the same standards, then everyone to the left of Lyndon LaRouche or Pat Robertson is automatically a Fascist or Marxist — but if you say that, they get testy and claim you’re using offensive hyperbole and hate-labels, exactly as they are doing when they say “alt-right".
From the bowels of the Clinton Campaign
About August 2016 this new phenom had started, where if you mentioned or criticized anything that triggered the left (or far left), or brought up any of Hillary Clinton’s checkered past (or present), suddenly trolls would cry in unison, "you’re one of those alt-right nut jobs”. I was thinking, "what is that?" I’d never heard of it? And I asked around and none of my libertarian, conservative or republican friends really knew much about it either. (We’d casually heard the slur in passing, but it was suddenly mainstream). So I did my usual: I started researching. And it gets a little confusing because like many terms, “alt-right” is overloaded (it means more than one thing) and there are a few starting points in the history, no overarching philosophy or rules, and many factions/personalities.
The timing of all the progressive sources crying out in unison, hinted strongly at a coordinated attack, coincidentally aligned by the Clinton campaigns assault on Steve Bannon’s appointment as Trump’s Campaign Chair. It was like Obama and the birther movement, while the concepts might have existed before in the primordial ooze of obscure conspiracies, it took the Clinton slander-machine (and their water-carriers in the MSM) to popularize and mainstream it. The term exploded from obscurity to pop-culture after multiple simultaneous hit pieces in all the George Soros funded propaganda sites and Hillary Campaign fronts (ThinkProgress, the Atlantic, MediaMatters, HuffPo). Steve Bannon guy at Breitbart was their leader, and Bannon was Trump’s Carl Rove, thus, Trump and supporters were all alt-right: you’re alt-right, he’s alt-right, everyone is alt-right. And remember, the term “alt-right” just meant, "not mainstream right” in informal usage, but when used by the media or someone on the left, it means “white supremacists, separatists, loon”.
The great majority of the movement isn’t devout followers of anyone or anything. So while you have alt-right sites, the majority of folks are not adherents to any sites or personalities (even if they’re aware of them). They troll for the pure glee of being dicks back to tyrannical authoritarians trying to tell them what to do, and how to do it.
Milo Yiannopoulos wrote an article (Guide to the alt-right) summarize their motives. To paraphrase that article: "if you spend 75 years building a pseudo-religion around anything (an ethnic group, a political belief system, a plaster saint, global warming, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc), don’t be surprised when clever 19-year-olds discover that insulting it is now the funniest fucking thing in the world. Because it is.” In other words, they’re conservative kids with a mischievous urge to blaspheme, break all the rules, and say the unsayable. And since the politically correct have 10,000 rules they’re fun to fuck with.
Counter-cultures backlash against the pop-culture, and being a far-left follower is pop-culture (it requires no thought, just conformity). So 60’s had hippies, and 70’s had acid-rock, the 1980’s got punk and goths, the 1990 got the grunge, and the 2000’s brought the hipsters. Each is rebelling against the mind-numbing conformity of the pops, by mocking (blaspheming) and making hamburger of any sacred cows. The alt-righters are rebelling against the tight-assed politically-correct social-justice-warriors trying to force them to march and think in unison. Mocking things that trigger the culture-police is what they do. (You can think of them as just anti-SJW’s). And the flame throwing is indiscriminate: they’ll flame conservatives for being sell outs (“cucks” or “cuckservatives” — for cuckolded-conservatives), just as quickly as they’ll attack a lefty. As you can imagine, this does not exactly endear them to the establishment – which has written many bad things about these elitist little button-pushing shits.
They all have strong but varied beliefs: basically youthful, bright, subversives around the underground edges of the internet (4chan and 8chan) who love attention-grabbing, juvenile pranks, and trolling the national media for sport. The left approves of scolding people doing "cultural appropriation” (it’s being sensitive), but when the alt-right mocks too much blending (like white rappers), it’s racist. Partly because the alt-right resorts to openly mocking leftist-sensibilities and pushing hot-buttons (and race is one of the funnest hot-buttons for them to press). Milo claims they’re no more bigots than 80’s death metal devotees were actual Satanists. (I’m playing me some Ozzy Ozborn while writing this). But you get the idea. “Intellectual racists” is a common label, by people who don’t know either of those words mean.
One example of that seems to involve Pepe the frog. This frog meme devolved into some 4Chan inside joke, with a lot of people collecting “rare” Pepe’s (alternative images from the well known 2005 era). But in 2015 it started hitting mainstream (with Niki Minaj and Katy Perry retweeting Pepe’s), which is of course popularity ruins otherwise good things. So the channel backlashed, and decided to take the meme back from the “normies” (those using it for pop/mainstream), and the way to do that was to turn Pepe into an icon of white nationalism. Suddenly he became a Neo-Nazi, with Swastikas or Trump hair, but anyone in the media who used or asked about Pepe was inundated with racist versions and accusations of being racist for being associated with it. Pepe seems to be a symbol of racism to mock populism, trolling the media by convincing them racism is everywhere (because they’d already convinced themselves of that), or a symbol of alt-right by folks not “in on the joke”.
Now once there’s any group, you’ll start getting personalities and an establishment. Even anti-authoritarian primordial movements will have a few. And among them there will be different degrees of popularity — and a spread of ideas that varies from almost moderate to pretty extreme.
Paul Gottfried started using the term in 2009 in "The decline and rise of the alternative-right" basically contrasting his paleoconservatism (tradition, religion, limited government, Western identity), with those that failed the paleo’s litmus tests are the alernative right. But that’s a pretty broad net.
There was also this other guy Richard B. Spencer an "identarian", Nietzsche-loving, guy that rejects traditional conservatism, went harder anti-establishment and pro-West European culture, and created an “Alternative-Right" blog in 2010. He rejects the "white supremacist" or "neo-nazi" labels that far-left sources pin on him (like the SPLC or The Atlantic). And I wanted to see if it was justified, so I searched to find the worst I could find. If there’s anything I missed, feel free to email me — but the stuff I found was less KKK and more like a milder version of black lives matters or new black panthers movements for whites: sympathizing with the far-right in Europe (lamented the failures of multiculturalism, denouncing the islamification of the west, selectively anti-immigration, mocking progressive political correctness). I didn’t find any broad calls to violence, or forced segregation, and no complaints about Jews or Asians, or other things one would normally associate with the hood-wearing bigots. Though they do dabble in some occasional symbolism like “Heil Victory” when the cameras are around, but it’s to antagonize the media (and they said later admitted it was meant “ironically”, which anyone that knows anything about their movement, would have guessed before they pointed it out). They think they’re Andy Kauffman punking the establishment by being provocateurs or inflammatory.
The absolute worst example I could find as “proof” of their inherent racism was references to one article, in one blog (that many alluded to as proof), which Collin Liddel wrote in retaliation to the Boer genocide in South Africa (where something like 70,000 whites were attacked or driven out of their homes). So in response to articles asking if "white-genocide was right?”, he wrote a hyper-provocative reflection with an article, "Is Black Genocide Right?” They later retracted the article, and news reports pillorying them omitted the context, but it gives an idea of what they were about: mocking the other side, by reflecting their racism back at them, and asking back really politically incorrect (and completely racially insensitive) questions, in response to what they saw was the same from the other side. This doesn’t make them innocent, they are advocates of the cultural separation (by choice, not force), and they’re sincerely being jerks about it. This doesn’t make them likable, but it also means that most claiming they’re things they aren’t, are lying (or actually too uninformed to know better).
The media/left omits the entire context, to make it seem unprovoked racism — then loves to take the most extreme fringe or worst thing said, and exaggerate it, and then broad brush the entire group with that whitewash. So while I don’t doubt there’s some "culturally insensitive” elements in the alt-right (or their writings), or even that they might have attracted a few unsavory elements/characters — most that I could find was reflecting the left’s dumbest questions to piss them off. Like if black lives matter, then what about white lives? (They’re the “all lives matter” crowd). But for doing that, they fall into the left’s trap of double standards. The left doing something is considered outliers or being sensitive to other cultures, but if anyone on the right does a fraction of that, it’s racism and the entire alt-right should be smeared with the label of neo-nazi’s.
But remember, that’s a fringe of the alt-right. Either that or the Press is using “alt-right” incorrectly when applying it to more popular folks like Milo or Steve Bannon, or the trolls. They’re sharing a name, but that is like saying that since some liberals are black supremacists, that all liberals are. Which is stupid. Instead of obscure “establishment” folks that few in the alt-right have actually heard of, let’s get into the more known personalities and aspects of the movement that the media is trying to pillory and claim is the true alt-right (but that bear little in common with the blasphemers and even less with the establishment alt-right). (Here’s an example of CNN claiming that Milo/Brietbart is the same alt-right as the establishment — which is like saying Bernie Sanders is the same kind of national socialist, as the other kind: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/22/nazi-salute-cnn-breitbart-news-white-supremacists-charles-kaiser-brooke-baldwin/ ).
Milo Yiannopoulos is a flamboyant gay conservative tech-journalist, entrepreneur, public speaker (whose Dad is Jewish) — that partly came to prominence around gamer-gate. He is a free speech fundamentalist that was attacked on the college circuit for things that didn’t fit with far-left progressive politically correct movements, and he became the strident voice of the young counter-culture right/conservatives on college campuses with his "Dangerous Faggot” tour. In the name of tolerance and free speech, the left has tried to shut him (and many other conservatives) out of many venues, but his popularity and fan-base seem to figure ways around the restrictions.
Milo Yiannopoulos hasn’t self identified as an alt-right, but the style of his speaking (razor wit, on target observations about the hypocrisy of the left, mixed with a few catty slurs and provocative ideas) means his dogma rips the fenders off their karma. And thus he’s kind of a personification of what the haters mean when they use the term “alt-right”, and they often refer to him as the spokesperson for Alt-Right. In no small part, because Milo wrote an article (Guide to the alt-right) that laid out who the alt-right are, and what they stand for, in a somewhat complimentary way. So that made him an alt-righter-by-proxy.
An openly gay white kid, with a penchant for cocoa-colored partners, representing the racism and homophobia of the right, is an irony that flies completely over the heads of the haters calling him and all conservatives old-white homophobic racists. The same way they barely noticed that one of the more enthusiastically welcomed speakers at this years Republican Convention was Peter Thiel: a gay entrepreneur, outted by the tolerant lefty rag (Gawker). If the right really was the homophobic-racists that the left claims, don’t you think they’d have more problems with Milo practicing affirmative action in his bedroom, or with Andrew Breitbart joining GOProud on their advisory council?
If you want to get an idea of what Milo is about, you can watch a few of his highly popular videos. He reflects, destroys and mocks everything thrown at him by the far left: feminism, islamists anti-semistism, social justice, and so on. He’s like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher, if they were smarter, better looking and more honest about what they stand for: https://www.youtube.com/user/yiannopoulosm
Now because Milo writes for Breitbart.com, and Breitbart.com was willing to give him and others a voice against the traditional conservatives (and that’s where he published his guide), then all of Breitbart got pegged as part of alt-right as well (even though most of their articles are a mix of both a mix of establishment and anti-establishment, as are the authors). And because Steve Bannon was executive chairman of the board at Breitbart, then Steve became labelled as alt-right as well.
Steve Bannon: homophobic, racist, anti-semite, xenophobe
Steve got a masters degree in National Security from Georgetown, and later an MBA (with honors) from Harvard. He was also a naval officer (special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations), then worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers & Acquisitions Department before leaving and starting his own Bannon & Co. boutique investment bank (specializing in media), and made fuckton of money by negotiating the sale of Castle Rock Entertainment to Ted Turner (and getting a stake in 5 shows, including Seinfeld). After Andrew Breitbart died, Ben Shapiro was an editor at Brietbart.com, and Steve Bannon took over as executive chairman of the board. It’s important to remember that Breitbart.com was created by Andrew after a visit to Israel in summer 2007, with the aim of founding a site "that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel”. (Not your normal anti-semitic charter).
Ben took a #nevertrump editorial position, which clashed with others at Breitbart. Then when one of the journalists (Michelle Fields) claimed campaign manager Corey Lewandowsk of battery (for grabbing her arm at a Trump press conference), and she and he didn’t like how they were treated by Breitbart.com so they left. Later Palm Beach police dropped charges saying the evidence didn’t support a crime. But alas, Ben went over to a site TruthRevolt, and went and bashed Bannon and Breitbart because Shapiro was a paleoconservative, and didn’t like the alternative spin that Bannon was allowing.
Bannon said in one unconfirmed interview that he was willing to let Breitbart.com be the voice of the alternative right, and the media ran with that, taking the most unsavory exaggerations of anything anyone that claimed to be “alt-right” had said, and tried to tar and feather everyone in the movement with. And thus, Bannon became an anti-semitic, racist, and xenophobe.
They’re all laughable claims, on very thin threads. Yes, the once editor of a site founded and named after a Jewish guy (Andrew Breitbart), who created one of the most pro-Israel sites out there, with multiple Jews in prominent positions working for/with him (who never had any complaints), is considered an anti-semite, why? Because a decade ago, his ex-wife claims they were fighting over sending their daughters to Archer School for Girls, and she claimed he said that he didn’t like the way Jews raise their kids to be ‘whiney brats’ — then paid for them to go to that school anyways. That and because one a statement got "accidentally" got misattributed to Bannon, when one of his writers (David Horowitz, a Jewish author), had written in a pro-Israel publication (Breitbart, which Bannon controlled), and had once said, "Bill Kristol was a renegade Jew” in response to Kristol supporting Hillary and Obama over Trump (the former are pro Muslim Brotherhood and anti-Israel/Netanyahu). That’s it? That’s the best they have? It’s like they’re not even trying.
After some friends (Dennis Prager, Alan Dershowitz) suggested Bannon sue for libel, the anti-defamation league had to back down on their false claim he was an anti-semite. But the media still echoes the anti-semite claim, while it ignores that Hillary Clinton screamed at one of her aids (in front of multiple witnesses) that he was a, “Fucking Jew Bastard”, called someone else a “Stupid Kike”, among other far more anti-semitic things she did, or that she was endorsed by the Grand Dragon of KKK, and endorsed the BLM movement (which was responsible for the murder of whites and cops). Meanwhile, the media whines that Trump didn’t renounce David Duke, or is freaking out about a made-up story that sheriff’s badge shaped star on a retweet, was Trump’s secret signal to all the anti-semites that he was one of them. The double-standards are obvious. Anyone that buys that Breitbart, Bannon and/or Trump is anti-semitic is either a fool (uninformed) or a fraud (liar).
Well, at least the claims of racism against Bannon are on more solid ground, based on Breitbart.com being such a racist publication. How do we know that? The media claimed that Trump’s claims about minority/immigrant crimes were false and made up — so Breitbart started publishing news to refute those claims (what the left calls sensationalizing crimes by minorities/illegals, and a campaign of racism). This was done to refute the MSM burying major events under the whitewash of political correctness: called counter-balance. But the followers of herd-think either don’t know, or intentionally bury, all that context.
The best examples that places like media-matters can offer is "a race-baiting article authored by editor-at-large John Nolte”, because when Vester Lee Flanagan murdered a reporter (Alison Parker) and her cameraman (Adam Ward) on live TV, over race — and had tweeted and wrote a manifesto that claimed he was doing the shooting because of Dylan Roof and a race war. John Nolte wrote an article that told the truth about it, and had a sensationalized headline that said, “Race Murder in Virginia: Black Reporter suspected of executing White Colleagues – on Live Television”. Shocking how the headline fit the facts. And all the leftist sources (New York magazine, Vox, DailyKos, Slate, HuffPo) chimed in with their tweets (now deleted), about how racist that was, thus Breitbart was now a racist rag, as was Bannon for allowing it. But if that’s their biggest complaint (and if you can find any worse, I welcome them), that they write overly sensational but truthful headlines, then I’m not buying it. I’ve researched for anything worse, but to date haven’t found anything beyond many other overly-sensationalized headlines at the HuffPo or NYT, just from the other side of the aisle (ideological bigotry against conservatives, fly-over-states and fiscally competent Tea-baggers).
At least Bannon is part of the Woman-hating misogynistic he-man’s club. How do we know? Because despite working with women executives and employees for decades, and having no known problems, his ex-wife alleges that in 1996 when they were getting a divorce and having a fight, she threw him out. And when he tried to drive away, she approached the car and spit on him, and he grabbed her wrist and neck and tried to pull her into the car. The girls are 21, and they and their Mom have had no documented complaints since then. Or worse, he was once defending conservative Women that he admired, he said of Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Michele Bachmann that, they threaten the progressive narrative, because “…the women that would lead this country be would be pro-family, they would have husbands, they would love their children. They wouldn’t be a bunch of dykes that came from the Seven Sisters schools up in New England. That drives the left insane and that’s why they hate these women.” While not exactly worded sensitive, I’m not sure how defending one group of women against another is inherently sexist.
So if that’s the worst you can find against Steve Bannon, a 62 year old sailor, then the guy just doesn’t come across that bad to me. And it seems like the media is playing hypocritical partisan histrionics. The Boston Globe did extreme vetting and instead of a hit piece, did a very supportive piece instead : (synopsis : http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2016/11/27/boston-globe-publishes-amazingly-upbeat-article-about-steve-bannon, full: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/11/26/look-steven-bannon-and-his-years-harvard-business-school/B2m0j85jh5jRKzKbMastzK/story.html) and another (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/27/richmond-times-dispatch-steve-bannon-discusses-his-richmond-roots-and-condemning-racism/) But that seems to be more the honest exception.mist article take another tack:
That doesn’t stop folks like Elizabeth Warren from using hate labels, but at least Anderson Cooper half called her on it: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/04/anderson-cooper-shuts-down-elizabeth-warren-no-evidence-steve-bannon-white-supremacist/
The when a right person uses alt-right on themselves, it just means anyone that isn’t mainstream right.
When the mainstream right uses it, it’s used as a litmus test for being straight-laced conservative, and the alt-right is failing and behaving like caustic popular lefties like Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher, Amy Schumer, Janeane Garofalo, Jon Steward, Lena Dunham, Rosie O’Donnell, Al Franken, Rosanne Barr, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, or the cast of Hamilton and so on, which all get a pass for being as abrasive or more so, by hiding behind the skirt of “fame” or “it’s just comedy”.
When it’s used by the left as a hate label, it means “not one of us”. (Which is the most vile thing in hard-core leftist collectivism). Since you disagree with them, you must be evil and everything they detest: racist, bigot, misogynist, gay-hating, mansplaining poopie-breath. Never mind that there’s scant evidence for most of that (insensitive isn’t racist, etc), and usually there’s as much or more evidence of worse behavior from their side. They just can’t fathom that the other side might disagree with them, and not be haters.
So you can almost tell more about the person using the term “alt-right", than the person the term is used on. They’re often left or mainstream multiculturalists, with a penchant for the politically correct and changing the status quo in only ways accepted by the rules as defined by the left. Because of the alt-right provocative nature, many question whether the alt-right is even a serious movement at all — rather than just an alternative way to express traditionally conservative beliefs (using the left’s techniques against it, or just mocking them and the media). It’s almost a mean-girls clique of conservative bomb throwers pissing off liberals.
- "I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets in office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party." -Corretta Scott King November 1980
When Ronald Reagan won in a landslide, the far left media had a hissy fit second guessing every appointment, and did everything they could to sensationalize him as the return of the KKK (which was made up entirely of Democrats, BTW), and how awful all his choices were, and tried to tar and feather and associate him with everything bad. Trump, and anyone close to him, are getting the same treatment.
- http://igeek.com/2514 – Is Trump a racist?
- Excellent case where NPR’s Steve Inskeep tried to tar Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, and was schooled on double-standards (and how Breitbart is hardly the Alt-Right outlet of hate/racism that the ignoratti wants to imply). http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/16/stephen-k-bannon-joel-pollak-npr-racist/
- The solution for NPR is in the future to treat conservatives if they’re all like David Duke (and the truth needs more framing and editing to inject the correct biases in their followers): http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/19/npr-pollak-interview-no-live-interviews-right/
- The best example of racism that NPR could infer was an article on the confederate flag. Since few of NPR’s listeners would ever do research, they won’t realize how fairly moderate the piece was (not a wink to racists, as Steve Inskeep implied). While it overstates the nobility of the South (and the civil war was certainly in part about slavery), it was a fairly reasonable piece despite a barb or two at Obama for tolerating cultural marxism and attacks on a minority (southerners), but that’s all nuance that won’t be tolerated by the PC-police at NPR: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/hoist-it-high-and-proud-the-confederate-flag-proclaims-a-glorious-heritage/
- Example of the NYT getting it wrong: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/21/fake-news-new-york-times-joseph-goldstein-falsely-claims-breitbart-birther/
- Longer video on Bannon and alt-right: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uI0aAVh0dJc&feature=share
Establishment right on alt-right:
Left wings disinformation: