What is the Alt-Right? II

There’s a Wikipedia answer to the question now. It doesn’t strike me as obviously dishonest, or any more inchoate than the phenomenon itself. Building Trump-adoration into the definition will ensure that it dates fast — but it’s not hard to see why that seems necessary.

There’s a lot of Wikipedia disdain around, in our neck of the woods, but I’m usually hard-pressed to find serious cause for complaint. After taking a look at RationalWIki — which folds the Alt-Right into its “Neoreactionary movement” rant presently — returning to Wikipedia is like taking a bath.

(Alt-Right at XS, for future reference.)

March 5, 2016admin 19 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy


19 Responses to this entry

  • What is the Alt-Right? II | Neoreactive Says:

    […] What is the Alt-Right? II […]

    Posted on March 5th, 2016 at 1:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Glad they mention Richard and Colin’s work; it would be great if they mentioned another phenomenon like CORRUPT which were not self-branding as alternative right but clearly fit the formula: roots conservatism, nationalism, HBD and a green consciousness.


    Posted on March 5th, 2016 at 2:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    On WIkipedia as elsewhere, the alt-right is not allowed to speak for itself. Instead its self-conception must be reflected off of a third party, such as the SPLC or the Washington Post, before it is admissible.


    Mariani Reply:

    Wikipedia isn’t itself to blame for that. It is downstream from journalism and academia, since those are what reliable sources are considered to be, for better or worse.


    Brett Stevens Reply:

    Wikipedia leans solidly left and has deleted numerous articles contradicting the narrative. It is less trustworthy than even the mainstream media.


    Grotesque Body Reply:


    Just a conspiracy theory.


    Oliver Cromwell Reply:

    Sure, there’s that. But there’s also a very good article on the heritability of IQ:


    Even the Race and intelligence article is decent:


    Wiki doesn’t purge in accordance with how much an article threatens the narrative, it purges where there are enough serious entryists to push something, combined with a reasonable case for purging in line with their “verifiability not truth” policy.

    Posted on March 5th, 2016 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Walter Oleg Says:

    I see the Alt-right as being made up of 4 thought nodes.

    1) Radical Traditionalists :including neo-reactionaries, monarchists, trad catholics, Orthodox Christians, etc.

    2) White Nationalists

    3) The manosphere

    4) The “conspiracy community” (Red Ice, Alex Jones etc.)

    There’s a lot of overlap but also lots of disagreement. There’s a difference in focus; with the WN on race, manosphere on gender, and Rad Trads on political-social order. The conspiracy community is focused more on who is behind the current order.

    But where we agree is on this. We all agree that the current order and the people running this order are unacceptable, unhealthy, and overall evil. This order has to be grinded to dust and thrown into the wind. The next question of course is what will come next?

    I believe whatever should come next should be based around this idea:

    Human beings will be free to form communities (whether these be neighborhoods, towns, states, regions, nations, kingdoms) with the people whom they choose and live out their destinies within these communities in a manner they see best for their communities.


    Posted on March 5th, 2016 at 5:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lex Corvus Says:

    I recommend always using scare quotes for “Rational”Wiki, which are richly deserved.


    Posted on March 5th, 2016 at 9:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • jack arcalon Says:

    I just wish there was an alternative to Wikipedia:

    * Anyone could edit it.
    * Verified portions can be protected.
    * No ‘notable’ rule, the article writer just has to believe it’s important.
    * Allow original research, but if it’s too controversial it gets spun off into its own article, linked from the main one.
    * Competing articles about the same subject from different viewpoints. No merging ever.
    * Rumors, libel, and slander are allowed, but marked as such. This would require parts to be hosted on Tor or something.
    * Quantity over quality. Unlimited comments are encouraged at the end and ranked.
    * Citations encouraged but not required. Until they are found, opinions and memories will do.


    Oliver Cromwell Reply:

    Verified by whom?

    The problem with wiki – such that as there is one – is regulatory capture. The admins really control, and the admins have a bent, it’s just that bent isn’t much out of line with that of the literate public.

    A ‘real’ wiki wouldn’t have admins or protections, and simply let the edit warriors decide on a truth. Articles could perhaps have an indicator of frequency of change in the text at the top, with high numbers alerting the reader to an article’s unreliability.

    A wiki with infinite forking would not work because the battle would simply become over who ranks the fork list.


    Posted on March 6th, 2016 at 12:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Skilluminati Says:

    Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth

    Exhibit B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiable_but_not_false


    Oliver Cromwell Reply:

    Wikipedia is a citation aggregator.

    Some of those citations are actually reliable, e.g. peer reviewed chemistry journals. Others are not, e.g. salon.


    Posted on March 6th, 2016 at 8:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Abelard Lindsey Says:

    My impression is that the alt right, neo-reaction, or whatever you call it wants to recreate the Singaporian system here in the West. I say this because Singapore is the ONLY example of a successful system that is essentially non-democratic and free from corruption and rent-seeking parasitism that exists in modern times.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    The deep flaws of Singapore are well acknowledged in these parts.


    admin Reply:

    “Deep flaws” only insofar as an obligate demographic predator is subject to denunciation on those grounds.


    AbelardLindsey Reply:

    Then your movement has zero possibility of success unless you can come up with an entirely new model that has never existed in any time in history, which is rather unlikely.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Gnon isn’t a movement.

    Posted on March 6th, 2016 at 8:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Oliver Cromwell Says:

    Wiki is very moderate, with moderate meaning in line with today’s official ideology. Rationalwiki is to the left of today’s official ideology, and probably more representative of elite opinion, with wiki being more representative of the opinion of the average literate English speaker.


    Posted on March 8th, 2016 at 10:27 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment