What do you think?
Rate this book
Making Sense of the Alt-Right
During the 2016 election, a new term entered the mainstream American political “alt-right,” short for “alternative right.” Despite the innocuous name, the alt-right is a white-nationalist movement. Yet it differs from earlier racist it is youthful and tech savvy, obsessed with provocation and trolling, amorphous, predominantly online, and mostly anonymous. And it was energized by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. In Making Sense of the Alt-Right , George Hawley provides an accessible introduction and gives vital perspective on the emergence of a group whose overt racism has confounded expectations for a more tolerant America.
Hawley explains the movement’s origins, evolution, methods, and core belief in white-identity politics. The book explores how the alt-right differs from traditional white nationalism, libertarianism, and other online illiberal ideologies such as neoreaction, as well as from mainstream Republicans and even Donald Trump and Steve Bannon. The alt-right’s use of offensive humor and its trolling-driven approach, based in animosity to so-called political correctness, can make it difficult to determine true motivations. Yet through exclusive interviews and a careful study of the alt-right’s influential texts, Hawley is able to paint a full picture of a movement that not only disagrees with liberalism but also fundamentally rejects most of the tenets of American conservatism. Hawley points to the alt-right’s growing influence and makes a case for coming to a precise understanding of its beliefs without sensationalism or downplaying the movement’s radicalism.
Hawley explains the movement’s origins, evolution, methods, and core belief in white-identity politics. The book explores how the alt-right differs from traditional white nationalism, libertarianism, and other online illiberal ideologies such as neoreaction, as well as from mainstream Republicans and even Donald Trump and Steve Bannon. The alt-right’s use of offensive humor and its trolling-driven approach, based in animosity to so-called political correctness, can make it difficult to determine true motivations. Yet through exclusive interviews and a careful study of the alt-right’s influential texts, Hawley is able to paint a full picture of a movement that not only disagrees with liberalism but also fundamentally rejects most of the tenets of American conservatism. Hawley points to the alt-right’s growing influence and makes a case for coming to a precise understanding of its beliefs without sensationalism or downplaying the movement’s radicalism.
218 pages, Hardcover
Published September 19, 2017
About the author
George Hawley
12 books33 followersI am an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama. My research interests include demography, electoral behavior, political parties, immigration policy, and the conservative movement in America.
I earned my Ph.D in political science from the University of Houston and my undergraduate degrees in political science and print journalism from Central Washington University.
Before entering graduate school, I worked in politics in Washington, DC, for multiple groups and individuals. While my teaching and academic research keep me busy, I am also an active consultant and media commentator (and always looking for new projects).
Although I am a proud native of the Pacific Northwest, I presently enjoy life with my wife and children here in the heart of Dixie.
I earned my Ph.D in political science from the University of Houston and my undergraduate degrees in political science and print journalism from Central Washington University.
Before entering graduate school, I worked in politics in Washington, DC, for multiple groups and individuals. While my teaching and academic research keep me busy, I am also an active consultant and media commentator (and always looking for new projects).
Although I am a proud native of the Pacific Northwest, I presently enjoy life with my wife and children here in the heart of Dixie.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
March 22, 2019
I knew some things about the alt-right before I read this book: they were younger than the racists I was used to, more upscale, more tech savvy (than me and the old racists combined), dressed in suits (or at least in slacks and polos), liked to carry tiki torches, loved to troll people on the internet, and believed—mistakenly in my opinion—that they possessed a well-developed sense of humor. (Maybe it’s just me, but I have never heard a holocaust joke I really liked.)
What I did not realize—and what Hawley has revealed to me in his simple, unadorned style—is that these alt-right dudes not only don’t care about our good ol’ USA, they don’t even care about the good ol’ CSA that those good ol’ Southern KKK types care about. Sure, they may pretend to care about “tradition,” about the preservation of a Stonewall Jackson statue or a Stars and Bars flying proudly here and there, but they only do so for the sake of a temporary alliance or as an excuse to kick up a fuss.
No. The only thing they really care about is their white “identity,” that is, the integrity of the individual society and political state’s “whiteness” in the face of increased immigration and ongoing terrorist threats. Thus the “alt-right” has more in common with the European identitarian movement and fascist revanchism than with the Conservative Citizen Councils or the The Turner Diaries. When Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka wears the fascist “Order of Vitez,” it connects him to darker things than “Hungarian culture”; when White House speechwriter Steven Miller—former Richard Spencer acolyte—crams Donald Trump’s speeches full of alarming references to “carnage” and “blood and soil,” the similarities to old Eastern European fascist rhetoric is not accidental.
Hawley, in straightforward prose, clearly demonstrates this connection, and makes much else clear as well. If you wish a short, unadorned, focused study of the alt-right, this is the book you’re looking for.
October 9, 2023
This author calls the alt-right some bad names. They are all white nationalist, racist and antisemitic. And they hate women too. But alt-righters say
We just don’t care what you call us anymore
WHO ARE THEY? WHAT DO THEY WANT? WHY DON’T THEY LEAVE ME ALONE?
Your average alt-righter, I would probably say someone who is thirty years old, who is a tech professional, who is an atheist, and who lives on one of the coasts (Richard Spencer)
They write a lot of nasty trolling stuff but they write as if nothing is really serious. This is Andy Warhol cut and paste so-what politics.
A penchant for aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs, often delivered in the arch, ironic tones common to modern internet discourse (Rosie Gray)
This is really different from what we remember the radical right to have been only a couple of decades ago.
In the past, the stereotypical young white nationalist was an angry bitter skinhead with limited skills and prospects
That’s right. We remember those skinhead guys! They were scary but they had no brains at all so they weren’t much of a threat. We see them in movies like American History X and The Believer (both recommended).
THE ALT RIGHT IS NOT VIOLENT? OH, I DID NOT QUITE REALISE THAT
This book is entirely concerned with the USA. That’s okay but I did not quite realise that. George Hawley says :
I am not implying that the alt-right is a terrorist movement. At the time of this writing, I am aware of no acts of physical violence directly connected to the alt-right – online harassment is another story
I was very surprised at this. I immediately thought of Dylann Roof, the lunatic who shot 9 people in a black church in June 2015. He was a white supremacist, wasn’t he? But George says
Dylan Roof’s manifesto suggests he was more influenced by older white-nationalist writers
Well, if you say so. If that is a distinction you wish to make.
RIGHT WING VIOLENCE
In June 2016 Jo Cox, British Labour MP, was shot and stabbed to death in the street by a guy associated with various online far right groups.
Previously to that, of course, you had the Anders Breivik attack in Norway in 2011. He killed 77 people in support of his anti-immigration white-nationalist cause. (He described the attack itself as “the book launch”, referring to his online manifesto.) He was the poster boy for white supremacism.
And only a month ago we had the horrible mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand.
So, there are increasing real-world manifestations of the type of white-nationalism & racism that is peddled in arch, ironic tones by the American alt right, those boys sitting in their mothers’ basements.
I did not think that this book should have so clearly exonerated the alt right of violence. But this book is nothing if not carefully argued.
THE ALT RIGHT IS EITHER VERY HONEST, FINALLY, OR DISGUSTINGLY WRONGHEADED ABOUT THE USA
George himself says, most bracingly,
Despite the egalitarian rhetoric of the Declaration of independence, the United States operated as a de facto white supremacist nation for most of its history
He adds that the alt right and Bernie Sanders would agree that “the United States was viewed by its founders as a country for people of European ancestry”
Of course, Bernie would then say “and that was bad” and the alt-right would say “and that was good, and we should get back there again”.
Over the past two decades, Americans have constructed systems of intellectual silencing that stifle the range of debate among responsible and public-spirited people, They’ve resigned hugely important topics to the domain of cranks and haters.
A growing percentage of white America no longer views racism as a moral failing
THE ALT RIGHT LOVES TRUMP BUT THEY DON’T LOVE THE TYPICAL TRUMP VOTER. MEANWHILE TRUMP DOES NOT LOVE THEM BACK
Greg Johnson : Like an icebreaker, Trump has plowed through the frozen crust of artificial political consensus, smashing it to bits and releasing the turbulent populist currents beneath
But the alt-right are a whole different bunch to the Trumpanistas :
Evangelical Christians are more likely to be mocked than defended, and bald eagles and American flags are few and far between
I'M SO BORED WITH THE USA BUT WHAT CAN I DO?
So, it’s a new and different beast, and according to George, these guys (no surprise it’s always guys) actually want to dismantle the USA and erect in its place either one or several white race enclaves in North America, removing all non-whites from their territories. Pretty apocalyptic. I really don’t think you could do that without a little bit of violence here and there.
George Hawley’s little book is probably for politics geeks only, and I would instead recommend for those interested in the more disturbing or alarming areas of internet culture two other books :
This is Why we Can’t Have Nice Things by Whitney Phillips
and
Troll Hunting by Ginger Gorman
We just don’t care what you call us anymore
WHO ARE THEY? WHAT DO THEY WANT? WHY DON’T THEY LEAVE ME ALONE?
Your average alt-righter, I would probably say someone who is thirty years old, who is a tech professional, who is an atheist, and who lives on one of the coasts (Richard Spencer)
They write a lot of nasty trolling stuff but they write as if nothing is really serious. This is Andy Warhol cut and paste so-what politics.
A penchant for aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs, often delivered in the arch, ironic tones common to modern internet discourse (Rosie Gray)
This is really different from what we remember the radical right to have been only a couple of decades ago.
In the past, the stereotypical young white nationalist was an angry bitter skinhead with limited skills and prospects
That’s right. We remember those skinhead guys! They were scary but they had no brains at all so they weren’t much of a threat. We see them in movies like American History X and The Believer (both recommended).
THE ALT RIGHT IS NOT VIOLENT? OH, I DID NOT QUITE REALISE THAT
This book is entirely concerned with the USA. That’s okay but I did not quite realise that. George Hawley says :
I am not implying that the alt-right is a terrorist movement. At the time of this writing, I am aware of no acts of physical violence directly connected to the alt-right – online harassment is another story
I was very surprised at this. I immediately thought of Dylann Roof, the lunatic who shot 9 people in a black church in June 2015. He was a white supremacist, wasn’t he? But George says
Dylan Roof’s manifesto suggests he was more influenced by older white-nationalist writers
Well, if you say so. If that is a distinction you wish to make.
RIGHT WING VIOLENCE
In June 2016 Jo Cox, British Labour MP, was shot and stabbed to death in the street by a guy associated with various online far right groups.
Previously to that, of course, you had the Anders Breivik attack in Norway in 2011. He killed 77 people in support of his anti-immigration white-nationalist cause. (He described the attack itself as “the book launch”, referring to his online manifesto.) He was the poster boy for white supremacism.
And only a month ago we had the horrible mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand.
So, there are increasing real-world manifestations of the type of white-nationalism & racism that is peddled in arch, ironic tones by the American alt right, those boys sitting in their mothers’ basements.
I did not think that this book should have so clearly exonerated the alt right of violence. But this book is nothing if not carefully argued.
THE ALT RIGHT IS EITHER VERY HONEST, FINALLY, OR DISGUSTINGLY WRONGHEADED ABOUT THE USA
George himself says, most bracingly,
Despite the egalitarian rhetoric of the Declaration of independence, the United States operated as a de facto white supremacist nation for most of its history
He adds that the alt right and Bernie Sanders would agree that “the United States was viewed by its founders as a country for people of European ancestry”
Of course, Bernie would then say “and that was bad” and the alt-right would say “and that was good, and we should get back there again”.
Over the past two decades, Americans have constructed systems of intellectual silencing that stifle the range of debate among responsible and public-spirited people, They’ve resigned hugely important topics to the domain of cranks and haters.
A growing percentage of white America no longer views racism as a moral failing
THE ALT RIGHT LOVES TRUMP BUT THEY DON’T LOVE THE TYPICAL TRUMP VOTER. MEANWHILE TRUMP DOES NOT LOVE THEM BACK
Greg Johnson : Like an icebreaker, Trump has plowed through the frozen crust of artificial political consensus, smashing it to bits and releasing the turbulent populist currents beneath
But the alt-right are a whole different bunch to the Trumpanistas :
Evangelical Christians are more likely to be mocked than defended, and bald eagles and American flags are few and far between
I'M SO BORED WITH THE USA BUT WHAT CAN I DO?
So, it’s a new and different beast, and according to George, these guys (no surprise it’s always guys) actually want to dismantle the USA and erect in its place either one or several white race enclaves in North America, removing all non-whites from their territories. Pretty apocalyptic. I really don’t think you could do that without a little bit of violence here and there.
George Hawley’s little book is probably for politics geeks only, and I would instead recommend for those interested in the more disturbing or alarming areas of internet culture two other books :
This is Why we Can’t Have Nice Things by Whitney Phillips
and
Troll Hunting by Ginger Gorman
November 14, 2017
A good overview of the history and development of the alt-right, offering clarifying distinctions between "alt-right" and "alt-lite." Hawley explains the differences between the alt-right and the mainstream conservative movement, highlighting the traditional gate-keeping role of institutions like the National Review and William F. Buckley in weeding the most noxious racist and antisemitic elements from the right-wing mainstream.
It's a useful read paired with Angela Nagle's Kill All Normies, which includes analysis of the roles of misogyny and transgression in the alt-right, topics that Hawley skips over to focus exclusively on white supremacy. Short and easy to read, Hawley's primer includes basic definitions and accessible analysis in just over 200 pages. Nagle's work, which occasionally drifts into academic jargon, has a wider scope, exploring the cultures of transgression in both the right and left. The two books complement each other, making them useful companion books for anyone who wants to understand these recent shifts in U.S. politics. Both are focused on the U.S. and don't really explore the ties between the American alt-right and European far-right movements.
Published in 2017, Making Sense of the Alt-Right was clearly written before the Charlottesville protests, and so the discussion of Trump's relationship to his alt-right supporters is dated and incomplete. If a second edition is released, an afterword reflecting on the neo-Nazi violence and Trump's response would help flesh out the story, perhaps positioning Trump closer to his supporters than Hawley originally suggested.
Note: I received an advance reader's copy through NetGalley.
It's a useful read paired with Angela Nagle's Kill All Normies, which includes analysis of the roles of misogyny and transgression in the alt-right, topics that Hawley skips over to focus exclusively on white supremacy. Short and easy to read, Hawley's primer includes basic definitions and accessible analysis in just over 200 pages. Nagle's work, which occasionally drifts into academic jargon, has a wider scope, exploring the cultures of transgression in both the right and left. The two books complement each other, making them useful companion books for anyone who wants to understand these recent shifts in U.S. politics. Both are focused on the U.S. and don't really explore the ties between the American alt-right and European far-right movements.
Published in 2017, Making Sense of the Alt-Right was clearly written before the Charlottesville protests, and so the discussion of Trump's relationship to his alt-right supporters is dated and incomplete. If a second edition is released, an afterword reflecting on the neo-Nazi violence and Trump's response would help flesh out the story, perhaps positioning Trump closer to his supporters than Hawley originally suggested.
Note: I received an advance reader's copy through NetGalley.
December 4, 2017
This is probably the best objective, non-partisan, and fair account of the rise of the "Alt-Right" in American politics. Regardless of your politics, this is worth understanding. I'm pretty familiar with the topic, and I learned a few things about the early origins of Alt Right which I didn't know before.
If you're not familiar with the material, more information about "Internet troll culture", forums like 4chan/8ch, you probably will want to look into those to really understand the movement.
A few missing elements from the book were somewhat unfortunate, but probably could be addressed in other books:
1) The disillusionment of a lot of the right wing libertarians, especially those of a certain age (late Gen X), after Ron Paul was effectively marginalized by the Republican Party.
2) The private edgy libertarian forums (like the TRS Facebook group) which pretty directly moved the movement from libertarianism to explicit white identity politics
3) More details about specific highly influential memes (the "Helicopter Rides", "Snek" and "Physical Removal" (Hoppe) stuff
4) Censorship on specific platforms and how it has caused the movement to evolve (this was mentioned about Twitter, but YouTube and other platforms were equally relevant)
5) Charlottesville and the problems with the leaderless collection of movements, probl
6) The "Shoah-ing" of The Daily Stormer by GoDaddy, Cloudflare, Google, and tens
7) The Richard Spencer/Whitefish/lawsuits, now involving not just Spencer but also Anglin, DS, etc.
8) Russian connection (intelligence agencies, expatriation of some of the more famous personalities like Anglin/weev, etc.)
9) Sex/gender and the movement (The "THOT Patrolling"/"White Sharia" thing with various alt-lite female personalities vs. some of the MGTOW/hardcore alt-right people
10) Religion -- while it's claimed the movement is highly atheist, there has definitely been a reference to both more "traditional" forms of Christianity, and paganism -- this was mentioned in the book, but not in particular detail.
11) The "skeptic community" and "atheist community" and how they merged somewhat with the alt-right
(I received this book from NetGalley as an ARC for free, although I would have likely purchased it otherwise.)
Overall, I'd highly recommend this book.
If you're not familiar with the material, more information about "Internet troll culture", forums like 4chan/8ch, you probably will want to look into those to really understand the movement.
A few missing elements from the book were somewhat unfortunate, but probably could be addressed in other books:
1) The disillusionment of a lot of the right wing libertarians, especially those of a certain age (late Gen X), after Ron Paul was effectively marginalized by the Republican Party.
2) The private edgy libertarian forums (like the TRS Facebook group) which pretty directly moved the movement from libertarianism to explicit white identity politics
3) More details about specific highly influential memes (the "Helicopter Rides", "Snek" and "Physical Removal" (Hoppe) stuff
4) Censorship on specific platforms and how it has caused the movement to evolve (this was mentioned about Twitter, but YouTube and other platforms were equally relevant)
5) Charlottesville and the problems with the leaderless collection of movements, probl
6) The "Shoah-ing" of The Daily Stormer by GoDaddy, Cloudflare, Google, and tens
7) The Richard Spencer/Whitefish/lawsuits, now involving not just Spencer but also Anglin, DS, etc.
8) Russian connection (intelligence agencies, expatriation of some of the more famous personalities like Anglin/weev, etc.)
9) Sex/gender and the movement (The "THOT Patrolling"/"White Sharia" thing with various alt-lite female personalities vs. some of the MGTOW/hardcore alt-right people
10) Religion -- while it's claimed the movement is highly atheist, there has definitely been a reference to both more "traditional" forms of Christianity, and paganism -- this was mentioned in the book, but not in particular detail.
11) The "skeptic community" and "atheist community" and how they merged somewhat with the alt-right
(I received this book from NetGalley as an ARC for free, although I would have likely purchased it otherwise.)
Overall, I'd highly recommend this book.
September 27, 2022
A very useful and interesting book that argues for a narrow definition of the alt-right. Hawley is a historian of conservative ideas and intellectuals who is particularly good on the issue of how to understand different tribes and movements within conservatism. The alt-right, however, is fundamentally not conservative, and it actively rejects the core tenets of modern U.S. conservatism: free trade, anti-statism, activist foreign policy, and religion. The alt-right is a movement of identity more than ideas. It certainly doesn't have a conservative temperament, as it is angry but also sarcastic, irreverent, and iconoclastic, reflecting its origins on the Internet.
Hawley defines the alt-right as a largely online movement that originated in the early 2010s and has been expanding since the Trump election, which gave it a tremendous amount of oxygen. Its core belief is white nationalism: it does not merely want white supremacy (white domination as in Jim Crow) but a white ethno-state that will require both a total halt to non-white immigration and eventually the "cleansing" of the US of all non-white people. They reject the core tenets of US politics, such as the idea that all human beings are equal and have inalienable rights. They are also skeptical of democracy in general, especially if it empowers non-whites and their allies to block the formation of a white nation. While the conservative movement certainly has a strong racial component and has used racialized appeals, it fundamentally does not see America as a land for whites only.
The alt-right grew from the nativist and paleo-conservative traditions on the right, including figures like Buchanan, Sam Francis, and Jared Taylor. It also draws heavily on the European far right, which is unlike the American conservative movement in that it is fundamentally illiberal, having fascist roots. It has operated mainly online, forming troll armies, networking across the country, spreading its ideas through both high-brow pseudoscientific essays as well as memes and reddit threads. Unlike previous versions of white supremacy and the far right, it opts for a more ironic, irreverent style that appeals to "very online" young men as opposed to the militaristic, angry style of the Proud Boys, neo-Nazis, and militia groups (although these seem pretty alt-Right to me).
I do have some critiques of this book. First, Hawley says that this movement is all about race, but I think he overlooks the importance of gender. The movement talks about gender constantly (think about the centrality of "cuckservatives" and assaults on the patriarchal family and their general performance of hyper-masculinity), as they appear to believe that the building of a white ethno-state will require the restoration of male authority in society and the family (think also of their pathological loathing of Hillary). Insecurity and anger about gender seems central to this movement, as it is almost all male in composition. I think this deserves more attention than Hawley give sit.
My second critique is that I think Hawley draws the lines of the alt-right a little too tightly. Of course, this book was published in 2017, so a lot of stuff has happened that might change his thesis. However, I thought that a lot of people he classified as "alt-lite" (Cernovich, Coulter, etc) hold a lot of the same views; they might not have an explicit commitment to white supremacy, but they seem to think that the growing diversity of America is a threat to white Christian dominance and are willing to preach fear and hatred about that trend. Most people obviously don't want to say the are racist or white supremacist or white nationalist, but the alt-right seems premised on the idea that those views or instincts are out there in pretty big numbers and that they can be tapped into if public discourse shifts. The bow-tie wearing intellectuals at the Claremont Institute and other hardline, pro-Trump, nativist nationalists at least deserve a mention as alt-lite, as many of them reject the principles of traditional US conservatism too. In sum, I think the idea that the alt-right is a rejection of and literal alternative to the conservative political movement is very useful, but I ended the book knowing more about the ideas of the alt-Right than who they actually are beyond out-in-the-open racists like Richard Spencer or Taylor. I think a better way to frame the alt-right is as the far edge of a broader nationalist movement that in some ways flowed out of traditional conservatism but also rejected much of that movement. It would include the Trump movement, the new militias, much of the old far-right that also loves Trump (think Charlottesville) and then the alt-right would be the extreme end of this broadly defined new Right.
This critique might be a little unfair to Hawley, but I think what makes this book worthwhile is that it stimulates an important conversation about how to understand and contextualize a dangerous, illiberal turn in US politics.
Hawley defines the alt-right as a largely online movement that originated in the early 2010s and has been expanding since the Trump election, which gave it a tremendous amount of oxygen. Its core belief is white nationalism: it does not merely want white supremacy (white domination as in Jim Crow) but a white ethno-state that will require both a total halt to non-white immigration and eventually the "cleansing" of the US of all non-white people. They reject the core tenets of US politics, such as the idea that all human beings are equal and have inalienable rights. They are also skeptical of democracy in general, especially if it empowers non-whites and their allies to block the formation of a white nation. While the conservative movement certainly has a strong racial component and has used racialized appeals, it fundamentally does not see America as a land for whites only.
The alt-right grew from the nativist and paleo-conservative traditions on the right, including figures like Buchanan, Sam Francis, and Jared Taylor. It also draws heavily on the European far right, which is unlike the American conservative movement in that it is fundamentally illiberal, having fascist roots. It has operated mainly online, forming troll armies, networking across the country, spreading its ideas through both high-brow pseudoscientific essays as well as memes and reddit threads. Unlike previous versions of white supremacy and the far right, it opts for a more ironic, irreverent style that appeals to "very online" young men as opposed to the militaristic, angry style of the Proud Boys, neo-Nazis, and militia groups (although these seem pretty alt-Right to me).
I do have some critiques of this book. First, Hawley says that this movement is all about race, but I think he overlooks the importance of gender. The movement talks about gender constantly (think about the centrality of "cuckservatives" and assaults on the patriarchal family and their general performance of hyper-masculinity), as they appear to believe that the building of a white ethno-state will require the restoration of male authority in society and the family (think also of their pathological loathing of Hillary). Insecurity and anger about gender seems central to this movement, as it is almost all male in composition. I think this deserves more attention than Hawley give sit.
My second critique is that I think Hawley draws the lines of the alt-right a little too tightly. Of course, this book was published in 2017, so a lot of stuff has happened that might change his thesis. However, I thought that a lot of people he classified as "alt-lite" (Cernovich, Coulter, etc) hold a lot of the same views; they might not have an explicit commitment to white supremacy, but they seem to think that the growing diversity of America is a threat to white Christian dominance and are willing to preach fear and hatred about that trend. Most people obviously don't want to say the are racist or white supremacist or white nationalist, but the alt-right seems premised on the idea that those views or instincts are out there in pretty big numbers and that they can be tapped into if public discourse shifts. The bow-tie wearing intellectuals at the Claremont Institute and other hardline, pro-Trump, nativist nationalists at least deserve a mention as alt-lite, as many of them reject the principles of traditional US conservatism too. In sum, I think the idea that the alt-right is a rejection of and literal alternative to the conservative political movement is very useful, but I ended the book knowing more about the ideas of the alt-Right than who they actually are beyond out-in-the-open racists like Richard Spencer or Taylor. I think a better way to frame the alt-right is as the far edge of a broader nationalist movement that in some ways flowed out of traditional conservatism but also rejected much of that movement. It would include the Trump movement, the new militias, much of the old far-right that also loves Trump (think Charlottesville) and then the alt-right would be the extreme end of this broadly defined new Right.
This critique might be a little unfair to Hawley, but I think what makes this book worthwhile is that it stimulates an important conversation about how to understand and contextualize a dangerous, illiberal turn in US politics.
January 4, 2018
This volume marks the beginnings of the efforts of political science to understand the altright, at least as far as work aimed towards a public goes. Like Dave Neiwert, Hawley is pitching the work towards an audience baffled (and presumably disgusted) by this new thing, so you get a lot of the same explanatory stuff, though from a markedly different angle. Neiwert emphasized continuity between the earlier far right, as well as mainstream conservatism, with the altright. Hawley insists that the altright is a complete negation of mainstream conservatism, with the usual references to William Buckley casting the Birchers out of the temple, etc etc. Nobody seems to ask why it has to be either/or- why can't there be a certain degree of ideological continuity (white identity politics, which mainstream conservatives absolutely practice just at a softer pitch; worship of authority, hatred of liberalism, etc) as well as institutional bad blood? That seems to be how every other ideology, socialism included, works...
Hawley has what I think of as a polisci habit of shortchanging historical context. Sometimes this takes the form of asking tantalizing contextual questions - "why does mainstream conservatism not integrate the sort of people, like right-leaning college kids, that it used to?" - and then basically just punting to something like "conservative weakness" or "the internet." True factors, both of them, but he doesn't get into why these things have taken shape the way they did and what that might mean for his question.
He appears to have taken this subject on because he was the guy in polisci writing about right-wing critics of American conservatism (work I'd like to look at, despite not thinking much of this book). Focus on the way the altright hates mainstream conservatives (and they do, or anyway they hate the leaders and hope to convert the followers- and have a better chance of the latter than any of us would like, even if it's still unlikely by the Vegas odds) occludes much of the rest of what makes the altright a thing. There's a real lack of attention paid to gender politics, which just seems baffling to me given how poignantly obvious male insecurity is with these people. And there's the usual judicious weighing of the altright vs the altlite, as though it makes a difference if you get jumped by an open white nationalist vs by someone too insecure to admit they are basically a white nationalist. There's some good attributes of this book -- it's a relief to see a professionally-produced, well-written volume on this stuff, given the thrown-together quality of Nagle and Neiwert's respective works -- but viable critical perspective on this question continues to elude the print longform format. **'
https://toomuchberard.wordpress.com/2...
Hawley has what I think of as a polisci habit of shortchanging historical context. Sometimes this takes the form of asking tantalizing contextual questions - "why does mainstream conservatism not integrate the sort of people, like right-leaning college kids, that it used to?" - and then basically just punting to something like "conservative weakness" or "the internet." True factors, both of them, but he doesn't get into why these things have taken shape the way they did and what that might mean for his question.
He appears to have taken this subject on because he was the guy in polisci writing about right-wing critics of American conservatism (work I'd like to look at, despite not thinking much of this book). Focus on the way the altright hates mainstream conservatives (and they do, or anyway they hate the leaders and hope to convert the followers- and have a better chance of the latter than any of us would like, even if it's still unlikely by the Vegas odds) occludes much of the rest of what makes the altright a thing. There's a real lack of attention paid to gender politics, which just seems baffling to me given how poignantly obvious male insecurity is with these people. And there's the usual judicious weighing of the altright vs the altlite, as though it makes a difference if you get jumped by an open white nationalist vs by someone too insecure to admit they are basically a white nationalist. There's some good attributes of this book -- it's a relief to see a professionally-produced, well-written volume on this stuff, given the thrown-together quality of Nagle and Neiwert's respective works -- but viable critical perspective on this question continues to elude the print longform format. **'
https://toomuchberard.wordpress.com/2...
August 18, 2021
Update: I still agree with most of what I wrote about this, but I realized that you really need a more sympathetic writer to capture things correctly. Right now the alt-right is basically a slur for "anyone we the Left, the anointed, think is bad," and the author is not even close to even-handed about things on the Left that are equally or more problematic (BLM, for instance). So it's a way of missing the forest for the trees. I think Hawley captures the transgressive spirit of the right and how it's very uncoordinated and even that it's sometimes very ineffective because of that. But it's not really a great source if you're trying to characterize the alt-right and figure out what they are serious about and what they are ironic about. I would want to characterize it more sympathetically than Hawley does, though not giving up my right to be grossed out by it. This is all a short way of saying that it's easy to lose perspective.
Old review:
A helpful idiot's guide to the alt-right that Aaron Renn recommended.
Hawley makes no pretense of being a dispassionate observer, and scatters condemnation throughout the book, but to his credit he is a genuine scholar and wants liberals to be precise in their speech and you can tell that he has that human propensity to be fascinated even by things he disapproves of. For instance, one of the big themes in this book is boundary management. The Alt-right, because it is so disconnected and de-institutionalized, will have trouble maintaining it's own boundaries, but it has been much more successful because of those same characteristics, at attacking the mainstream right. The mainstream right was successful at banishing racism, paleo-cons, and other dissidents from its ranks, but because the alt-right has such a good rhetorical position and the corruption of the GOP and the impotence of modern conservatism is so blatant, they can own them every time.
What is the alt-right? I don't know for myself, but Hawley defines it as white nationalism and thinks of it as partially racist, antisemitic, and anti-feminist. It seems to me, from this distance, to be a kind of "f--- you" to the political mainstream, both the liberals who (in its view) are actively perpetrating injustice and conservatives are either enabling it or just consistently getting owned. What Hawley is right about is that whenever conservatives try to adopt a serious posture, the liberals always win and the alt-right will always perform better because of their mocking, half-serious style. They know how the game is played and that standards of gravitas have been completely eroded by modern media.
I am sympathetic to a lot of this (particularly the anti-egalitarianism and the critiques of liberal democracy), because Evangelical Christians have indeed been naive about how the game is played, and the alt-right has some legitimate grievances, but this book left me sour about the alt-right overall. Hawley makes the point that most of its members are techno-savvy 30-year-old males in mom's basement. While this may say as much about Hawley, there's really some truth to this, and a great deal of what passes as trolling may be expected, it just doesn't come from Christian peace and calmness. And incidentally, f--- you maybe great rhetoric, but it doesn't come up with anything other than the shift in overton window that we saw in Trump.
The thing I can commend Hawley the most for is that he recognizes that Trump is not himself a racist, and that most Americans are not and that conservative gatekeeping probably did the right thing in purging it from the ranks (though the way it has been done was doubtless insidious at times). He is aware that the alt-right is much more rhetorically dominant than the mainstream right, and so it could become dominant and have immensely socially destructive results. He also is right that the alt-right will have to institution-build if it wants to have any power. He points this out at the end of the book: the movement, for all it's success online, won't change the world. I think we could compare it to the capitol hill January crisis: until the alt-right compromises and finds a way to mainstream through some charismatic leadership, they are going to be goaded into fights with the liberal machine that will frame the narrative against them and eat them alive. But you never know what the future really is.
I also appreciated the taxonomy of folks like Moldbug and Milo. I didn't know where they fit and it was glad to have that explained. There's lots of precise and careful diagnosis of the situation, particularly of boundary-keeping in this book.
Old review:
A helpful idiot's guide to the alt-right that Aaron Renn recommended.
Hawley makes no pretense of being a dispassionate observer, and scatters condemnation throughout the book, but to his credit he is a genuine scholar and wants liberals to be precise in their speech and you can tell that he has that human propensity to be fascinated even by things he disapproves of. For instance, one of the big themes in this book is boundary management. The Alt-right, because it is so disconnected and de-institutionalized, will have trouble maintaining it's own boundaries, but it has been much more successful because of those same characteristics, at attacking the mainstream right. The mainstream right was successful at banishing racism, paleo-cons, and other dissidents from its ranks, but because the alt-right has such a good rhetorical position and the corruption of the GOP and the impotence of modern conservatism is so blatant, they can own them every time.
What is the alt-right? I don't know for myself, but Hawley defines it as white nationalism and thinks of it as partially racist, antisemitic, and anti-feminist. It seems to me, from this distance, to be a kind of "f--- you" to the political mainstream, both the liberals who (in its view) are actively perpetrating injustice and conservatives are either enabling it or just consistently getting owned. What Hawley is right about is that whenever conservatives try to adopt a serious posture, the liberals always win and the alt-right will always perform better because of their mocking, half-serious style. They know how the game is played and that standards of gravitas have been completely eroded by modern media.
I am sympathetic to a lot of this (particularly the anti-egalitarianism and the critiques of liberal democracy), because Evangelical Christians have indeed been naive about how the game is played, and the alt-right has some legitimate grievances, but this book left me sour about the alt-right overall. Hawley makes the point that most of its members are techno-savvy 30-year-old males in mom's basement. While this may say as much about Hawley, there's really some truth to this, and a great deal of what passes as trolling may be expected, it just doesn't come from Christian peace and calmness. And incidentally, f--- you maybe great rhetoric, but it doesn't come up with anything other than the shift in overton window that we saw in Trump.
The thing I can commend Hawley the most for is that he recognizes that Trump is not himself a racist, and that most Americans are not and that conservative gatekeeping probably did the right thing in purging it from the ranks (though the way it has been done was doubtless insidious at times). He is aware that the alt-right is much more rhetorically dominant than the mainstream right, and so it could become dominant and have immensely socially destructive results. He also is right that the alt-right will have to institution-build if it wants to have any power. He points this out at the end of the book: the movement, for all it's success online, won't change the world. I think we could compare it to the capitol hill January crisis: until the alt-right compromises and finds a way to mainstream through some charismatic leadership, they are going to be goaded into fights with the liberal machine that will frame the narrative against them and eat them alive. But you never know what the future really is.
I also appreciated the taxonomy of folks like Moldbug and Milo. I didn't know where they fit and it was glad to have that explained. There's lots of precise and careful diagnosis of the situation, particularly of boundary-keeping in this book.
November 7, 2017
This was a pretty decent introduction. Hawley keeps a relatively academic tone throughout. The downside is that the book is wide in its coverage but not deep. There's no real exploration of the philosophy behind the alt-right, just its internet manifestations. Though he is correct about the trollish nature of the movement, I think he's wrong not to devote some attention to the thinkers (such as they are.) He also assumes a predominantly pagan ethos on the alt-right, which, while accurate in some quarters, doesn't paint a whole picture.
On average, a reasonably good place to start. As someone who is fairly well-versed in alt-right thought, it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
On average, a reasonably good place to start. As someone who is fairly well-versed in alt-right thought, it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
August 19, 2019
I read this book just after reading Mike Wendling’s “Alt-Right: from 4chan to the White House” and I recommend they both be read by anyone interested in the subject since they complement each other rather than simply stating the same ideas. While Wendling is a journalist and takes a hands on approach to interacting with Alt-Right folk, this book is written by an academic and is more reserved in judgement and provides a holistic approach to the history of right wing thought in the US since the 1950s and makes important distinctions between early and latter Alt-Right movements and their overall place in right wing thought. Wendling’s book by comparison is much more in the moment (2018).
Interestingly, this book was published in 2017 almost exactly when Charlottesville happened, so that saga didn’t get included. That had the unfortunate consequence of the author stating that the Alt-Right hasn’t directly caused or incited violence yet. Yikes! How times have changed since then. That being said, it’s probably a good thing that this book was published before the post-Charlottesville phase as it allowed focus to be applied directly on the movement and it’s beliefs without the horrendous acts themselves to overshadow what the Alt-Right actually believes in. One other blind spot is the author’s insistence that Trump isn’t a believer in their ideas and he hasn’t acted in racially-motivated ways beyond the Muslim travel ban, and he surely isn’t a fascist. Of course, since mid-2017 we have seen so much more from Trump to refute this.
What the Alt-Right believes in is white nationalism, and for many, outright white supremacy with the creation of a white ethnostate. There is no way to avoid this conclusion as it is the through line for all these folks, even if they dress themselves up like hipsters and write well and present as calm, rational individuals. But actually, they are not because they always give themselves away. There are slips where their real, viscous beliefs come through, either in speeches or in 4chan “humour”. They claim that the left can’t take a joke, but this stuff isn’t funny, and it is the worst excuse to claim freedom of speech I have ever seen (Andrew Sheer take note). It saddens me to think that so many people are wasting their lives in hate and making not only their own lives poorer but attempting to bring everyone who is not a white male down with them.
I felt the author did a fine job with the subject, but given the anonymity of the participants it is easier to say who the alt-right is not rather then who they are, which sometimes left me thinking, “then who are these people?” Also, and perhaps it’s because the author is an even-handed academic that he doesn’t want to be seen to be defending groups that fight for social justice (e.g., Black Lives Matter), but when someone from the Alt-Right says that BLM should be illegal, it should be noted that BLM and other social justice groups are indeed not hate organizations, and are fighting for the empowerment of traditionally marginalized people, a far cry from these right-wing bozos trying to push everyone down except for themselves. The author should have stated that, as it’s a reasonable statement founded in liberal-enlightenment ideals, the foundation for modern democratic states. We do not have to be fair and balanced with fascists here. But on balance I do appreciate the academic rigour and I would love to see a follow up book on where the movement is today vs. other right-wing actors.
Interestingly, this book was published in 2017 almost exactly when Charlottesville happened, so that saga didn’t get included. That had the unfortunate consequence of the author stating that the Alt-Right hasn’t directly caused or incited violence yet. Yikes! How times have changed since then. That being said, it’s probably a good thing that this book was published before the post-Charlottesville phase as it allowed focus to be applied directly on the movement and it’s beliefs without the horrendous acts themselves to overshadow what the Alt-Right actually believes in. One other blind spot is the author’s insistence that Trump isn’t a believer in their ideas and he hasn’t acted in racially-motivated ways beyond the Muslim travel ban, and he surely isn’t a fascist. Of course, since mid-2017 we have seen so much more from Trump to refute this.
What the Alt-Right believes in is white nationalism, and for many, outright white supremacy with the creation of a white ethnostate. There is no way to avoid this conclusion as it is the through line for all these folks, even if they dress themselves up like hipsters and write well and present as calm, rational individuals. But actually, they are not because they always give themselves away. There are slips where their real, viscous beliefs come through, either in speeches or in 4chan “humour”. They claim that the left can’t take a joke, but this stuff isn’t funny, and it is the worst excuse to claim freedom of speech I have ever seen (Andrew Sheer take note). It saddens me to think that so many people are wasting their lives in hate and making not only their own lives poorer but attempting to bring everyone who is not a white male down with them.
I felt the author did a fine job with the subject, but given the anonymity of the participants it is easier to say who the alt-right is not rather then who they are, which sometimes left me thinking, “then who are these people?” Also, and perhaps it’s because the author is an even-handed academic that he doesn’t want to be seen to be defending groups that fight for social justice (e.g., Black Lives Matter), but when someone from the Alt-Right says that BLM should be illegal, it should be noted that BLM and other social justice groups are indeed not hate organizations, and are fighting for the empowerment of traditionally marginalized people, a far cry from these right-wing bozos trying to push everyone down except for themselves. The author should have stated that, as it’s a reasonable statement founded in liberal-enlightenment ideals, the foundation for modern democratic states. We do not have to be fair and balanced with fascists here. But on balance I do appreciate the academic rigour and I would love to see a follow up book on where the movement is today vs. other right-wing actors.
July 21, 2018
Hawley's book is a decent and concise introduction to the Alt-Right. If you are someone who is already familiar with the Alt-Right, and has followed its development over the past few years there is not much new information here. What it does provide is a decent overview of information that is otherwise scattered across hundreds of blogs, news articles, interviews and "shitposts."
One thesis that Hawley puts forward that I thought was well argued was the Alt-Right is an Anti-Conservative phenomenon and the election of Trump shows the weakness of the Conservative hegemony in right wing thought. Given Hawley's background in Political Science and Conservatism, I trust his conclusion and appreciate the brief reference to the Euro. New Right who are in a lot of ways their forerunners and the inspiration for their anti-Conservative and Enlightenment views.
There are a few problems with this book. First, just by the nature of writing about a current movement, although the book is less than a year old, it feels dated because it was written Pre-Charlottesville. Second, as many other reviewers have pointed out, Hawley chose breadth over depth, and it feels like the book would have been richer if Hawley had gone deeper into the philosophical background of the movement. Third, there were some points where I think Hawley reached false conclusions because he trusted trolls. For example, he claims Gamergate wasn't a huge influence or port of entry into the Alt-Right because most of the gamergaters were progressives. In the footnotes, he cites a now defunct conservative newsite that published a poll by Ian Myles Cheong. I'm not sure if Buzzfeed had published their exposé on gamergaters ghostwriting for Milo and Breitbart, but Cheong now writes for Milo's "Dangerous" blog, and during the gamergate controversy wasn't known to argue in good faith.
Still, I think the book is a good intro to the movement, and I would recommend it.
One thesis that Hawley puts forward that I thought was well argued was the Alt-Right is an Anti-Conservative phenomenon and the election of Trump shows the weakness of the Conservative hegemony in right wing thought. Given Hawley's background in Political Science and Conservatism, I trust his conclusion and appreciate the brief reference to the Euro. New Right who are in a lot of ways their forerunners and the inspiration for their anti-Conservative and Enlightenment views.
There are a few problems with this book. First, just by the nature of writing about a current movement, although the book is less than a year old, it feels dated because it was written Pre-Charlottesville. Second, as many other reviewers have pointed out, Hawley chose breadth over depth, and it feels like the book would have been richer if Hawley had gone deeper into the philosophical background of the movement. Third, there were some points where I think Hawley reached false conclusions because he trusted trolls. For example, he claims Gamergate wasn't a huge influence or port of entry into the Alt-Right because most of the gamergaters were progressives. In the footnotes, he cites a now defunct conservative newsite that published a poll by Ian Myles Cheong. I'm not sure if Buzzfeed had published their exposé on gamergaters ghostwriting for Milo and Breitbart, but Cheong now writes for Milo's "Dangerous" blog, and during the gamergate controversy wasn't known to argue in good faith.
Still, I think the book is a good intro to the movement, and I would recommend it.
September 9, 2019
Great academic taxonomy on what the alt-right is and it is not. In the nutshell alt-right is a white supremacist movement. The author is very careful not to offend any one, so he does not use the word "fascist" to describe the alt-right, even when clearly they fit the Roger Griffin's definition of "paligenetic ultra-nationalism".
Different from other authors on the topic, Hawley pin points the origins of the alt-right to web based Neo-Nazi culture that took influence from the European New Right. So it is not a outgrow from the conservative movement like some claim, but totally a new breed of far-right politics.
The biggest problem in this book is that the author is unwilling to knowledge that political movements are newer made of ideological fanatics, but by great number of other groups and fellow travelers, so to isolate the alt-right just to a fringe Neo-Nazi movement, gives the other Trump-supporting far-right groups, like the militia movements a free pass. The historical fascists did not rose to power alone, but in a right wing coalition, with the support of local elites. So it is a little bit naive to think that the Trump-movement is just a populist movement with no danger to slide to authoritarianism, because there are no open Neo-Nazis in the new government.
Different from other authors on the topic, Hawley pin points the origins of the alt-right to web based Neo-Nazi culture that took influence from the European New Right. So it is not a outgrow from the conservative movement like some claim, but totally a new breed of far-right politics.
The biggest problem in this book is that the author is unwilling to knowledge that political movements are newer made of ideological fanatics, but by great number of other groups and fellow travelers, so to isolate the alt-right just to a fringe Neo-Nazi movement, gives the other Trump-supporting far-right groups, like the militia movements a free pass. The historical fascists did not rose to power alone, but in a right wing coalition, with the support of local elites. So it is a little bit naive to think that the Trump-movement is just a populist movement with no danger to slide to authoritarianism, because there are no open Neo-Nazis in the new government.
May 20, 2024
AN INFORMATIVE OVERVIEW OF THE ALT-RIGHT MOVEMENT
Political Science professor George Hawley wrote in the Introduction to this 2017 book, “Despite its innocuous name, the Alt-Right is… at its core, a racist movement. I am generally hesitant … to label an individual, group, or political movement as racist. But in the case of the Alt-Right, there is no other appropriate word… Although mainstream conservatives and libertarians howl with outrage when they are labeled racists, the Alt-Right seems collectively to shrug its shoulders when it encounters this accusation… For this reason, some have objected that mainstream journalists and academics should not even use the term ‘Alt-Right’ and should instead stick with ‘white supremacist.’ … throughout this text I will use the term ‘Alt-Right’… The Alt-Right is unlike any racist movement we have ever seen. It is atomized, amorphous, predominantly online, and mostly anonymous. Although it remains small, it is growing. And it was energized by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.” (Pg. 3)
He continues, “it is a movement without leaders… Both ‘cultural libertarians---whose main complaint about contemporary America is the stifling degree of political correctness that shuts down discussion of important topics---and hardcore neo-Nazis have claimed the moniker of Alt-Right. In many respects, the Alt-Right is an outgrowth of Internet troll cult… is not just a racist version of mainstream… conservatism. The Alt-Right rejects the major premises of the conservative movement … or moral traditionalism, economic liberty, and strong national defense…. The Alt-Right’s radicalism is also apparent in the degree to which it rejects other basic American values… it rejects both liberty and equality as ideals… In spite of these challenges, it is possible to make sense of the Alt-Right … This is my task in this book.” (Pg. 3-5)
He explains, “Among the less radical voices within the Alt-Right… Rather than the destruction of the United States … and the creation of a new white nation, some say that they will be satisfied if whites simply stop shrinking as a percentage of the population… Within the Alt-Right, commentary on race ranges from calls for massive ethnic cleansing through violent means if necessary, to new restrictions on nonwhite immigration into the United States. But even the mildest elements of the Alt-Right are far to the right of mainstream conservatives, and all agree that race is the movement’s single most important issue… the Alt-Right is also an antifeminist movement opposed to contemporary notions of gender equality and in favor of a more patriarchal society…. The Alt-Right also uniformly rejects traditional Republican views on foreign policy… It has no interest in spreading democracy abroad and opposes the close relationship between the United States and Israel.” (Pg. 16-17)
He observes, “The Alt-Right is almost exclusively an online phenomenon. It has no brick-and-mortar think tanks distributing policy papers … It does not run any print newspapers, have a meaningful presence on television, or broadcast its message on the radio… It is predominantly anonymous. For all of these reasons, it is remarkable that it became such a visible presence in American politics in 2016.” (Pg. 18)
He notes, “But history has seen another approach to American white nationalism… I call it ‘highbrow white nationalism.’ … [This] movement, complete with quasi-scholarly journals, books, and websites, has been around for decades… [It] presents itself as a movement of serious scholars and social observers---including many people with impeccable academic credentials… [They] tend to maintain a civil tone, avoiding the racial slurs, threatening language and vitriol for which groups like the KKK and skinhead gangs are known. Jared Taylor… is the leading figure of this variety of white nationalism… He presents arguments in favor of what he calls ‘race realism.’… this perspective holds that racial and ethnic distinctions are rooted in biology, rather than being mere social constructs… For a time, Taylor had access to large media venues… Early ‘American Renaissance’ conferences were televised on CSPAN. By the late 1990s, however, Taylor was largely absent from the public eye…. But as the Alt-Right movement took off, Taylor became a revered figure… a few others are worth mentioning. Kevin MacDonald… is a beloved figure among contemporary anti-Semites…” (Pg. 26-28)
He suggests, “the conservative movement may have inadvertently opened a door for the Alt-Right with its ferocious opposition to all things related to political correctness and its skepticism about mass immigration. Although the Alt-Right has borrowed elements from many other movements, it should be treated as a genuinely new phenomenon, born in 2008.” (Pg. 50) He states “In its first iteration, [Richard] Spencer was undoubtedly the leader of the Alt-Right, given that the term was associated with his websites. But now… the Alt-Right is without leaders in the usual sense. It is a disorganized mob that broadly shares a number of goals and beliefs.” (Pg. 70)
He notes, “The question is why young people, including well-educated young people, are attracted to a movement like the Alt-Right… One common theme … was that growing racial polarization during the Obama administration---especially the coverage of the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings and … the Black Lives Matter movement---pushed them to the right… [Others] have offered thoughts on why white nationalism has begun appealing to a larger demographic… Once people are financially secure and working a decent job, they are less drawn to radicalism. A growing number of young whites are … remaining unemployed or underemployed for a long time, and their resentment grows. They also have a lot of free time to spend on the Internet.” (Pg. 78-79)
He states, “the Alt-Right, even after Trump’s victory, remains a powerless and marginalized group, and the organized conservative movement remains the primary opponent of the egalitarian left. For this reason, the Alt-Right wants to help facilitate the demise of conservatism… the main target of the Alt-Right’s wrath, at least for now, is arguably not African-Americans, Latinos, or political progressives; it is mainstream conservatives.” (Pg. 90-91)
Later, he adds, “Unlike most conservatives, much of the Alt-Right … views the Christian worldview as a hindrance to the rediscovery of aristocratic values…. The Alt-Right also critiques Christianity as a universal religion equally open to all people… Christianity’s Jewish roots are another source of far-right hostility toward the religion… Even greater … is the Alt-Right’s criticism of politicized Christianity.” (Pg. 100-101)
He points out, “The first incarnation of the Alt-Right had little interest in electoral politics, and … paid little attention to Trump, even as he made outlandish claims about President Obama’s birth certificate. However, when he kicked off his campaign with references to Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers and made a southern border wall the centerpiece of his early speeches, the Alt-Right believed it had finally found its champion… And when Trump’s opponents tied Trump directly to the Alt-Right, the movement received unprecedented attention. Most of the Alt-Right realized from the beginning that Trump was not really one of them, but they still loved him, and not just because of his comments about immigrants and Muslims. Trump changed the tone of American politics. He … helped normalize nativist rhetoric. Perhaps most importantly… Trump dealt the organized conservative movement a devastating blow, creating an opening for right-wing alternatives.” (Pg. 115-116) He
continues, “Trump has been tied to the Alt-Right mainly because of who he has named his closest advisors. Steve Bannon is the most significant of these figures… Bannon ran the conservative website ‘Breitbart’… Bannon once explicitly described Breitbart as a ‘platform of the alt-right.’ … [But] the reality is that this statement is incorrect.” (Pg. 129)
He notes, “Even if the Alt-Right finds itself blocked from Twitter and similar sites, the movement has previously found ways to work around efforts to stamp out offensive speech online. For example… the Alt-Right has begun to use the names of major corporate entities as code words for minority groups… When major online platforms try to block one medium… the army of online trolls immediately looks for weaknesses in the armor, and it usually finds one.” (Pg. 165) Later, he adds, “Part of the Alt-Right’s core message is that white people are a persecuted group on society and that white advocates are especially likely to be victimized by progressives. When an Alt-Right figure is assaulted merely for expressing a viewpoint, such a narrative is only reinforced.” (Pg. 170)
He concludes, “Throughout the campaign, Trump… was accused of racism… It is telling that a majority of white Americans were willing to disregard this claim and vote for Trump anyway… we can be reasonably concerned that a growing percentage of white America no longer views racism as a moral failing and is willing to be associated with explicit white-identity politics… Conservatives at least paid lip service to the ideal of color-blind politics and denounced and purged open racists from their ranks. In a postconservative America, zero-sum identity politics may become the norm, and the Alt-Right will be on the periphery, pushing racial polarization at every available opportunity.” (Pg. 174-175)
This book will be of great interest to those seeking overviews and critiques of the Alt-Right, and related movements.
Political Science professor George Hawley wrote in the Introduction to this 2017 book, “Despite its innocuous name, the Alt-Right is… at its core, a racist movement. I am generally hesitant … to label an individual, group, or political movement as racist. But in the case of the Alt-Right, there is no other appropriate word… Although mainstream conservatives and libertarians howl with outrage when they are labeled racists, the Alt-Right seems collectively to shrug its shoulders when it encounters this accusation… For this reason, some have objected that mainstream journalists and academics should not even use the term ‘Alt-Right’ and should instead stick with ‘white supremacist.’ … throughout this text I will use the term ‘Alt-Right’… The Alt-Right is unlike any racist movement we have ever seen. It is atomized, amorphous, predominantly online, and mostly anonymous. Although it remains small, it is growing. And it was energized by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.” (Pg. 3)
He continues, “it is a movement without leaders… Both ‘cultural libertarians---whose main complaint about contemporary America is the stifling degree of political correctness that shuts down discussion of important topics---and hardcore neo-Nazis have claimed the moniker of Alt-Right. In many respects, the Alt-Right is an outgrowth of Internet troll cult… is not just a racist version of mainstream… conservatism. The Alt-Right rejects the major premises of the conservative movement … or moral traditionalism, economic liberty, and strong national defense…. The Alt-Right’s radicalism is also apparent in the degree to which it rejects other basic American values… it rejects both liberty and equality as ideals… In spite of these challenges, it is possible to make sense of the Alt-Right … This is my task in this book.” (Pg. 3-5)
He explains, “Among the less radical voices within the Alt-Right… Rather than the destruction of the United States … and the creation of a new white nation, some say that they will be satisfied if whites simply stop shrinking as a percentage of the population… Within the Alt-Right, commentary on race ranges from calls for massive ethnic cleansing through violent means if necessary, to new restrictions on nonwhite immigration into the United States. But even the mildest elements of the Alt-Right are far to the right of mainstream conservatives, and all agree that race is the movement’s single most important issue… the Alt-Right is also an antifeminist movement opposed to contemporary notions of gender equality and in favor of a more patriarchal society…. The Alt-Right also uniformly rejects traditional Republican views on foreign policy… It has no interest in spreading democracy abroad and opposes the close relationship between the United States and Israel.” (Pg. 16-17)
He observes, “The Alt-Right is almost exclusively an online phenomenon. It has no brick-and-mortar think tanks distributing policy papers … It does not run any print newspapers, have a meaningful presence on television, or broadcast its message on the radio… It is predominantly anonymous. For all of these reasons, it is remarkable that it became such a visible presence in American politics in 2016.” (Pg. 18)
He notes, “But history has seen another approach to American white nationalism… I call it ‘highbrow white nationalism.’ … [This] movement, complete with quasi-scholarly journals, books, and websites, has been around for decades… [It] presents itself as a movement of serious scholars and social observers---including many people with impeccable academic credentials… [They] tend to maintain a civil tone, avoiding the racial slurs, threatening language and vitriol for which groups like the KKK and skinhead gangs are known. Jared Taylor… is the leading figure of this variety of white nationalism… He presents arguments in favor of what he calls ‘race realism.’… this perspective holds that racial and ethnic distinctions are rooted in biology, rather than being mere social constructs… For a time, Taylor had access to large media venues… Early ‘American Renaissance’ conferences were televised on CSPAN. By the late 1990s, however, Taylor was largely absent from the public eye…. But as the Alt-Right movement took off, Taylor became a revered figure… a few others are worth mentioning. Kevin MacDonald… is a beloved figure among contemporary anti-Semites…” (Pg. 26-28)
He suggests, “the conservative movement may have inadvertently opened a door for the Alt-Right with its ferocious opposition to all things related to political correctness and its skepticism about mass immigration. Although the Alt-Right has borrowed elements from many other movements, it should be treated as a genuinely new phenomenon, born in 2008.” (Pg. 50) He states “In its first iteration, [Richard] Spencer was undoubtedly the leader of the Alt-Right, given that the term was associated with his websites. But now… the Alt-Right is without leaders in the usual sense. It is a disorganized mob that broadly shares a number of goals and beliefs.” (Pg. 70)
He notes, “The question is why young people, including well-educated young people, are attracted to a movement like the Alt-Right… One common theme … was that growing racial polarization during the Obama administration---especially the coverage of the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings and … the Black Lives Matter movement---pushed them to the right… [Others] have offered thoughts on why white nationalism has begun appealing to a larger demographic… Once people are financially secure and working a decent job, they are less drawn to radicalism. A growing number of young whites are … remaining unemployed or underemployed for a long time, and their resentment grows. They also have a lot of free time to spend on the Internet.” (Pg. 78-79)
He states, “the Alt-Right, even after Trump’s victory, remains a powerless and marginalized group, and the organized conservative movement remains the primary opponent of the egalitarian left. For this reason, the Alt-Right wants to help facilitate the demise of conservatism… the main target of the Alt-Right’s wrath, at least for now, is arguably not African-Americans, Latinos, or political progressives; it is mainstream conservatives.” (Pg. 90-91)
Later, he adds, “Unlike most conservatives, much of the Alt-Right … views the Christian worldview as a hindrance to the rediscovery of aristocratic values…. The Alt-Right also critiques Christianity as a universal religion equally open to all people… Christianity’s Jewish roots are another source of far-right hostility toward the religion… Even greater … is the Alt-Right’s criticism of politicized Christianity.” (Pg. 100-101)
He points out, “The first incarnation of the Alt-Right had little interest in electoral politics, and … paid little attention to Trump, even as he made outlandish claims about President Obama’s birth certificate. However, when he kicked off his campaign with references to Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers and made a southern border wall the centerpiece of his early speeches, the Alt-Right believed it had finally found its champion… And when Trump’s opponents tied Trump directly to the Alt-Right, the movement received unprecedented attention. Most of the Alt-Right realized from the beginning that Trump was not really one of them, but they still loved him, and not just because of his comments about immigrants and Muslims. Trump changed the tone of American politics. He … helped normalize nativist rhetoric. Perhaps most importantly… Trump dealt the organized conservative movement a devastating blow, creating an opening for right-wing alternatives.” (Pg. 115-116) He
continues, “Trump has been tied to the Alt-Right mainly because of who he has named his closest advisors. Steve Bannon is the most significant of these figures… Bannon ran the conservative website ‘Breitbart’… Bannon once explicitly described Breitbart as a ‘platform of the alt-right.’ … [But] the reality is that this statement is incorrect.” (Pg. 129)
He notes, “Even if the Alt-Right finds itself blocked from Twitter and similar sites, the movement has previously found ways to work around efforts to stamp out offensive speech online. For example… the Alt-Right has begun to use the names of major corporate entities as code words for minority groups… When major online platforms try to block one medium… the army of online trolls immediately looks for weaknesses in the armor, and it usually finds one.” (Pg. 165) Later, he adds, “Part of the Alt-Right’s core message is that white people are a persecuted group on society and that white advocates are especially likely to be victimized by progressives. When an Alt-Right figure is assaulted merely for expressing a viewpoint, such a narrative is only reinforced.” (Pg. 170)
He concludes, “Throughout the campaign, Trump… was accused of racism… It is telling that a majority of white Americans were willing to disregard this claim and vote for Trump anyway… we can be reasonably concerned that a growing percentage of white America no longer views racism as a moral failing and is willing to be associated with explicit white-identity politics… Conservatives at least paid lip service to the ideal of color-blind politics and denounced and purged open racists from their ranks. In a postconservative America, zero-sum identity politics may become the norm, and the Alt-Right will be on the periphery, pushing racial polarization at every available opportunity.” (Pg. 174-175)
This book will be of great interest to those seeking overviews and critiques of the Alt-Right, and related movements.
July 8, 2018
Hawley traces the history and influences on the rise the Alt-Right from the inside perspective rather than the traditional narrative bandied about by most media outlets. In doing so, he provides a nuance that traditional media does not have space for but that nuance is not a defense or apology for the Alt-Right and what they stand for but rather, a deep need to understand what drives people to embrace what many (rightfully) see as a hateful, fear-based, and ignorant agenda. Like any good history, Hawley illustrates the predecessors to the Alt-Right and some of their influences of the 1980s and 1990s--particular white nationals and white supremacist groups (yes, there is a distinction to them; even if to others it is a distinction without difference). From there, he shifts into exploring the pivotal role of the Internet and the thriving communities the arose over the 2000s and 2010s along with the moments of harmony and discord as the different groups that compose the Alt-Right shifted from a more elitist discourse to justify their racist believes to one that often embraces a mixture of chaos, trolling, and gaslighting. What strikes me about Hawley's work is that he does well with articulating how the Alt-Right asserted itself and saw itself as supremely different not just from the general right in the US (both are uncomfortable with one another, yet both have fed each out consistently over the last 50 years). Additionally, it proves enlightening (though not necessarily rewarding) to discover how even some of those most associated with the Alt-Right by mainstream society (Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Steve Bannon) are largely disliked, disregarded, or disdained by the Alt-Right. In total, Hawley's work is useful (albeit slightly nauseating) book exposing a group that needs to be understood in order to minimize the damage and harm they represent.
July 25, 2017
This book attempts to explain what the alt-right is and what it is not. It is a white nationalist movement that is an online phenomenon. Just as the KKK members hide their heads under their white hoods, the alt-right members hide their identities while online. The movement is diverse and does not have a leader or cohesive ideology that all of its followers would agree upon. It is a reactionary movement against the staid conservatives that uses humor to attract young people and to hide their hatred. They are antifeminist as well as being white supremacists and while many of them are anti-Semetic, there are some who are not. The book looks at several individuals who are involved in the movement and its impact on the last election and what its future may be.
July 5, 2018
Really interesting, but could be so much better. Some weaknesses: too short (read it in a day), too descriptive and not... conclusive? enough to my tastes (but then, it is one of the first books to look at the Alt-Right, so I can get that he's building from the ground here), more than once he emphasizes that the Alt-Right has not become violent, which is... incorrect (it seems the author wants to keep them tied to their... internet tough guy racist sexist anti-PC troll act that is their beginnings but not beyond... which is... also incorrect). Also it will not age well (American politics is moving really fast right now)! But for all its lack in conclusively defining the Alt-Right (to be fair, though, the alt-right's amorphous headless beginnings makes it damn hard to define) he did describe the differences between white supremacy and white nationalism, which is really eye-opening. He does emphasize that the Alt Right is a racist movement that wants more political power, and considers itself as very different from traditional conservatism.
November 30, 2017
Author George Hawley makes a valient attempt to evaluate the thinking of right-wing individuals and groups. This is helpful in some respects as the reader learns the variations that exist. Some are racist; some are not. Some are anonymous, some are not. Some are solely Internet-based with no physical connections among the so-called members. Nevertheless, this book seems to be a theoretical study based on generalizations, and there is no evidence that the author has any personal experiences with any of these right-wing groups.
March 28, 2019
I don't agree with this author stating that the Alt-Right is not violent. It is violent. Either the Charlotesville, VA 'Unite the Right' rally happened after the book was published or the author totally dismissed those facts. I think this book is missing a lot of substance, as it only focuses on social media, blogs and online forums. There's no focus outside, like Vice News' documentary on the Alt-Right and other sources. Not worth the read I'd say.
March 5, 2019
In George Hawley's pithy yet informative primer on the Alt-Right, Making Sense of the Alt-Right, he begins by delineating the differences between previous iterations of white supremacy and white nationalism with this current iteration. He writes, "Relying exclusively on the umbrella term 'white supremacist' would furthermore mask the ways the Alt-Right differs from other manifestations of the racial right. The Alt-Right is unlike any racist movement we have ever seen. It is atomized, amorphous, predominately online, and mostly anonymous" (3). Clearly, this iteration of the "racial right" is not new (in fact, this is one of the more depressing insights Hawley returns to throughout the book), but its methods and means are. The Alt-Right's "amorphous" and "anonymous" tendencies make it difficult to combat, and as Hawley explains later in the introduction, the Alt-Right's strongest antagonist is not the Democratic Socialist left but, surprisingly enough, the Republican establishment. Hawley writes, "If the mainstream right loses its legitimacy, all of its current supporters are not automatically going to become liberals. Following the breakdown of conservatism, new and destabilizing forces on the right are likely to emerge" (7). This suggests that both left and right wing establishment parties are in an equally precarious position. As recent electoral trends indicate, the right gains traction by positioning itself closer and closer to the Alt-Right (although to be fair, even hyper-conservative right-wing politics cannot touch the Alt-Right's extremism), and when the left gains ground relative to the conservative establishment, those gains likely push disenfranchised voters further to the Alt-Right.
While this may sound dire, Hawley is clear that the Alt-Right is not the establishment nor will it anytime soon. He writes, "What the Alt-Right ultimately wants is to drop the 'Alt' from its name and instead become the new mainstream right. Until that happens, the Alt-Right is a nuisance, but one that lacks any substantive control over policy" (174). This is an encouraging thought, but one that comes with caveats. Policy considerations matter here, and the path away from the Alt-Right, at least according to Hawley, is paved with progressive policy.
While this may sound dire, Hawley is clear that the Alt-Right is not the establishment nor will it anytime soon. He writes, "What the Alt-Right ultimately wants is to drop the 'Alt' from its name and instead become the new mainstream right. Until that happens, the Alt-Right is a nuisance, but one that lacks any substantive control over policy" (174). This is an encouraging thought, but one that comes with caveats. Policy considerations matter here, and the path away from the Alt-Right, at least according to Hawley, is paved with progressive policy.
August 29, 2021
This is a very good overview of some of the themes and origins of the alt-right phenomenon in the US. It's a must-read for anyone who wants to learn more about the alt-right and what they mean not just in the context of US politics, but larger debates about far-right extremism - both online and offline.
At the same time, I should note, that despite being really recent, the book does already feel a bit dated and could really use a second edition (for example, the alt-right has already moved toward inspiring political violence [cf. Charlottesville] and many personas [e.g., McInnes] discussed have moved further on the spectrum towards clear extremism).
More importantly, I could not shake a feeling that the distinctions being raised between alt-right and 'alt-lite' are a bit like the proverbial "champagne" vs "sparkling wine" memes. If the alt-right phenomenon could be reduced to the single-core principle of explicit "racism and striving for a white-ethnostate" then you could just continue to call them neo-nazis. What unites the hard-core alt-right and the alt-lite and all their fellow travelers is not just a rejection of mainstream conservative movement, but the rejection of equality as a core principle of democratic politics.
This brings me, finally, directly to my main complaint - the surprising absence of tying the whole phenomenon to fascist ideology. What unites the alt-right and the alt-lite is that they are all more or less explicit members of the family of fascist ideologues. Alt-right is obviously a fascist movement, yet the word fascism appears maybe twice in the entire book, once in scare-quotes, and never as an analytical category applied to the studied phenomenon.
The author consciously chose the strategy of erring on the side of caution, too often taking the alt-right at face value, quoting them at length without much analysis (for example, his description of Gamergate could have come directly from alt-right PR), but the result, unfortunately, leads to situations where his attempts at nuance often read more like bending over backward so as not to call a spade a spade.
3,5/5*
At the same time, I should note, that despite being really recent, the book does already feel a bit dated and could really use a second edition (for example, the alt-right has already moved toward inspiring political violence [cf. Charlottesville] and many personas [e.g., McInnes] discussed have moved further on the spectrum towards clear extremism).
More importantly, I could not shake a feeling that the distinctions being raised between alt-right and 'alt-lite' are a bit like the proverbial "champagne" vs "sparkling wine" memes. If the alt-right phenomenon could be reduced to the single-core principle of explicit "racism and striving for a white-ethnostate" then you could just continue to call them neo-nazis. What unites the hard-core alt-right and the alt-lite and all their fellow travelers is not just a rejection of mainstream conservative movement, but the rejection of equality as a core principle of democratic politics.
This brings me, finally, directly to my main complaint - the surprising absence of tying the whole phenomenon to fascist ideology. What unites the alt-right and the alt-lite is that they are all more or less explicit members of the family of fascist ideologues. Alt-right is obviously a fascist movement, yet the word fascism appears maybe twice in the entire book, once in scare-quotes, and never as an analytical category applied to the studied phenomenon.
The author consciously chose the strategy of erring on the side of caution, too often taking the alt-right at face value, quoting them at length without much analysis (for example, his description of Gamergate could have come directly from alt-right PR), but the result, unfortunately, leads to situations where his attempts at nuance often read more like bending over backward so as not to call a spade a spade.
3,5/5*
December 10, 2017
This was an interesting and well-researched book that should be read by anyone interested in political movements. One of the strengths of the book is the extent of the research done by the author, especially as it means people can get a sense of what the alt-right is (and isn't) without having to actual view the social media sites or listen to the racist ignorance of the alt-right followers. A second strength of the book is that the author does a good job of explaining who/what the alt-right isn't, including that the populist movement of Trump is not an example of the alt-right, although there are similar views when it comes to issues such as immigration and Trump's rhetoric has helped the alt-right gain more publicity.
Something I think is particularly important is the author's emphasis and explanation that the alt-right is not an element of the conservative movement. In fact, as the author states, the "Alt-Right rejects the major premises of the conservative movement: the so-called three-legged stool of moral traditionalism, economic liberty, and strong national defense." Rather, other than "non-whites" (as the alt-right is inherently a racist/white nationalist movement), the main enemy of the alt-right is conservatism, which the author argues (convincingly) that the alt-right wants to entirely displace.
One of the things I found interesting is that according to Richard Spencer, one of the "founders" and most prominent members of the alt-right, the typical member of the alt-right is "someone who is thirty years old, who is a tech professional, who is an atheist, and who lives on one of the coasts."
There are many other interesting facts and discussions in the book, which I will let other readers discover for themselves.
I received a copy of the ebook from Netgalley in exchange for a review.
Something I think is particularly important is the author's emphasis and explanation that the alt-right is not an element of the conservative movement. In fact, as the author states, the "Alt-Right rejects the major premises of the conservative movement: the so-called three-legged stool of moral traditionalism, economic liberty, and strong national defense." Rather, other than "non-whites" (as the alt-right is inherently a racist/white nationalist movement), the main enemy of the alt-right is conservatism, which the author argues (convincingly) that the alt-right wants to entirely displace.
One of the things I found interesting is that according to Richard Spencer, one of the "founders" and most prominent members of the alt-right, the typical member of the alt-right is "someone who is thirty years old, who is a tech professional, who is an atheist, and who lives on one of the coasts."
There are many other interesting facts and discussions in the book, which I will let other readers discover for themselves.
I received a copy of the ebook from Netgalley in exchange for a review.
March 30, 2018
A shortish book, I liked that he wasn't hysterical and didn't go in for the hyperbole that you see in much of the media -- certainly in the left leaning media -- when it comes to discussion of the alt right. But it wasn't the strongest of analyses. He's at his best when discussing the historical lineage of the alt-right, and in differentiating them from the alt-light (who really just seem to be modern young conservatives.)
But it was all a bit insubstantial. I would have liked to have seem much more content on what it is they actually believe, are their factions within the alt-right? What's the basis of those factions. (For example, what do the jew hating crowd think about someone like Jared Taylor who doesn't hate jews at all? He mentions this fact, but doesn't really spend much time telling us what the jew haters think of this.)
In summary, it wasn't bad, but I didn't learn much I didn't already know from general reading around the subject. And I was irritated by his continual need to stress the ways that he thought they were reprehensible. It was like a ribbon of virtual signalling that ran right through the book.
It's a difficult problem though, isn't it? You're sufficiently obsessed with a group to write books about them, but the last thing you want is anyone thinking that you might sympathise with them. So on the one hand, you're bending over backwards to be fair and scholarly and present a genuinely nuanced view of what they believe -- but on the other, you're insisting that they're a gang of evil racists that no right thinking person should tolerate.
So, I wasn't unsympathetic to his struggle, but I still found it irritating. I think I'd find his book on Right Wing Critics of American Conservatives somewhat more substantial, but it's not a bad introduction to the alt right. Read alongside Angela Nagel's Kill All Normies.
But it was all a bit insubstantial. I would have liked to have seem much more content on what it is they actually believe, are their factions within the alt-right? What's the basis of those factions. (For example, what do the jew hating crowd think about someone like Jared Taylor who doesn't hate jews at all? He mentions this fact, but doesn't really spend much time telling us what the jew haters think of this.)
In summary, it wasn't bad, but I didn't learn much I didn't already know from general reading around the subject. And I was irritated by his continual need to stress the ways that he thought they were reprehensible. It was like a ribbon of virtual signalling that ran right through the book.
It's a difficult problem though, isn't it? You're sufficiently obsessed with a group to write books about them, but the last thing you want is anyone thinking that you might sympathise with them. So on the one hand, you're bending over backwards to be fair and scholarly and present a genuinely nuanced view of what they believe -- but on the other, you're insisting that they're a gang of evil racists that no right thinking person should tolerate.
So, I wasn't unsympathetic to his struggle, but I still found it irritating. I think I'd find his book on Right Wing Critics of American Conservatives somewhat more substantial, but it's not a bad introduction to the alt right. Read alongside Angela Nagel's Kill All Normies.
February 2, 2018
An excellent book on the current movement we know as the Alt-Right. This book definitively shows that while the Alt-Right movement is an offshoot of the Conservative politics, although I would say it is more of an offshoot of Paleoconservative politics, the white nationalist movement of the Alt-Right is not of the Conservative movement. They are not trying, like the Neoconservatives or Paleoconservatives, to rebrand Conservativism in their own image, they are just trying to destroy it because Conservatism is about protecting the rights and liberties of all the citizens of America, while the Alt-Right wants to create their own "whites only" ethno state. The book also clearly shows that Donald Trump, while he may have emboldened these individuals with some of his off color comments, IS NOT a part of the racist, white nationalist movement of the Alt-Right, showing that the evidence is lacking in the claim many left wingers have made against our president. This book clearly shows that the Alt-Right movement is an internet created phenomenon that was amplified by media attention, who try to pass themselves off as intellectual theorists with a soft face but make no mistake they are vile individuals. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand what the Alt-Right movement is, what they believe, and who they are, so we Republicans and Conservatives can defeat them and send their movement into the trash bin where it belongs. I want America to be Great Again, and that means I want an America that is great for all of its citizens, not just European American ones, but for all of us who love the stars and stripes and pledge our loyalty to it. Make America Great Again, not "white only" again.
February 14, 2018
As you can tell by my start date, I had a hard time plowing through this book. But, it strikes me that the problem may be as much with the alt-right (alternative right) as it is with the author. Rather than trying to precisely define the alt-right George Hawley uses descriptors such as: “vulgar, ironic, irreverent” and even “goofy.” The alt-right phenomenon is also racist. Although there are people Hawley associates with the alt-right, it is essentially a leaderless amalgamation and to a large extent an outgrowth of what what the author calls the “internet culture.”
The author cites far right activist Hunter Wallace to amplify his point:
“We don’t belong to the liberal family. We see ourselves as something else altogether. That us why, for example, so many of us enjoy trolling because we do not believe in any of the standard bullshit — for example, nothing is less self-evident to us than the notion that all men are created equal — and political correctness is an irresistible target.”
Hawley is not sure if association with the alt-right helped or hurt Trump in the 2016 election. However, Hawley does note, appropriately in my view that the alt-right loved Trump because Trump created chaos in American politics.
There is a point, briefly made, toward the end of the book that the alt-right as an expression of white identity politics is a reaction to liberal identity politics. This is a point that I would like to have seen more fully developed.
Is the book worth reading? Yes. But the problem is that there is no satisfaction to be had from reading it. In other words if you are looking to mentally get your arms around the alt-right movement this book is not gonna make that happen for you.
The author cites far right activist Hunter Wallace to amplify his point:
“We don’t belong to the liberal family. We see ourselves as something else altogether. That us why, for example, so many of us enjoy trolling because we do not believe in any of the standard bullshit — for example, nothing is less self-evident to us than the notion that all men are created equal — and political correctness is an irresistible target.”
Hawley is not sure if association with the alt-right helped or hurt Trump in the 2016 election. However, Hawley does note, appropriately in my view that the alt-right loved Trump because Trump created chaos in American politics.
There is a point, briefly made, toward the end of the book that the alt-right as an expression of white identity politics is a reaction to liberal identity politics. This is a point that I would like to have seen more fully developed.
Is the book worth reading? Yes. But the problem is that there is no satisfaction to be had from reading it. In other words if you are looking to mentally get your arms around the alt-right movement this book is not gonna make that happen for you.
December 23, 2017
Making Sense of the Alt-Right is the second book I've read by George Hawley. The first was
Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism
. No one in the 21st century has done a better job coming to terms with right-wing political ideologies than Hawley. And in this book, Making Sense of the Alt-Right, Hawley explains that the Alt-Right is a decentralized, mainly internet-oriented right-wing movement built around white nationalism. There's also in general consensus among the Alt-Right on what might be called race realism (believing that being of a certain race is a matter of having certain essential differences from another putative race) and differences between the sexes that go beyond biology to character traits. Also according to Hawley, there are several right-wing figures who are technically not white nationalists, and hence not Alt-Right. Hawley identifies Trump as a right-wing populist, and figures like Stephen Bannon and Milio Yiannapolous, among others, are what Hawley calls "Alt-Light" (although there has been some dispute about this; it may be the case that they are, technically, members/leaders of the Alt-Right). I'd highly recommend reading this book.
February 25, 2020
This detailed and very well-researched account of the “Alt-Right” phenomenon in the United States is basically a kind of reference book. Its 10 chapters are divided into about 150 subsections, each headed by a question. Examples range from obvious ones like “what is the Alt-Right?” to obscurer-sounding ones like “what is the Atomwaffen Division?”, “what is Paleoconservatism?” and “who was Revilo P. Oliver?”. The overall impression given is that the Alt-Right, far from being an organised body advocating far-right policies, is a somewhat amorphous mish-mash of lots of smaller groups, the common theme being the advocacy of “white nationalism”. There are sections on its relationship with Donald Trump, on well-known characters like Steve Bannon and organs like Breitbart News, with a final section headed “How worried should we really be?”. The casual reader may find it a bit daunting, but for those seriously interested in, or worried by, the phenomenon of far-right populism, at least as far as the USA is concerned, it is an invaluable guide.
September 1, 2017
This book is essentially a short analysis of the alt right, from where it started to where it is now, the part the movement playing in the 2016 election of Donald Trump, and it's key players, such as Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos.
I have some background knowledge of the alt-right, and though this book was somewhat academic in the way it was written, I found it accessible enough that I understood it and came out of it with a greater knowledge of the movement. I also found it had me toying with some of my beliefs, such as whether you could confidently place Donald Trump as a member of the alt right himself. Though the author and I disagree, I found his reasoning fairly persuasive and it has changed my mind on a few things.
I would be interested in reading more political analysis by this author, particularly around Donald Trump.
I have some background knowledge of the alt-right, and though this book was somewhat academic in the way it was written, I found it accessible enough that I understood it and came out of it with a greater knowledge of the movement. I also found it had me toying with some of my beliefs, such as whether you could confidently place Donald Trump as a member of the alt right himself. Though the author and I disagree, I found his reasoning fairly persuasive and it has changed my mind on a few things.
I would be interested in reading more political analysis by this author, particularly around Donald Trump.
April 12, 2019
An alright descriptive account of the alt-right. I found the early chapters on the movement's background particularly informative.
This book however, feels flawed in several areas. Firstly, I felt that it too often took the statements made by people associated with the movement at face value and failed to analyse them more deeply. Secondly, while this is arguably a point of contestation, I thought the violent nature of the movement (that has become more apparent since the book's publication) was overlooked/downplayed. Lastly, as this book is dealing with a presently very active movement it already feels quite outdated. Significant events linked to the movement such as the Unite the Right rally are not mentioned.
This book however, feels flawed in several areas. Firstly, I felt that it too often took the statements made by people associated with the movement at face value and failed to analyse them more deeply. Secondly, while this is arguably a point of contestation, I thought the violent nature of the movement (that has become more apparent since the book's publication) was overlooked/downplayed. Lastly, as this book is dealing with a presently very active movement it already feels quite outdated. Significant events linked to the movement such as the Unite the Right rally are not mentioned.
March 9, 2020
This is a well researched academic study on an amorphous movement. In this capacity, the alt-right presents itself as an alternative to the conservative movement. Participants of the alt-right are mostly found on the Internet, being obsessed with provocation and trolling. They profess to have no leader; though, they were energized by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
The text provides the reader with a better understanding on how the alt-right views societal issues, e.g., white supremacy, white nationalism, immigration, feminism, religion, political correctness, and the role of the U.S. Constitution. The text also distinguishes the alt-right from the lite-rite, the new right, paleoconservism, neoconservativism, conservativism, and liberationism.
The text provides the reader with a better understanding on how the alt-right views societal issues, e.g., white supremacy, white nationalism, immigration, feminism, religion, political correctness, and the role of the U.S. Constitution. The text also distinguishes the alt-right from the lite-rite, the new right, paleoconservism, neoconservativism, conservativism, and liberationism.
October 21, 2017
Hooboy, not sure how well this will age, especially as it seems to have been sent to print before the events of Charlottesville which definitely places blood on their hands. But for now, it's a good academic snapshot of the alt-right, what it is and what it isn't (I think to the larger populace many of the alt-lite examples are still under the broader umbrella of alt-right, though I get the unrepentant white nationalists are going to have the stricter definition of who's in their club). Traces genealogy of the movement and compares it to other conservative branches.
November 22, 2017
A nice book with erudite historical discussions on "American Alt-Right 2017". It complements nicely with Angela Nagle’s “Kill All Normies” as this book has more of an academic tone. It discusses the relationship between classical American conservatism, traditional American White nationalism and the Alt-Right with its Web origins. I think it does a good job of differentiating between these different segments of the American Right unlike some other books that just bundles up the whole range of White nationalist right in US (for example Alt-America that was also published in 2017 by Verso).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews