[PoliteTwig]

The first time I came across the term alt-right was in this article on Breitbart: https://www.google.is/amp/www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/....

As a ex Ron Paul supporter with a distaste for the GOP and Neo-Cons, I proudly called myself alt-right.

I joined a few alt-right forums and found similar-minded people. Libertarians, conservatives, nationalists (in the positive sense). Generally smart people. Not Nazis. Not white supremacists.

The term alt-right never seemed to me anything other than right-wing but not Republican.

Then I saw a few New York Times and CNN articles using it differently. Mixed freely with Nazis.

And I heard that white surpremecists were using it to make their views look more mainstream.

Then people started calling me a Nazi.

It’s a beautiful strategy to see a word redefined right in front of your eyes for political gain, but sad too.

If Bannon said Breitbart supported the alt-right, I’ll assume he’s referring to the definition I first understood from the article on his site, and not the one co-opted by the left-sided media and far-right groups.

[mercer]

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're in favor of Trump's presidency (which seems likely if you support(?) Bannon), how would you counter the dominant view that he's terrible in all sorts of ways, including racism and misogyny.

Is it that he's nowhere near as racist/misogynist as he's made out to be by left-side media? Is it that he's, in hindsight, a bad bet (which I sometimes feel is what Bannon might conclude)?

If you're not in favor of Trump's presidency, but supportive of Bannon, could you elaborate on how Trump failed?

And, finally, if you're not "pro-Bannon" but nonetheless alt-right by your definition, could you elaborate on the nuance between how the alt-right is presented in (quite possibly left-wing) media, and the alt-right that you are proud of?

If you're not comfortable doing this here, I'd love to discuss it over email or something like that. I truly am asking out of interest.

[PoliteTwig]

I do support Trump, despite disagreeing with some policies.

I’ll never forget when Ron Paul was called a racist by the media in 2012, and how he was screwed by the Republicans. It still makes me angry today. I don't trust our government, media, or major parties, and all are bad stewards of our Republic. From that perspective, Trump is doing great. This chaos is good in the same way that a controlled fire from time to time is healthy for a forest ecosystem.

I don’t believe he’s a racist or a mysogynist though and I feel pretty confident I could argue against every example people give. However, the only thing it would convince them of is that I am making excuses for a terrible person. It’s not worth it. I’ll just say I think he’s a generally good person operating in a tough environment, and came to that conclusion by going directly to source material.

As for Bannon, I generally like him but I'm happy he's back running Breitbart instead of in the White House. Too controversal. He gave a good interview on 60 minutes last week that I mostly agreed with. And Breitbart - it can be inflammatory, but I find it a good counterbalance to everything else.

[thinkcontext]

Um, that article was written by none other than Milo Y, does that make alarm bells go off? Richard Spencer, noted white supremacist, originated the term years before that article was written. Its inconceivable Bannon was unaware of this when he made that statement.

But bickering over what the word mean or what Bannon meant is not really the point. Give the Buzzfeed Breitbart leak story a read. In it you'll see Bannon encourage Milo to engage with white supremacists but try to dress them up publicly. They are in fact trying to hide it.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart...

[PoliteTwig]

> Um, that article was written by none other than Milo Y, does that make alarm bells go off?

I’ve always liked Milo. But even if you don't, the article is still important if you want to understand the history of "alt-right" as it was understood by many people.

> Richard Spencer, noted white supremacist, originated the term years before that article was written

Maybe, but Breitbart brought it into the mainstream for me and many others. I also doubt 99% of Americans knew Richard Spencer’s name until last year.

> Its inconceivable Bannon was unaware of this when he made that statement.

Bannon made that statement a few months after Milo’s article. "Alt-right" didn't have those connotations at the time. I read now that Bannon rejects the "alt-right", presumably because its meaning has changed.

> Give the Buzzfeed Breitbart leak story a read. In it you'll see Bannon encourage Milo to engage with white supremacists but try to dress them up publicly.

It just sounds like journalism. Milo reached out to Devin Saucier (the white supremacist) while researching the article I linked that summarized all the parts of the alt-right movement. Vice did the same thing. Or did you mean something else?

[eli_gottlieb]

>As a ex Ron Paul supporter with a distaste for the GOP and Neo-Cons, I proudly called myself alt-right.

Rather than quibble over terminology, it's better if you just state your positive political program, and then we can see what you're into.

[PoliteTwig]

Sure. Limited government, non-interventionism, merit-based immigration, human rights, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, protecting the environment, private healthcare, net neutrality, free trade, strong civil society, education left to states, anti-PC, anti-bailouts.