Left and Right

What, Exactly, is the ‘Alternative Right?’

This is a really shabbily written article on the “alternative right” from The Weekly Standard. But if the alternative right is getting a mention in one of the neocons’ in-house journals, it must be really growing in influence. I’ve heard the alternative right actually got a mention on Limbaugh’s program as well. My relationship with the alternative right is well-known, and I’ve spoken at a number of their conferences, written for a number of their web journals, and appeared on a number of their interview programs.

I am sometimes asked how an anarchist like myself could end up having so many dealings with far right (just as I am asked how I could have similar dealings with the Iranians and the Russians). Basically, it comes down to four things: 1) the alternative right holds infinitely superior views to the mainstream Republican-oriented conservatives on foreign policy and economics, the foreign policy non-interventionism and/or realism of the alt right is much, much superior to the radical imperialism of the Republicans or the liberal internationalism of the Democrats, and the economic nationalism of the alternative right is superior to the supply side fanaticism of the GOP or the neoliberalism of the Democrats; 2) the alternative right is a genuine voice against totalitarian humanism of the kind that is becoming increasingly entrenched in institutions. I don’t agree with many of the standard alternative right views on “social issues” (see here), but they provide a necessary counter-voice to the growing extremism and fanaticism on “the other side,” 3) the alternative right, or tendencies within it, might well be a constituency for secessionism and pan-decentralism at some point in the future, and 4) I share a common interest with many alternative rightists in various European intellectuals that emerged in the 20th century as critics of liberal capitalism and mass democracy. These systems are under criticized in my view, so I have an interest in thinkers of that type, although for different reasons than most on the alternative.

By Benjamin Welton

The Weekly Standard

Glenn Beck spoke recently with Fox News about his vision of a doomsday scenario. No, this apocalypse had nothing to do with Islamists capturing Megiddo and starting a world war with Rome and Jerusalem, nor did this Armageddon include either Rosemary’s progeny or the trial lawyer Al Pacino. Beck’s revelation of catastrophe was instead based on this great nightmare: a 2016 presidential election pitting Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump. If this comes to pass, Beck warned, the Republican party will lose forty-nine states, thus spelling the end of the Grand Old Party. (He neglected to mention which state would remain immune Mrs. Clinton’s “charms.”)

First of all, as someone who hasn’t even touched thirty yet, I’ve already become immune to prognostications about the death of the Republican party. I heard it in 2004, when everyone was so sure that a milquetoast millionaire from Massachusetts would thump the Texas cowboy, then I heard it again during the midterm elections of 2006, when most people with an “R” beside their name were given their walking papers. Even during non-election years, we constantly hear folks harping about America’s changing demographics and how millions of new immigrants from Latin America and Asia will give the Democrats an unbeatable monopoly.


Categories: Left and Right

Leave a Reply