Mediaboss Marketing

By Nicole M. Wright March 12, 2017

Chronicle Review illustration, original image from The Granger Collection

Why was Milo Yiannopoulos, right-wing provocateur, quoting Jane Austen? A policeman had denied me entry to the latest stop of the notorious "Dangerous Faggot" campus tour, at the University of Colorado in Boulder, so I perched nearby with my laptop to live-stream it. Yiannopoulos, then still a darling of Breitbart News, held forth.

So far, I was bored; Yiannopouloss shtick about humorless lesbians and sensitive liberals was not warmed-over so much as exhumed from William F. Buckleys Dumpster, plopped in the microwave, and zapped to mush. I was tempted to pack up and head home. Now, though, he had my attention. In a speech celebrating Trumps election victory and a new dawn for right-wing nationalism, selections from The Fountainhead or Mein Kampf would not have been out of place, but a shout-out to a powerful female author hailed by some as a "feminist icon"? Perhaps Yiannopoulos had glanced at the title of Austens most famous novel and assumed that Pride and Prejudice was a justification of white pride and prejudice against ethnic minorities.

Over dinner with colleagues the next day, I joked that, as a specialist in the history of the novel, I thought that the most offensive part of the speech was the Cambridge dropouts incorrect categorization of a Regency novelist as a Victorian (Austen died in 1817; the Victorian era began two decades later, in 1837). The mistake was not surprising, for Yiannopoulos idled away two years ignoring his English-literature coursework: "I didnt show up to supervisions, didnt submit any essays and spent most of my time shagging and drinking instead of reading medieval literature," he bragged in 2015.

Yet I continued to reflect on why the appearance of Jane Austen in an "alt-right" speech seemed so incongruous. I searched for a transcript. To my surprise, invocations of Austen popped up in many alt-right online venues. Venturing into the mire, I found that there are several variations of alt-right Jane Austen: 1) symbol of sexual purity; 2) standard-bearer of a vanished white traditional culture; and 3) exception that proves the rule of female inferiority.

Some right-wing writers use Austen as shorthand for defiance of the sexual revolution. Andrew Anglin, a white-supremacist blogger for The Daily Stormer, inserted Austen into a paean to the pop star Taylor Swift, whom he approvingly called "a secret Nazi." As quoted in the Vice Media feminist channel Broadly, Anglin contrasted Swift with the singer Miley Cyrus and upheld her as an exemplar of Aryan virtue in a recording industry debased by multiculturalism. "Its incredible really that shes surrounded by these filthy, perverted Jews, and yet she remains capable of exuding 1950s purity, femininity, and innocence," said Anglin. "She is the anti-Miley. While Miley is out having gang-bangs with colored gentlemen, she is at home with her cat reading Jane Austen." Here Austens fiction serves as an escape portal from todays Babylonian sexual excess to a vaguely delineated (1800s through 1950s) mythical era when women were wholesome and chaste. Anglin must not have read so far into Austens novels to encounter her sexually adventurous characters Lydia Bennet and Maria Bertram.

This view of Austen as an avatar of a superior bygone era is linked not only with fantasies of female retreat from the sexual whirl, but also with calls for white separatism. On the popular blog of the alt-right publisher Counter-Currents, the world of Austens novels is extolled as a prototype for the "racial dictatorship" of tomorrow. One commenter wrote, "If, after the ethnostate is created, we revert back to an Austen-like world, we males ought to endure severe sacrifices as well. If traditional marriage la P&P [Pride and Prejudice] is going to be imposed, again, in an ethnostate, we must behave like gentlemen."

Yet if shared heritage is the key to incentivizing gentlemanly comportment, why are there so many cads in Austens world? Also, Austens protagonists express little of the populist boosterism and preoccupation with ethnic heritage that foster an ethnostate. Fervent patriotism is invoked sardonically rather than earnestly proclaimed: Upon his first visit to his fathers estate in the small town of Highbury, Frank Churchill archly states that he will prove that he "belong[s] to the place" and is a "true citizen." Emma playfully replies, "I do admire your patriotism," and Churchill parries by saying that Emma has witnessed "the very moment of this burst of my amor patriae."

Other alt-right partisans pay backhanded compliments by emphasizing Austens singularity as a celebrated female novelist. In a post that debuted in 2012 on Alternative Right and has since been lauded as an alt-right "classic," the "manosphere" blogger Matt Forney mentioned Austen as an outlier from the norm of female mediocrity: "Virtually all great leaders, thinkers and artists were men. Aristotle, Galileo, Michaelangelo [sic], Napoleon: all men. Not to say that all women are incapable of artistic, scientific or military talent; every so often, we get a Marie Curie, a Jane Austen or a Joan of Arc." Here the alt-right finds common ground with the literary gatekeeper Harold Bloom; in his best seller The Western Canon (1994), Austen is one of four women on a list of 26 most influential authors. According to this formulation, Austen is not a trailblazer for the female authors who followed in her wake, but rather a rebuke to women who have not reached her level of achievement.

There is a reason that alt-right adherents claim Austen for themselves, and it isnt because their Dear Leader, who has not read a book in years (according to his own biographer), is a closet Janeite. By comparing their movement not to the nightmare Germany of Hitler and Goebbels, but instead to the cozy England of Austen a much-beloved author with a centuries-long fandom and an unebbing academic following the alt-right normalizes itself in the eyes of ordinary people. It also subtly panders to the nostalgia of the Brexiters, with their vision of a better, bygone Britain. Such references nudge readers who happen upon alt-right sites to think that perhaps white supremacists arent so different from mainstream folks.

But these men are distorting Austens work; her novels are hardly blueprints for an "ethnostate." Instead, they serve as antidotes against the strategies used by the alt-right movement. After all, Austens heroines come to distrust men who beguile others through charismatic bluster and expedient lying (Exhibit A: Willoughby). Indeed, Austen inoculates her readers against trusting the autocrats cheered by the alt-right: her female characters come to regret taking up with coarse men (such as Rushworth in Mansfield Park) who are propped up by inherited wealth that initially dazzles those around them, but which cannot compensate for astonishing ignorance, flouting of decorum, and lack of empathy. Marianne and Maria learn those life lessons the hard way, but they do learn in the end, and they eventually abandon the duplicitous grifters and foolish scions. May it be so with us, and may we never see a day with alt-right "post-truths" universally acknowledged.

Nicole M. Wright is an assistant professor of English at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Go here to read the rest:
Alt-Right Jane Austen - Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

The story of Shia LaBeouf, Nastja Sde Rnkk, and Luke Turners He Will Not Divide Us art project has taken another, weirdly summer camp-y turn. The projectwhich initially consisted of a webcam streaming from outside a museum in New York, where people were encouraged to say He Will Not Divide Us for the benefit of online watchersquickly became a lightning rod for the bored, attention-seeking impulses of the faux-but-not-really racists whove labeled themselves the alt right. Bombarding the project with weird poses, shouted anti-Semitism, and a lot of chugged milk, the group basically drove LaBeoufs protest project out of New York, forcing it to reestablish itself in New Mexico.

But even then, the twin lures of an open camera and the chance to nebulously stick it to Shia LaBeouf were too powerful, and the project was forced to move again. This time, LaBeouf and company attempted to buy their exercise in public awareness a little anonymity, setting up a He Will Not Divide Us flag in an unknown location and leaving it to film.

But of course, nothing is truly unknown on the internet; not the depths and lengths that trolls will go to in order to amuse themselves with their edgy attempts to troll a college freshman-level art project, and definitely not a camera left pointing at a sky that sometimes has planes flying across it. In a display of incredibly depressing enthusiasm and mis-applied industriousness, it took the denizens of 4chanand those of its even-less reputable brethren like 8chanroughly a day to use flight-plan data to narrow down the city where LaBeouf had hidden his camera. At which point, they started driving around Greenville, Tennessee, honking car horns and listening to their echo on the stream, in order to pinpoint the house where the flag was flying. Then, they stole it and replaced it with a picture of Pepe, thus transforming this whole thing into the worlds most infuriatingly elaborate game of capture the flag.

Said flag has since been taken down, and the webstream continues to run on an empty flagpole. Theres no word on where LaBeouf might move it next, or how online racists next plan to waste their lives in order to bring someone passively disagreeing with them down.

[via The Daily Dot]

Submit your Newswire tips here.

Read the original here:
Alt-right internet detectives have captured Shia LaBeouf's secret flag - A.V. Club

The similarities between Gamergate and the current so called alt-right movement are huge, startling, and in no way a coincidence. Photograph: Getty Images/Science Photo Library RF

Its understandable that the world didnt much care about Gamergate. The 2014 hashtag campaign, ostensibly founded to protest about perceived ethical failures in games journalism, clearly thrived on hate even though many of those who aligned themselves with the movement either denied there was a problem with harassment, or wrote it off as an unfortunate side effect. Sure, women, minorities and progressive voices within the industry were suddenly living in fear. Sure, those who spoke out in their defence were quickly silenced through exhausting bursts of online abuse. But that wasnt why people supported it, right? They were disenfranchised, felt ignored, and wanted to see a systematic change.

Is this all sounding rather familiar now? Does it remind you of something? If youre just discovering the world of angry, anonymous online dudes masquerading as victims hi, come in. Some of us have been here for a while.

The similarities between Gamergate and the far-right online movement, the alt-right, are huge, startling and in no way a coincidence. After all, the culture war that began in games now has a senior representative in The White House. As a founder member and former executive chair of Brietbart News, Steve Bannon had a hand in creating media monster Milo Yiannopoulos, who built his fame and Twitter following by supporting and cheerleading Gamergate. This hashtag was the canary in the coalmine, and we ignored it.

Lest we forget, Gamergate was an online movement that effectively began because a man wanted to punish his ex girlfriend. Its most notable achievement was harassing a large number of progressive figures - mostly women to the point where they felt unsafe or considered leaving the industry. Game developer Zoe Quinn was the original target. Anita Sarkeesians videos applying basic feminist theory to video games had already made her a target (because so many people have a difficulty differentiating cultural criticism from censorship) but this hate was powerfully amplified by Gamergate leading to death threats, rape threats, and the public leaking of personal information. Other notable targets included developer Brianna Wu, actor Felicia Day, and prominent tech-culture writer Leigh Alexander, whose provocative article on the tyranny of game culture offered stark warnings that still resonate powerfully: When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, youre responsible for what spawns in the vacuum.

Other than harassment, very little was achieved, with tiny changes held aloft as great victories: media publications felt the need to publicly clarify pre-existing ethical measures, others implemented small new additions to account for shifts in the ethical landscape caused by modern funding tools such as Patreon and Kickstarter; games writers were duty bound to declare their support for projects they financially aided in these ways. But it quickly became clear that the GamerGate movement was a mess an undefined mission to Make Video Games Great Again via undecided means.

Many had embraced Gamergate because they felt it wholly matched their ideals, and yet quite consistently no one in the movement was willing to be associated with the abuse being carried out in its name. Prominent supporters on Twitter, in subreddits and on forums like 8Chan, developed a range of pernicious rhetorical devices and defences to distance themselves from threats to women and minorities in the industry: the targets were lying or exaggerating, they were too precious; a language of dismissal and belittlement was formed against them. Safe spaces, snowflakes, unicorns, cry bullies. Even when abuse was proven, the usual response was that people on their side were being abused too. These techniques, forged in Gamergate, have become the standard toolset of far-right voices online.

In 2014, the medias reaction was often weak or overtly conciliatory some sites went out of their way to see both sides, to reassure people that openly choosing to be affiliated with a hate group did not make them in any way responsible for that hate. Olive branches were extended, but professional lives continued to be ruined while lukewarm op-eds asked for us to come together so we could start healing. The motivations may have been sound, but its the language Trump and his supporters have used post-election to obliterate dissenting voices.

In 2016, new wave conservative media outlets like Breitbart have gained trust with their audience by painting traditional news sources as snooty and aloof. In 2014, video game YouTube stars, seeking to appear in touch with online gaming communities, unscrupulously proclaimed that traditional old-media sources were corrupt.

Everything were seeing now, had its precedent two years ago.

The stark parallels between Gamergate and the political atmosphere of 2016 may come as a surprise, but it shouldnt: both saw their impact and reach amplified by self-interested parties who underplayed the obvious nastiness they were also promoting. With 2014s Gamergate, Breitbart seized the opportunity to harness the pre-existing ignorance and anger among disaffected young white dudes. With Trumps movement in 2016, the outlet was effectively running his campaign: Steve Bannon took leave of his role at the company in August 2016 when he was hired as chief executive of Trumps presidential campaign. Despite Bannons distance from Breitbart in an official capacity, the outlets ideology and relentless support of Trump remained unchanged with editor-in-chief Joel Pollak notably sending an internal memo to staff that ordered them not to support Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields after allegations she was attacked by Trumps campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

Breitbarts aspirations to directly influence politics extend a long way into Europe, too Bannon is openly keen to collaborate with the far-right Marine Le Pen in France, and hired UKIPs Raheem Hassam to co-run the Breitbart London office. These movements are gaining ground by finding political figures who will legitimise them in return for the support of their swollen online communities. The young men converted via 2014s Gamergate, are being more widely courted now. By leveraging distrust and resentment towards women, minorities and progressives, many of Gamergates most prominent voices characters like Mike Cernovich, Adam Baldwin, and Milo Yiannopoulos drew power and influence from its chaos. These figures gave Gamergate a new sense of direction generalising the rhetoric: this was now a wider war between Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) and everyday, normal, decent people. Games were simply the tip of the iceberg progressive values, went the argument, were destroying everything. The same voices moved into other geek communities, especially comics, where Marvel and DC were criticised for progressive storylines and decisions. They moved into science fiction with the controversy over the Hugo awards. They moved into cinema with the revolting kickback against the all-female Ghostbusters reboot. Despite colonising the world with pointless tech and plastering modern film and TV with fan-pleasing adaptations of niche comic books, nerds still had a taste for revenge. They saw the culture they considered theirs being ripped away from them. In their zero sum mindset, they read growing artistic equality as a threat.

For a long time, we didnt take these characters seriously. Breitbarts Milo Yiannopoulos in particular seemed such a desperate opportunist that we never predicted his rise to prominence, having explicitly stereotyped gamers in the past as overweight and embarrassing. A disgraced journalist and entrepreneur who had to close his tech site The Kernel due to unpaid debts, leaving staff uncertain if they would ever be paid, hed then spent the next few years spouting insincere hateful ideas to a burgeoning Twitter audience who responded to his anti-feminist, anti-establishment invectives. He was eventually banned from the platform after finally abusing a woman who was apparently just famous enough for Twitter to respond.

Using 4chan (and then the more sympathetic offshoot 8Chan) to plan their subversions and attacks made Gamergate a terribly sloppy operation, leaving a trail of evidence that made it quite clear the whole thing was purposefully, plainly nasty. But the video game industry didnt have the spine to react, and allowed the movement to coagulate forming a mass of spiteful disappointment that Breitbart was only more than happy to coddle. Historically, that seems to be Breitbarts trick - strongly represent a single issue in order to earn trust, and then gradually indoctrinate to suit wider purposes. With Gamergate, they purposefully went fishing for anti-feminists. 2016s batch of fresh converts the white extremists came from enticing conspiracy theories about the global neoliberal elite secretly controlling the world.

The greatest strength of Gamergate, though, was that it actually appeared to represent many left-leaning ideals: stamping out corruption in the press, pushing for better ethical practices, battling for openness. There are similarities here with many who support Trump because of his promises to put an end to broken neo-liberalism, to drain the swamp of establishment corruption. Many left-leaning supporters of Gamergate sought to intellectualise their alignment with the hashtag, adopting familiar and acceptable labels of dissent identifying as libertarian, egalitarian, humanist. At best they unknowingly facilitated abuse, defending their own freedom of expression while those who actually needed support were threatened and attacked. Genuine discussions over criticism, identity and censorship were paralysed and waylaid by Twitter voices obsessed with rhetorical fallacies and pedantic debating practices. While the core of these movements make peoples lives hell, the outer shell knowingly or otherwise protect abusers by insisting that the real problem is that you dont want to talk, or wont provide the ever-shifting evidence they politely require.

The beauty of this anti-establishment standpoint is, when any mainstream media source seeks to challenge the collective beliefs of the movement, its merely used as further evidence that journalists are untrustworthy and aloof. This is a challenge the press must be ready to face in todays political climate: confronting these movements comes with a cost it has never been possible to write openly about Gamergate without attracting a wave of online abuse. In 2017, the tactics used to discredit progressive game critics and developers will be used to discredit Trump and Bannons critics. There will be gaslighting, there will be attempts to make victims look as though they are losing their grip on reality, to the point that they gradually even start to believe it. The post-truth reality is not simply an accident it is a concerted assault on the rational psyche.

The strangest aspect of Gamergate is that it consistently didnt make any sense: people chose to align with it, and yet refused responsibility. It was constantly demanded that we debate the issues, but explanations and facts were treated with scorn. Attempts to find common ground saw the specifics of the demands being shifted: we want you to listen to us; we want you to change your ways; we want you to close your publication down. This movement that ostensibly wanted to protect free speech from cry bully SJWs simultaneously did what it could to endanger sites it disagreed with, encouraging advertisers to abandon support for media outlets that published stories critical of the hashtag. The petulance of that movement is disturbingly echoed in Trumps own Twitter feed.

Looking back, Gamergate really only made sense in one way: as an exemplar of what Umberto Eco called eternal fascism, a form of extremism he believed could flourish at any point in, in any place a fascism that would extol traditional values, rally against diversity and cultural critics, believe in the value of action above thought and encourage a distrust of intellectuals or experts a fascism built on frustration and machismo. The requirement of this formless fascism would above all else be to remain in an endless state of conflict, a fight against a foe who must always be portrayed as impossibly strong and laughably weak. This was the methodology of Gamergate, and it now forms the basis of the contemporary far-right movement.

We have no idea where this will lead, but our continued insistence on shrugging off the problems of the internet as not real as something we can just log out of is increasingly misled. 2016 has presented us with a world in which our reality is being wilfully manipulated. Fake news, divisive algorithms, misleading social media campaigns. The majority of people who voted for Trump will never take responsibility for his racist, totalitarian policies, but theyll provide useful cover and legitimacy for those who demand the very worst from the President Elect. Trump himself may have disavowed the alt-right, but his rhetoric has led to them feeling legitimised. As with Gamergate, the press risks being manipulated into a position where it has to tread a respectful middle ground that doesnt really exist.

Prominent critics of the Trump administration need to learn from Gamergate. They need to be prepared for abuse, for falsified concerns, invented grassroots campaigns designed specifically to break, belittle, or disgrace. Words and concepts will be twisted, repackaged and shared across forums, stripping them of meaning. Gamergate painted critics as censors, the far-right movement claims critics are the real racists.

Perhaps the true lesson of Gamergate was that the media is culturally unequipped to deal with the forces actively driving these online movements. The situation was horrifying enough two years ago, it is many times more dangerous now.

Link:
What Gamergate should have taught us about the 'alt-right ...

Back in 1993, Depeche Mode singer Dave Gahan suffered a minor heart attack onstage during a show in New Orleans brought on by an exhausting touring schedule and heavy drug and alcohol use.

But just a month ago, Gahans heart skipped a beat for an entirely different reason.

As the Brit band (who have sold more than 100 million albums during the past 37 years) was beginning to promote its new album, Spirit, white supremacist and self-professed Mode mega-fan Richard Spencer said that the electro-pioneers were the official band of the alt-right, in an interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, before being kicked out by CPAC organizers.

My phone kept ringing and ringing, Gahan, 54, tells The Post, still incredulous at the thought. I had to tell everyone, No, were not the official band of the alt-right. Hes recounting the story during an interview at the Avatar Studios in Hells Kitchen (formerly the Power Station) where Madonna recorded Like a Virgin, and artists such as Springsteen and The Rolling Stones also made classic albums.

I could understand some commie jumping on us because of our history and working-class background, Gahan says. But this was ridiculous.

The band said as much in a polite but firmly worded statement distancing themselves from Spencer and his extremist politics. In person, Gahan is far less courteous.

Hes a dangerous person hes well-educated and hes using it to promote hate and fear. I saw the video of him getting punched [during protests at the inauguration of President Trump]; he deserved it.

I could understand some commie jumping on us because of our history and working-class background. But this was ridiculous.

As surreal as that particular episode was, its strangely fitting that it would happen in the run-up to the release of Depeche Modes most politically and socially conscious album in years. Lead single Wheres the Revolution sets the tone. But Gahan says Spirit (out March 17), the bands 14th album, is less about insurrection than it is about information.

Fundamentally, this album is about being informed, he explains. Even my son Jimmy will say to me, Be careful what you read in the New York Times. Make sure you read other stuff to balance it out. He bought me a subscription to the Atlantic so I could read the same story, but from a slightly different perspective.

Compared to the brooding, stripped-down 2013 collection Delta Machine, Spirit sees the band returning to a more classic Depeche Mode sound that helped the group (completed by keyboardist/guitarist Martin Gore and keyboardist/bassist Andy Fletcher) build up a cult fan base during the 80s.

After forming in Basildon, England, and releasing their debut Speak & Spell in 1981, the band won gradual critical acclaim with albums such as Black Celebration (1986) and Music for the Masses (1987). By 1990, singles such as Enjoy the Silence, Personal Jesus and Policy of Truth (from Violator) sent them into the mainstream.

Although its been years since theyve had Billboard Hot 100 hits on that scale, their fans still fill up arenas all over the world as a matter of course, and New York City is no exception. The band will play two nights at Madison Square Garden in September 30 years after they first played the venue.

This year also marks a personal anniversary for Gahan. The frontman moved to New York City in 1997 and cleaned up, following a period living Los Angeles that coincided with the absolute nadir of his drug addiction. His heart famously stopped for two minutes in 1996 following an overdose of cocaine and heroin. Gahans life was saved by paramedics, who thankfully revived him.

Gahan and his wife, Jennifer, have a 17-year-old daughter, Stella Rose. Their son, Jimmy, is in his 20s. Gahan also has a son, Jack, 29, from an earlier marriage.

These days, Gahans exercise regimen has left the singer looking like a picture of health. At a recent interview, hes slim, dressed in black, boasts salt-and-pepper hair (mainly pepper), and allows himself a tasteful amount of gold jewelry on his fingers and wrists.

Although Gahan still speaks with a broad southern English accent, you can hear the experience of 20 years in Gotham inform his opinions and conversation. He talks about gentrification, real estate prices and the changing face of downtown Manhattan with all the brio and savvy of a chatty yellow-cab driver.

Hes even a long-suffering New York Knicks season-ticket holder, explaining that he goes to most games with Jimmy. He was always been into basketball, and it was a great thing to do as a bonding exercise, Gahan says. Theyre not doing that well, I admit. Melo [Carmelo Anthony] puts up the points, but its better when he notices the rest of the team and pulls them in! My favorite player is probably [Kristaps] Porzingis. Hes already great, but I think hes gonna develop into something really special.

Over the years, living in New York City also brought Gahan a little closer to one of his musical heroes, David Bowie. Gahan and Bowie first met in 2002, when Bowie played his classic album Low at an invitation-only show at Roseland Ballroom. The two developed a friendly relationship as their daughters both went to the Little Red School House in the Village.

Id see David at the school Christmas concert and things like that, he says. Youd see him with his flat cap on! Then he disappeared for about a year, and the next time I did see him at another school thing, he looked different. I said to my wife, He doesnt look well. That was a couple of years before he died.

For Gahan, it was much more than just a celebrity sighting. Not only was Bowie a central inspiration for all members of the group, he was also the reason Gahan ended up as singer. In 1980, Gore, Fletcher and Depeche Mode founding member Vince Clarke were in a group called Composition of Sound, but were struggling for a real frontman. They happened to hear Gahan singing Bowies Heroes in an adjacent rehearsal room, and invited him to join. It wasnt just me singing, it was a few people singing, but I said it was me, Gahan says with a laugh. Thats how I blagged [faked] my way into Depeche Mode.

On the morning of Jan. 10, 2016, Gahans wife, Jennifer, told him about Bowies death and he immediately broke down. I hadnt cried like that in a long time, he says. I regret not talking more to him and telling him how much his music brought me through my whole life. Without punk music and people like him, I probably would have ended up being a petty thief, stealing lead off roofs!

View original post here:
Depeche Mode rails against the alt-right - New York Post

What does the alt-right really want?

Last month the white nationalist Counter-Currents editor John Morgan laid out the movements principles at a talk in Stolkholm. A slick infographic of nine core demands of the alt-right was later posted online.

At first glance, the demands and language appear surprisingly tame.

So Mark Pitcavage, a researcher for the Anti-Defamation League, offered his own annotation, parsing out meanings and references to the nine parts of the manifesto that might escape everyday readers.

Alt-right: Strong, high-trust communities for our people. ADL translation: They hate non-whites and really seek a whites only society.

Alt-right: Protection from the globalist elite. ADL translation: For the Alt Right, globalist elite is mostly Jews.

Alt-right: Protection from international corporate oppression. ADL translation: They dont want trade with Jews and non-whites.

See the full annotated document here. (And heres the original graphic, without the annotation)

Email Sam Kestenbaum at kestenbaum@forward.com and follow him on Twitter at @skestenbaum

Excerpt from:
What Does The 'Alt-Right' Want? The ADL Explains In A Handy Graphic - Forward