The Southern Poverty Law Center recently counted more than 100 victims injured or killed by members of what is being dubbed the “alt-right.” All of the perpetrators hold some common characteristics: white, male and under 40 years old.
On the surface, the majority of the alt-right’s “members” appear to be politically disillusioned individuals encouraged to believe that their voices have been drowned out by a left-leaning mainstream news apparatus. Many other strong cultural movements have spawned from these same conditions, though.
From the civil rights struggle of the 1960s to the 1980s punk scene and beyond, movements found success through their ability to cater to a specifically disenfranchised group. These movements historically offer a sense of solidarity and organization to individuals who feel they have otherwise been scorned by society.
However, this time seems different, as the violent alt-right is becoming increasingly empowered and dangerous. How will we counteract this threat in the coming years?
The alt-right is, fundamentally, more of a cultural scene than an official organization. Members don’t host meetings, not officially, anyway. Many of them have never met one another, interacting solely through social media and sympathetic websites. Given the anonymity of most internet forums, it’s difficult to find any cohesive message or unifying figures inspiring this group. There is even indication that some the most rabid advocates are posting ironically and have no real aspirations for political change.
Of course, internet forums are only one facet of this sprawling group. Some members meet through old-school white supremacist organizations, gun clubs or political rallies. The march on Charlottesville, Va., widely seen as an alt-right “coming out” event, showcased the buffet of different advocacy groups that fall under the umbrella of the movement. Paramilitary gun advocates marched beside neo-Nazis. KKK members appeared without hoods, and dozens of obscure insignias and symbols dotted the ranks of the thousands marching.
One feature that seems to unify all members of this group is political and cultural dissatisfaction. The movement, which has become increasingly whitewashed since the mid-2010s behind figures like Milo Yiannopolous, consists primarily of white men rabidly opposed to political correctness, gun control and immigration, among many other issues.
Violence in the Alt-Right
Our country endured yet another horrific school shooting on Valentine’s Day last month. Like most mass shooters, Nikolas Cruz is a young male. He had an extensive online presence, posting material related to his guns and his dissatisfaction with the current political climate. He was, to the best of our knowledge, a member of the loosely organized alt-right.
The massacre, unfortunately, was just another data point in a complex and disturbing portrait of this developing and fundamentally disorganized group. Our country is undergoing an epidemic of mass shootings unrivaled by any other democracy today. And while these violent acts seem entirely random, almost all the shooters are white men under or around 30 years old — awfully consistent with the alt-right.
All signs seem to indicate that Cruz, like most modern shooters, acted alone, complicating the case against the alt-right. If systemic attacks were being carried out against schools and public gatherings, a response to this group could be more immediate and clear.
Nonetheless, a trend seems to be developing. There are plenty of websites advocating white supremacy, violence against minorities, calls for a second revolution and other violent solutions to perceived national woes. A large percentage of mass shooters in recent years frequented these sites or posted similar content — something the current political and justice system isn’t yet equipped to handle.
Internet privacy and First Amendment rights protect these websites and their active users. The fact is, most facets of the alt-right operate independently from one another, and many do not acknowledge the greater movement at all.
The Crisis Actor Phenomena
Following every mass shooting, certain sites on the internet spring into action. Trolls frequenting the YouTube comment section begin positing stories about “green screens” and “crisis actors” — people purportedly paid by the political left to simulate public crises, which would then allow them to push for certain legislation. America has a rich history of political suspicion and conspiracy theories, which tend to find more traction here than most countries.
In fact, the crisis actor phenomena has existed since the 19th century, appearing as far back as the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. Fast forward to the age of the internet, which finds a corner for every opinion, and we see a port-of-call for alt-right conspirators attempting to validate their beliefs.
Suddenly, the shooter himself becomes a martyr — a fall guy used by the left to push for gun control legislation — and teenagers begging for the violence to stop are crying crocodile tears while the background scenery is depicted as nothing more than a stock animation. For many engulfed in the alt-right maelstrom, this represents their actual reality.
So What Are Our Opinions
This is a movement fed on misinformation and toxic online forums. How, then, can we begin to strip the violent power from a movement that is fractured, independently operating and widely anonymous? A few ideas have been floated.
We should consider the positive aspects of the internet and our ability to share moving and convincing stories with all members of the community. The alt-right has put a premium on the demonization of immigrants and refugees, many of whom are fleeing genuinely appalling conditions in their home country. By sharing refugees’ stories and what they hope to find in America, perhaps a dialogue with some elements of the alt-right can be established.
Gun control legislation is seen as the primary means by which our country can prevent future violent incidents. As it sits, residents of many states can purchase semiautomatic weapons from certain dealers without a background check. This allows individuals with mentally or emotionally unstable backgrounds to own incredibly dangerous weapons. Establishing a more extensive system of background checks has overwhelming support across the US.
Directly confronting members of the alt-right has resulted in violence — Charlottesville being the clearest example. Other indirect forms of confrontation, including censorship and “outing” online users or alt-right event participants, have been more effective. Whether these methods pressure the movement, or simply further entrench its members in their ideals, is unclear.
A Violent Future
One thing we know: The American epidemic of gun violence will continue if nothing changes. Since Columbine in 1999, there have been endless mass shootings. Now, a fresh wave of violence is sweeping the nation, and it seems to be most prevalent in a particular demographic: young white males. This issue won’t disappear with the older generation. We need to be discussing actionable legislation that will help pave the way for a safer future — because what we’re doing clearly isn’t working.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.