>>88724111I'm also amazed at how this group boldly encapsulates what the press distorts it to be, yet they seem to be as scatterbrained as BLM. They'll hold BLM with high regards even after multiple riots and police murders, while I've never seen anyone publicly defend the alt-right other than Milo Yiannopoulos. It's always been gaslighting straight from the top.
But the worst bit of confusion for me is this: I'm white, I don't see a problem with nationalism. I see a problem with jingoism, but that is not happening just because you say nationalism: there are plenty of roadblocks that you would hurdle through before you get anywhere near nationwide jingoism. I think having pride in putting your country first when voting for a candidate in your own country is logical, deductive reasoning. Why vote for a candidate that has foreign special interests as their main priority when you know they're being bribed by these nations? You're asking voters to sell out by that state of reasoning.
But what's the problem with saying "I'm white, and I defend nationalism"? According to the press, being white + nationalist = alt-right, and alt-right = bad, but this is THEIR definition. Is the problem nationalism, being white, or just happening to be white while being nationalist? Where's the uproar when Japan does this? What if other nations with other ethnic groups promote the same beliefs? Why aren't held to the same standard? The lack of definition outside of whatever the media paints "white nationalism" to be tells me that you are not alt-right just because you agree with these credos. Instead, it tells me, like a horse with blinders on, people are believing, "as long as I don't associate with these beliefs in any way, I'm safe from social controversy and harassment so I'll just shut up".
In this sense, I don't see the alt-right as legitimate: it's ubiquitous. You could replace "alt-right" with Putin/Russia, Comey, Satan, Hitler, racist, sexist etc. It's a baseless threat.
