Photo by Casey Gomez

American hate groups have recently discovered a new and interesting way to justify their beliefs. Unable to defend their views on the basis of logical thought or rational justification, these people have taken to reclassifying their views as alternative viewpoints instead of radical fringe beliefs. They then use this self-classification as a shield, claiming that the true perpetrators of intolerance in the US are those who refuse to play along with their charade.

According to these groups, calling a Nazi a Nazi is as bigoted and hateful as genuinely believing in the inferiority of races and promotion of genocide. They would prefer you called their ideology an alternative form of right-wing thought, allowing them to claim that their beliefs are much closer to the American norm than they are. They attempt to package fascism and blatantly racist beliefs in a particular way that allows them to make the claim that an attack on them is an attack on all of tradition.

When level-headed Americans attempt to confront this kind of behavior by calling a spade a spade, modern hate groups often turn progressive language on its head, claiming that these people are practicing intolerance by mislabeling their ideology and refusing to allow them to identify with what they claim to be. The mistake many people make when confronted with this is questioning whether calling them Nazis truly is intolerant.

Promoting a culture of tolerance does not require putting up with intolerance from others. In fact, doing so requires rejection of hatred and intolerance as part of its core mission. Not
rejecting bigotry and fascism allows those beliefs to grow with diminished opposition and deflects the argument from the merits of their systems, which hatred simply cannot defend.

Hate groups also employ false equivalence when under attack, claiming that politically opposed groups deserve just as much scrutiny as they are receiving themselves. They will often invent terms for these groups, such as ‘alt-left’, that associate these groups with the very hatred they oppose.

They then rely on people to attribute hatred to both sides of the debate, allowing their ideologies to grow with lessened opposition.

No left-wing groups identify as ‘alt-left’. The term is only used to falsely cast progressive ideas as dangerous and hateful, ironically by the very people who claim their own extremist
beliefs are legitimate.

All responsible Americans should be aware of the smoke and mirrors used by far-right
extremists to promote their ideologies across the country. Do not be afraid to reject their ideals out of hand and do not buy into their claims that you are intolerant for doing so.

The central ideals of right-wing hate groups are and will always go against American values and principles.

  • Brian Edmonds

    Good article. Right on point

  • ME109

    Sad to see the Technique turning into a fake news outfit

  • Anonymous

    Why is the Technique letting such an unhinged alt-leftist write for them? This man’s (?) rhetoric attempts to paint the New Right as analogous to national socialism, while completely denying the wholesale torture (remember that mentally disabled kid?), widespread violence, and suppression of free speech that has come to be the hallmark of the ALT LEFT. The great irony is that the author points out that no right-wing group, not even the most far-right Spencer followers, identify as alt-right, identifying them as such nevertheless. He then goes on to claim that no far-left groups identify as alt-left, therefore, there could be no such thing. This man (?) is very lacking in self-awareness.

    If the Technique is willing to publish this tripe, it has greatly lost its quality as a newspaper in my eyes. Though if this once great paper would like to become a meme, I have an article on the merits of National Socialism I’d like to publish.

    • Rick from Music City

      I grant the ‘Nique some grace on publishing it. Wrongheaded as is it is (and boy, is it!), at least it is presented as one atudent’s perspective.

      When I was a student, I attended a lecture on campus by people from the nuclear freeze movement. I’d been taken in by some fake news posters which misrepresented them as formally representing the Kremlin, and I stood up at question time and made comments based on my misunderstanding and distrust of the lady in the podium. After the lecture my philosophy professor confronted me outside with the logical fallacies in what I’d said. It stung because he was right. The freeze movement was effectively supporting the continuation of the oppressive Soviet empire, and I half Reagan and Thatcher ignored them liberated so many from the USSR. But the logical fallacies I used that day embarrass me still, thirty years later. I advise Tristan to question his distrust of critical thinking and take an afternoon to learn about logical fallacy and check his article for each type of fallacy. He will find plenty, and has a chance to grow in the process.