In comments, they're all off about how Milo Isn't Racist, and how there's "nothing extreme" about Milo or Breitbart. I have a lot to say about that, and I'm copying it over here. I'm leaving it as-typed, not changing underscores (for italics) to actual italics, etc.
----- start -----
Nothing extreme about Milo or Breitbart" says you're _really_ onboard with vicious - and I mean vicious - misogyny.
As for racism, shall we quote Milo in his own words? Sure, let's. Now, you have to realise, of course, that Milo sugarcoats it as best it can be sugar-coated. He just takes old-school classical White Supremacy/White Nationalism and declares it to be a _good_ thing, and there are lots of idiots who fall for it. Racism _is_ racial collectivism to gain a superior position, is "white tribalism," if you will, and that - along with screaming hatred of women - is what the alt-right is about. It is _definitional_. Here, let's go to Milo himself writing in The Daily Beast, shall we? Sure:
Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.
The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.
The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.
Now, doesn't that sound all _reasonable_? Except for the explicit call for segregation - emphasised by segregation that prioritises whites, a.k.a., white supremacy - that's the actual point of all that Nice Friendly Talk. And it doesn't stop there, of course; he's fond of the "human biodiversity" movement, which is old-school Race Theory in new pseudoscientific language.
(You can see that in the same article, he talks about the "intellectuals" of the alt-right who promote it. It's horseshit of course, gosh, Africans are Just So Darned Well Suited to being slaves, and Europeans are Just So Darned Well Suited to being masters. Gosh, _that's_ not racist. What're you going to do next, bring in Richard "I'm Not a Fascist, I'm Just An Authoritarian Who Publishes Articles Promoting Genocide Against Black Africans" Spencer?)
So basically, what I'm saying is, you're lying, and you know it. But you're still afraid of the word "Racist," so you get _real seriously definitely racist_ and go BUT I'M NOT RACIST!!! and when people go "yes, you goddamn well are," you get all pissy, and start running with implied threats.
Well, it's horseshit, and we see through it. You are a disgrace to UW, you are a disgrace to conservatism, you are just flat out a disgrace. How terrible.
Now, I realise, it's _possible_ that you _might_ have actually been fooled by this. You could in fact be _very_ stupid, and I recognise that for some, it's _really difficult_ connecting ideas across four entirely separate paragraphs. That might _honestly_ be difficult for you. I have no way of knowing.
Was it too many words? Another of your number responded to a bunch of other sourced material with disparaging comments about encyclopaedias and too many words, so putting together four entirely separate paragraphs from an article might be a bit _much_ to ask out of Young Republicans these days.
So here's an even shorter summary of his and the alt-right belief system, leaving out the in-between parts, but still all his own:
"mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals [...] are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics [where] culture is inseparable from race [and] separation between peoples is necessary for a culture [race] to be preserved."
Could've been written by the KKK in 1870. No meaningful differences. White separatism, explicitly prioritising whites, meaning white supremacy. In. His. Own. Words.
[A later addendum]
David Whalen: Wait wait wait, did you _actually say_, "Anyone with a modicum of journalistic skill can tell the difference between Spencer's Alt Right, and Milo's alt-right. However, I suspect most of them simply don't care."
That's FUCKING HILARIOUS. Milo himself _specifically_ points to Spencer as a founding thinker - a word I use provisionally, at best - of the ~~alt-right~~, and notes he's been "accused of racism." Publishing articles LITERALLY SUPPORTING GENOCIDE OF AFRICANS will get you that, I guess.
So you can try to wedge them apart all you want to. Milo doesn't. Or at least didn't, before Spencer got sucker-punched and everybody with even the tiniest shred of decency left in their bodies cheered and we all got a good reminder that the way the Greatest Generation got their nickname was by killing fascists indiscriminately. I guess acknowledging the founding role in the ~~alt-right~~ of Richard Spencer got a little _dodgy_ all of a sudden, but it's still out there. From Milo. In his own words.
(Here, you can search for it. It's in a FAQ WRITTEN BY MILO, so you _should_ be able to manage it: "The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought.")