Richard T. Marcy
In a 2018 talk, the noted cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker referred to the Alt Right as a group of “highly literate, highly intelligent,” and “media savvy” individuals—a very bold and provocative statement coming from a Harvard University professor, and one that seemed to suggest that the Alt Right is a movement that we should continue to take seriously.1 Perhaps predictably, Pinker was then subsequently attacked by a number of media outlets that sought to correct him on this pronouncement, suggesting not only that he is wrong about members of the Alt Right (i.e., they are a group of ignorant racists) but further that the Alt Right is in a great decline anyway, thereby posing less of a future threat.2 The striking contrast in these statements raises a number of important questions, not the least being whom and what are we talking about when we say “the Alt Right”? How effective are the contributions of each of these different individuals and groups in furthering their movement—for example, does Richard Spencer fill the same role and have the same amount of influence as Matthew Heimbach of the Traditionalist Worker Party, or an anonymous troll on 4chan for that matter? And most importantly, is the Alt Right movement still a threat to the status quo (i.e., the mainstream Left and Right)?
While it is clear that there are certain parts of the Alt Right that do appear to be on the wane (for example, Richard Spencer’s brand seems to be tarnished in the public eye since the 2017 Charlottesville rally), the early pronouncement of the movement’s demise may be wishful thinking. There is still quite a bit we do not know about the Alt Right. The mainstream press has tended to focus on sensational individuals and groups, removing them from a larger, historical context, and the Alt Right as a whole. Clearly, Richard Spencer is only one part of the movement, and his role in it is often difficult to discern and is still up for question—the degradation of his brand may or may not reflect the downfall of the entire movement.
Over the past couple of years, a number of individuals and groups have adopted the term “Alt Right” (such as Patrick Casey of Identity Evropa and Jared Taylor of American Renaissance), with a large number being given the label through the media. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine who is truly of the Alt Right, let alone how effective the movement is and may become. While some (particularly in the Alt Right) might argue that the conflation of all these members and groups is a tactic intended to group all branches under one loathsome umbrella, it is also possible that this conflation arises out of a lack of awareness of, or disinterest in, some of the differences between these individuals and groups.
There also seems to be a lack of attention paid to the strategic goals of some Alt Right tactics (Angela Nagle being a notable exception here).3 One example of this would be the coverage of the Alt Right’s public trolling campaigns, with some journalists appearing to take members of the Alt Right completely at face value. This could be yet another example of an overall strategy by some journalists to ensure that everyone in the Alt Right is contextualized in a similar way; but it could also just indicate a general lack of interest—it is enough for most journalists to just cover the more abhorrent actions of the Alt Right. This lack of attention however, can lead to further issues (an illustrative example here might be the “It’s okay to be white” campaign, in which members of 4chan lured some in the media into a compromising overreaction).4 This gap in reporting has not been helpful in achieving a deeper understanding of the Alt Right movement, which is clearly needed for an accurate assessment.
This selective engagement is proving to be a problematic omission in today’s political communications. While in the past it was politically and technologically possible to quarantine some controversial ideas by denying them access to popular channels of communication, some of the issues raised by groups within the Alt Right (for example, those related to immigration and diversity) have been hard to keep out of public discussion. This public access has been facilitated by social media, with its multiple channels and its unique challenges for vetting and censoring information (such as the Streisand effect), and has helped bolster Alt Right legitimacy in the face of opposition from the traditional media.5
The avoidance by many journalists and academics to fully engage these issues has led to what some, such as Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky, have described as “gifts to the Right.” The unwillingness of the political establishment to engage particular members of the Far Right on these contentious issues has helped drive their discussion underground. As a result the political opposition appears to be conceding arguments that it seems unwilling to address.
As the Alt Right comprises a number of different groups, each serving its own strategic purpose and distinct audience, it might be useful to unpack some of the different roles that individuals and groups are playing within the movement; we might then better understand the strategies and tactics of those individuals and subgroups. This exploration would also allow us to investigate some of the psychological and sociological assumptions underpinning these strategies, to further determine their potential effectiveness.
It might also be useful to place these approaches within a larger historical context—namely, the history of past artistic and sociopolitical avant-gardes. Quite a bit of analysis has noted the ways in which the Alt Right has drawn from the theoretical base of past avant-garde political movements in the course of constructing its political program (for example, its use of Situationist theories of media criticism).6 This chapter hopes to contribute to this literature through an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of adopting past artistic and sociopolitical avant-garde strategies as tools for expanding influence. In detailing the various strategies and tactics of Alt Right subgroups, this chapter will conclude with some tentative predictions regarding the future viability of these groups as well as suggestions for further research directions.
Throughout the past decade, Richard Spencer has repeatedly referred to past avant-garde traditions, and in a number of different ways, whether through the naming of his internet podcasts (e.g., “Vanguard”), his references to wanting to become an “avant-garde theatre director,”7 or his direct discussions of prior artistic and sociopolitical avant-gardes (such as the Situationist International; Spencer brought up these subjects in interviews with Jonathan Bowden in early podcasts, knowing that Bowden was himself well versed in the history and philosophy of past avant-gardes).8 Other Alt Right members, like Greg Johnson (head of Counter Currents, a key Alt Right website), have called for creating a “manifesto” for the movement (a manifesto being another staple of avant-garde practice).9 While it seems clear that the history and philosophy of past artistic and sociopolitical avant-gardes have influenced the Alt Right, less has been written in the academic literature on the relationship between the strategies of past avant-gardes and the present behaviors of Alt Right leaders and groups.
Avant-garde practices and their role in political change have been largely neglected in the political and psychological literature of the past three decades as the turbulence of the 1960s has faded.10 Arguably one of the more influential avant-gardes of recent times has been the Situationist International (SI), a movement of the Left that many scholars have suggested had a profound influence on the events of May 1968 in Paris, France.11 As a widely reported moment in this period, this event would go on to shape mainstream politics and culture for years.
The power of avant-gardes is often overestimated in terms of their short-term political influence (particularly when compared with the sensational media coverage that they often acquire), but is also typically underestimated in terms of their more indirect ability to shift political opinion over the long term, as well as create political space for close, but less extreme, actors to capitalize on.12 This approach is often confused through comparison with more conventional approaches to political power and thus the efficacy of its tactics in gaining attention is also often overlooked. Unlike more mainstream political efforts, which work toward some form of consensus to garner political respect, the extreme provocations of avant-garde groups are often intended to create an extreme position through which less extreme (but closer) political positions can be made to appear politically acceptable (i.e., what some might characterize as a shifting of the Overton Window within the public’s consciousness).13
For example, the stated purpose of the SI as an avant-garde was not to exercise direct political influence by becoming another part of the establishment (e.g., another political party), but rather to position itself in such a way as to be able to “outmaneuver” the enemy and subvert the status quo through cultural change. The SI helped bring about social change through front-line activist events (for example, through sensational, media-covered events); the development and dissemination of social theory (through the publication of influential texts); the execution of subversive cultural approaches (like détournement and derives) intended to undermine mainstream culture; and the direct recruitment of particular segments of the public that were amenable to their ideas (such as university students and professors).14
It would seem as if a number of Alt Right members are taking pages from this avant-garde playbook, whether with front-line activist events (as in the case of demonstrations and other media appearances), the development and dissemination of coherent social theory (as in the works of Jared Taylor and his allies),15 the application of subversive cultural approaches (as in the use of détournement by Alt Right video creators like Walt Bismarck,16 as well as in the creation of politically incorrect memes by anonymous trolls), and the active cultivation and recruitment of a support base (i.e., the “silent majority” of the Alt Right that resides in the online world).
While the use of these tactics alone is no guarantee of success, their execution represents a necessary precondition for achieving ultimate political objectives. Without these forms of engagement with the public, whether online or in the real world, it would be difficult for Alt Right players to alter public consciousness. The degree to which these strategies and approaches are working is a key consideration for trying to assess the Alt Right’s potential for growth.
Given some of the parallels between past avant-gardes and the present Alt Right, particularly the importance of fundamentally similar strategies, it would seem sensible to examine the assumptions and tactics under which these subversive groups have operated. Since the immediate goal of these past avant-gardes was often cultural and metapolitical (as a prelude for future mainstream political influence), it is important to explore how these approaches worked in the past.17 As this is in many ways a goal of the mind as well as one tied to a social and political outcome, it is important that we also look at the psychological processes that might underpin these avant-garde strategies.
When Steven Pinker spoke of the highly intelligent members of the Alt Right, he was careful to note that he was referring to what he had read by some members, often anonymous, posting on internet discussion boards. Suffice it to say, he was not likely referring to those members that can be seen on YouTube screaming racial epithets. This is no small point as anyone previously identified with the Alt Right had often been conflated into one overarching political group (i.e., white supremacist) with one strategic approach (i.e., protest demonstrations), despite the fact that there has been, and continues to be, important points of variability—in both political beliefs and strategic approaches—across those that have been identified with the Alt Right.18
Much of the journalistic and academic coverage of those individuals and groups in the Alt Right has highlighted their political philosophies and/or political objectives. While this coverage has contributed to our understanding of what these different members of the Alt Right believe and want, there has been less analysis of the tactics through which Alt Right members have tried to influence the public, especially from psychological and sociological perspectives. To aid in our understanding of the strategic actions that different groups have employed, it might be useful to start with the different roles that individuals and groups have been playing within the overall Alt Right movement. Here we might use the following terms: front-line activists and other subversive cultural producers (for example, “trolls”), intellectuals, and the silent majority (of the Alt Right).
These functional role categories relate to general models of social change, as well as cognitive models that can be employed by leaders and groups to accomplish their goals. For example, each of these roles has an integral part to play in what the psychologist Kurt Lewin saw as a three-step organizational change model of “unfreezing norms,” “realignment,” and “refreezing norms.”19 Similarly, each of these steps has a relationship to individual and group-level psychological processes that help facilitate change. Marcy has introduced a cycle that represents the types of cognitive tools that radically innovative leaders have selected to effect social change; namely, “sensebreaking” of public mental models has to occur first, which is then followed with “sensegiving” tactics to provide people with new information in which to create new cognitive relationships.20 This process then culminates in “sensemaking,” which allows the person affected by the change to move forward. Front-line activists and subversive cultural producers help serve this cycle through their unfreezing of norms by means of sensebreaking tactics; intellectuals in the movement help serve a process of realignment through sensegiving tactics, with the silent majority (and general public) being both the target and the vehicle of the refreezing or establishment of new norms through their own sensemaking.
For an avant-garde movement to be maximally effective, each of these roles needs to be successful in reaching and influencing its respective audience, without the role-players coming into conflict. This is a tall order for leaders of avant-garde groups—threats of co-optation, along with ego conflicts, leave many in movements such as the Alt Right hesitant about reaching out for collaborators.21 To begin a critique of the Alt Right and its present and future potential, it does not appear as if the various roles and groups within the Alt Right are always working in concert, with some openly mocking and even fighting with each other.22 While criticism within social movements is often a healthy mechanism for working through theoretical and practical problems, airing that criticism in public can leave an impression of disorder and weakness, which detractors often exploit.
For the Situationnistes, sensebreaking of public consciousness involved a number of different tactics. Among the most obvious were controversial media appearances, along with the use of détournement.23 In one famous media appearance, Guy Debord was asked in an interview what it meant to be a Situationist, to which he replied, “We’re not here to answer cuntish questions,” and walked off the stage.24 This example of Debord’s public rejection of conventional civility illustrates a strategy of refusing to collaborate with elite agendas while simultaneously provoking shock to direct public attention toward the SI’s ideas.25
Situationist use of détournement was employed across a number of media forms. In Can Dialectics Break Bricks? Situationist René Viénet stripped all of the dialogue from a Chinese kung fu (martial arts) film and replaced it with lectures on Marxist theory. Viénet presented the Japanese invaders in the film as the establishment and the Chinese as the revolutionary working class.26 Other Situationnistes turned comics and other forms of mass culture away from their intended meanings through the strategic removal and replacement of key text within the comics.
This adaptation of mass market cultural materials served to destruct the implicit social relationships in such materials. Further, the deliberate choice of popular cultural materials in this subversion process attracted a much wider audience than one would be able to reach by presenting ideas more straightforwardly through obscure references and complicated texts. The process underlying these subversive approaches breaks the “sense” previously connoted by status-quo-oriented comics or movies while simultaneously providing a new mental model of social relationships (i.e., sensegiving). This recontextualization of familiar themes breaks the audience’s understanding of existing social relationships while immediately prompting a cognitive shift through ideas.27
The Alt Right appears to have adopted some of these approaches in spreading its ideas. Walt Bismarck has “détourned” Walt Disney movies to help spread Alt Right ideas related to IQ and immigration, while innumerable anonymous trolls have helped create and spread contentious memes through the internet. Richard Spencer has given countless provocative interviews, unreservedly expressing highly controversial viewpoints on racial differences and the dispossession of white people in the United States. These interviews, along with the rallies that he and others in the Alt Right have held, have drawn considerable media attention, thereby aiding in transmitting Alt Right ideas to the public. For the most part, these appearances have presented an uncompromising stance—a direct assault on the tenets of the status quo.
Given the falling of Spencer’s star, particularly as a result of the Charlottesville debacle, it would be easy to regard his group as being in decline. More difficult, however, is determining whether the larger role that he has been occupying (i.e., front-line activist) with a few others in the movement (Patrick Casey, James Allsup, etc.) is still effective in pushing an Alt Right agenda, and whether this might have implications for the larger movement.
Drawing from the example of past avant-garde front-line activists may be helpful here. Many past avant-gardes did not go on to achieve political power themselves, but instead helped shift public consciousness before fading into the historical background. This provided room for other, often more moderate, voices to gain political ground. The Situationnistes, and many avant-gardes before them, did not morph into political parties as their political goals became realities. Rather, they enabled other political factions to leverage their ideas to achieve political objectives. This appears to be happening with some groups within the Alt Right movement.
By staking out a more extreme and uncompromising position in the media, Alt Right spokesmen have expanded the spectrum of political discourse and have helped provide cover for other less extreme but still recognizably right-wing voices that would have been marginalized before. Less than three years ago, conversations regarding immigration, race, and IQ were much more constrained, with little discussion of these subjects taking place in the public square. This is now changing, with the prominent social psychologists Jonathan Haidt, Jordan Peterson, and Steven Pinker fielding questions and commenting on these once-forbidden topics.
If the effectiveness of Alt Right front-line activism were assessed only in terms of being able to raise discussion of formerly taboo subjects in public forums, and breaking the paradigm of allowable discourse, then certainly the Alt Right movement should be viewed as at least a partial success. The question might then be asked whether this highly combative approach is sustainable and whether it can lead to further political achievements. If viewed from the perspective of past avant-gardes, history would suggest that sustainability of a front-line activist role is difficult to maintain, given the daunting task of working directly against the status quo,28 nor is sustainability even central to the purpose of an avant-garde. Rather, the successful employment of this role depends not on achieving some form of public support or career advancement but primarily on its ability to change public discourse.
If front-line activists are the bad cop in the “good cop/bad cop” routine, then it is important to keep in mind that it is usually the good cop that moves on and continues to influence those who listen, while the bad cop fades into the background, once his or her purpose has been achieved. It is also important to note that who the good cop is at this moment may not be entirely clear with respect to the Alt Right movement. Alt Right groups have a tendency to vehemently dismiss as “Alt Lite” those who sound a bit like them but wander too far in the direction of the establishment. While this style of contestation between actors often makes for an effective bad cop, thereby pushing the Overton Window even further, it also needs to be made clear that both cops should be working in concert. The Alt Right’s failure to maintain this delicate relationship may be a strategic weakness.
The role of an avant-garde front-line activist is often too contentious to gain mainstream acceptance and respectability (that is in fact the strength of the position—to be uncompromising is to potentially create greater shifts in consciousness); therefore, it is vital that a more mainstream successor be planned for. In the early days of the second wave of the Alt Right, that successor was Donald Trump—it is unclear who that person or group is now. Some in the Alt Lite have taken the mantle (such as Jordan Peterson), but this does not appear to be a deliberate move on the part of groups within the Alt Right. There seems to be some confusion about strategic roles, one of the more notable examples being the short-lived bid by Richard Spencer for a congressional position back in 2016. While Spencer seems to be aware of the strategic and tactical differences between being the leader of an avant-garde and taking a more mainstream political stance, he has also sent out his own mixed signals at various times, straddling the fence between being a provocateur and being a more mainstream spokesman.29 This has led to some confusion on the Alt Right and among the public at large about Spencer’s avant-garde brand.
Capitalizing on the strength of particular strategic roles, working in concert with other roles in the movement, and having a positive vision beyond a critique of the existing status quo are tasks that the Alt Right appears to be doing less well in. While the Situationnistes under Guy Debord composed all of the functional roles that have been outlined to be an effective avant-garde (front-line activists, intellectuals, etc.), the Alt Right movement has been less centralized and less well coordinated. Separate groups have filled different roles, often in conflict and even in competition with each other. Whereas this lack of coordinated roles, as well as clear leadership, has allowed the movement a high degree of flexibility, it also betrays an inherent weakness in that the lack of coordination has resulted in weakened attack power. Confused roles have also allowed a high degree of infighting that has sapped the movement’s strength.
If the Alt Right is to be more effective in the future, its leaders will need to coordinate their functional roles more efficiently and with less acrimony. For example, within the front-line activists are groups that have appeal to what is commonly referred to as highbrow ethnonationalists (such as the followers of Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor) and others that are more lowbrow (such as the now-defunct Traditionalist Worker Party). These subgroups have typically been ill at ease with each other. To be more effective, the Alt Right would need to create a vision that accounts for all these subgroups, rather than a medley of independent visions that pit one group against the other.
Some Alt Right leaders who are moving in this direction and trying to avoid petty disputes have reached out to others in the movement. Richard Spencer joined forces with Arktos, thereby further bridging the gulf between some roles (front-line activists and intellectuals). Millennial Woes, a prominent Alt Right blogger, has taken the controversial step of embracing the “lost” of the movement (and the wider culture)—the lost being, as he notes, “the basement dwelling neck beards” that the Left has highlighted as exemplars of the Alt Right in attempts to shame it and, of which, the Alt Right has also shunned and denied acceptance.30 Rather than distance themselves further from these members, or even continue to ignore them, Millennial Woes has advocated coming to terms with these often socially disenfranchised, tossed-aside individuals and bringing them into the fold. While this tactic could further damage the social image of the Alt Right, it could also elicit greater public empathy, as well as enhance group solidarity within the movement.
The Situationnistes were a coordinated avant-garde, tightly controlled by their leader Guy Debord. They had members who filled all the functional roles in the movement, including those of the intellectuals. At the level of strategies and tactics, intellectuals played a necessary role in the spreading of Situationist ideas. Like those filling other strategic roles, intellectuals leveraged multiple social change tools through their writing (e.g., sensebreaking and sensemaking), but the role in which they were arguably the most vital was sensegiving.
Although most intellectuals typically do not remain anonymous and also depend on a reputation built through engagement with the public, they are distinct in the strictest sense from front-line activists; their audience is typically narrower, but nonetheless influential—namely, the intelligentsia and educated classes—and their success depends on the persuasiveness of their scholarship. While the primary goal of a front-line activist is to influence the masses through advocacy—which includes providing information that supports particular political objectives, while often omitting/distorting information that does not affirm these objectives—there is an expectation that a social movement’s intellectuals adhere to more rigorous standards than front-line activists. The degree to which a movement’s intellectuals represent these standards may be the degree to which they can influence their peers. Some of these standards include credibility (not only in their communications but also in their backgrounds) and coherence (regarding the internal logic of what they present).
In the case of the SI, credibility was established through its primary journal that promulgated its main ideas and theories. The movement also built a substantial reputation through its initial incubation as an art movement before it moved on to sociopolitical issues. The SI attracted high-quality members and was extremely exclusive, often disciplining capable members for minor infractions. It built a fearsome reputation through its apparent expertise in some areas of research. Prominent Situationnistes also published widely reviewed books, such as the Society of the Spectacle, which furnished critical studies of modern society.
In the case of the Alt Right, intellectuals such as Jared Taylor have been writing and publishing books for more than two decades. As a Yale graduate who is fluent in Japanese, as well as English and French, Taylor is often described as a “courtly presenter of ideas,” along with being known, even by his detractors, as a man who is bringing a measure of intellectualism and seriousness to the Alt Right movement through a “cultivated, cosmopolitan” approach.31 In the defense of his arguments, he often cites findings from peer-reviewed academic studies, further contributing to his credibility as a researcher. The achievement of “expert” status is no small matter since there are few forms of power available to someone who is challenging the status quo. Institutional forms of reward and punishment are typically not available to such a dissident, leaving him with only his claim to knowledge as an expert to convert others to his views.32
This use of peer-reviewed academic articles is also greatly contributing to a growing public sense of coherence in Alt Right theory. The reluctance of many politicians, journalists, and academics to discuss the findings of some of these peer-reviewed articles on race, IQ, and diversity has resulted in a dearth of critical engagement. As Adolph Reed lamented in Trumpland, the Alt Right has “internally consistent explanations to offer,”33 which are not often discussed outside its own ranks. While this gap has not been entirely ignored in mainstream journalism, the battle over Alt Right ideas has gone on mostly in social media. Through this medium, the Alt Right may be making gains in bringing its arguments to a larger audience.
Due to the controversial nature of their writings about race, IQ, and immigration, Alt Right intellectuals have received extremely negative attention from the mainstream press. Regardless of the obloquy to which Alt Right authors have been subject, there is a public forum under which some Alt Right intellectuals have been quickly gaining prominence, namely YouTube. Here, debates over some of the Alt Right’s most controversial stands have been taking place at a breakneck pace.34 It is difficult to determine what effect these debates might be having on general public discourse, but one thing is clear: the desire to engage with these issues is strong in view of the readership that many of these debates have been attracting. Some Alt Right discussions have attracted hundreds of thousands of views, and some videos are topping almost half a million.35
Furthermore, it seems as if these issues are becoming more and more commonplace for discussion throughout the internet, with a culture emerging from these debates that clashes with establishment opinions. If the YouTube community at all represents the public at large, particularly for millennials, these discussions will likely have political implications. We may not yet have seen the full effects of these internet discussions because of social desirability biases (i.e., people failing to disclose opinions that run counter to socially acceptable ones), much in the same way that the Trump vote was obscured in polling in 2016.
Who exactly are the targets of the sensebreaking and sensegiving tactics of the front-line activists and intellectuals? For the Situationnistes, a key demographic for conversion turned out to be university students. This “silent (and/or anonymous) majority” were largely student activists, who were initially working at the fringe of the movement, together with other students, in their personal networks. These students used graffiti on city buildings and bridges to the same effect as Alt Right trolls now use memes—to spread provocative ideas through public channels. Students also disseminated and popularized Situationist theory through pamphleteering, one of the more famous pamphlets being On the Poverty of Student Life.36 These political actions by anonymous students who were “redpilled” by Situationist sensebreaking and sensegiving (e.g., media demonstrations and theoretical publications) eventually helped bring about the student occupation of the Sorbonne in May 1968. This in turn led to further massive demonstrations and general strikes throughout France.
For the Alt Right, the “silent majority” comprises a number of subgroups, two of the most conspicuous of which are trolls and lurking fellow travelers. Given their outrageous antics, the trolls have evoked the most public attention and shock, while lurking fellow travelers have been a less covered phenomenon. It is unclear just how large the Alt Right “silent majority” is and whether the sampling that has been done thus far is capturing the opinions of primarily trolls, which have a unique agenda, or whether it includes fellow travelers as well. There is also the issue of not appearing respectable—the contentious nature of these issues is likely to keep some people from responding honestly to such polls (i.e., social desirability bias).
The size of the silent majority warrants some attention. Many of those presently holding Alt Right beliefs are far from being the rural, uneducated, generational racists that the media typically describe.37 In considering the possibility of the Alt Right as a threat to the status quo, we might turn to the potential effects of minority influence on majority groups, with some studies suggesting that long-term influence is greatest when minorities present an uncompromising position.38 An “uncompromising position” clearly describes the Alt Right’s approach to messaging. While we can only speculate about the effects of this messaging, some studies of white millennials suggest that larger numbers of them share less socially acceptable beliefs than had been previously imagined (if we account for social desirability bias, these percentages may be even higher).39 Coupling all of this with a study that suggests that as little as 25 percent of a group’s membership has to be shifted in order to change group opinion40 leads one to conclude that the Alt Right could become a formidable threat to mainstream political opinion at some point in the future.
It would be best to note that the central method applied in this study—namely, looking at the Alt Right as an avant-garde movement through a psychological lens—is only one approach to understanding a multicausal phenomenon. While clearly some members and groups within the Alt Right are drawing from an avant-garde legacy, multiple tactics have been embraced to further an Alt Right agenda, and it may be necessary to apply a multidisciplinary focus to properly understand where the movement is going. This chapter has tried to shed further light on the Alt Right through one particular approach, that of organizational and cognitive psychology within an avant-garde context.
Thus far only one psychological study on the personality profiles of members of the Alt Right has taken place.41 This is a promising start, but there are many more Alt Right issues that could be explored through a psychological perspective: identity, leadership, and status quo deviance, as well as the assumptions and appeal of a general political discourse centering on diversity, race, and IQ.
As to whether the Alt Right will continue to be a threat to the political establishment, it would seem from the evidence that it will remain so for some time. Although its front-line activist arm is somewhat in disarray and some activist groups (such as Richard Spencer’s) are in decline, other front-line groups (such as Identity Evropa) are already replacing them.42 And its intellectual branch has seemingly not lost ground—if anything, it seems to be gaining ground and is growing in its influence to provide coherent, if not highly controversial, arguments (i.e., sensegive) to very serious social issues. Similarly, there is little evidence that the “silent majority” has diminished or shifted from an Alt Right perspective, and may just be waiting to see which leaders emerge from the Charlottesville debacle to identify themselves with a surging, nonestablishment Right. Whatever we might ultimately call this movement—Alt Right, Identitarian, and so on—it is likely to stay around.