I did check out your link to Vox Popoli and its bullet point break down of how "alt-right" is defined.
There is some confusion here; As claimed, *is* alt-right *really* an ALTERNATIVE strain of conservatism in the USA? Is it "in reality has devolved towards progressivism"? How so? I didn't see much in which to disagree (does that make me a bad "conservative"?)
Who elected Russel Kirk the Moses of THE "10 Conservative Principles"? Give me ten Freepers to define "conservatism" and we'll find TEN different criteria. REAL "conservatism" and freedom is very libertarian -- though with several caveats with respect to boundaries. Those boundaries can be found...within the *intent* of The Founders version of the Constitution and Bill of Right; as well as within the Ten Commandments and scripture.
I consider this invocation out of the blue by Hillary of "alt-right" and her political tacticians to be nothing but a cheap distraction and excuse for the political punditry class to avoid addressing Hillary's ever mushrooming baggage. "Alt-Right = "shiny-keys"/road-block. And shot at "divide and conquer" from within.
Look how the term now being scrutinized and time dedicated -- even here. Let's remove the logs from the road and keep on moving our armor back on the road to Berlin.
Obviously, the leftists would like that definition to stick because they think they can win with it.
Is it "in reality has devolved towards progressivism"?
Alt-right has fallen into some authoritarian traps, and to that extent could be regarded as sharing "progressive" opinions, but it's mostly baloney. Conservatives are trying to define the alt-right just like the progtards are.
Who elected Russel Kirk the Moses of THE "10 Conservative Principles"?
He got there by virtue of being in early. He stayed there by virtue of movement conservatives -- especially William F. Buckley Jr. -- who regularly purged "heretics." JBS was an early target, as were all forms of libertarianism. [I think there is a secret codicil in WFB's will that requires NR to continue to do one hit piece on Ayn Rand per year.]
Look how the term now being scrutinized and time dedicated -- even here.
It's been building for some weeks. Facebook and other social media chatter before the attack was focused on Steve Bannon. Mother Jones ran an article about how Breitbart News was now a legitimate outlet for "racism" about a week ago.
The thing is, it's not even new. Every Republican in my lifetime except Eisenhower has been painted with this brush. Paul Ryan (for example) is kewl-down with these attacks now: of all people in the world, he should be most ashamed of himself for aligning with the race card tossers. Just four years ago he was branded by Zero's operatives as a racist himself.
I'm not Alt-Right myself, although, as you say there is a lot to agree with there (as well as some important and fundamental points to disagree with.) But one tactic they use which I agree with and have embraced myself in the last year: they don't care what names you call them. We shouldn't either. And we shouldn't be attacking any other movements as long as "progressivism" remains to be destroyed.
One war at a time.