Sargon is anti identity politics and a classic, free speech pro-capitalist liberal. I'm not sure where you take your information from
He's not even a good source of information as his 3 hours long videos consist of Wikipedia articles he glanced through and repeating extreme right-wing conspiracies (Cultural Marxism, the terrorist attack at the Unite the Right rally).
(Also the only decent anti-idpol people are Marxists.)
You are either misinformed about the situation in Brazil or being deliberately misleading.
The term "liberal" has changed in the minds of people, my friend. Liberals are now synonymous with left wingers, who are NOT pro-capitalist.
The Associated Press advises its journalists to not use the term without providing an internal definition, due to its vagueness. They described the "alt-right" label as "currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists" that "may exist primarily as a public-relations device to make its supporters' actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience". - Etymology and scope
Both funkythings and namdnay comment above assert statements to what alt-right is and who belongs to it that the wikipedia article do not. Labeling anti-"political correctness" as alt-right is not supported. Journalist Mike Wendling says that alt-right share the view of anti-"political correctness" with chan culture, but that is as far as the wikipedia article is willing to go.
I know tons of people who mostly just steer clear of identity politics altogether, both left and right. But it's only the alt-right people I know, along with a chunk of the left, who seem to really invest in the whole discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
(The description mentions Richard Spencer promoting the term, someone who Sargon has debated against - him and his position).
News flash, the vast majority of Americans are anti-"political correctness."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majo...
They are positively conservative by global standards.
Now, the real scandal was that the courts just assumed his intent and just assumed he wanted to harass jews. Which is ridiculous.
They said "WE decide what is YOUR intent and context". Unbelievable.
(The purpose of such offenses was so, for example, companies couldn't say "I didn't intend to break the tax laws so please reduce my sentence")
This is practical demonstration than intent and context matter. The other explanation would be, that the law is selectively enforced. Which is worse?
What do you think his intent was?
Mathews didn't realize what he did, when he cited Dankula in the interview, until Dankula pointed it out.
Moreover in terms of the general law and how that law should or shouldn't be written, I can only recommend this discussion which is more detailed than any discussion we could have here and a more informed source:
http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/24/its-time-to-change-th...
Did you watch the video? Do you honestly think he hates Jews. Honest question
Take it with a grain of salt. But I find this behaviour from a state sponsored journalist worrying.