That article is old and was already discussed at length on this site. Breitbart has jumped into the abyss and is trying to relabel a political ideology it does not control for those that do not know any better.
Continually citing that article, with it's known obfuscation of their ideology... makes the reader think that you know not of which you speak, or else is knowingly trying to push the ideology (and hoping people will be fooled).
I am not pushing that article and find it somewhat offensive that you would say that. I am aware that it was written in March, so it is old by internet standards. However, one of the authors is in the middle of the alt-right debate right now, and the owner of the website has become Trump's campaign manager since the column was published.
That makes it newly relevant today, particularly in light of Hillary's speech and Trump's pre-buttal.
Yes, the writers (and Clinton) are trying to re-define the term. Moreover, it looks to me like Bannon is goading Hillary into stepping into areas she doesn't understand. The denizens of 4chan and reddit and others who ascribe to alt-right views (and worse) are a dangerous bunch to mess with, and she may have poked a hornet's nest.
Bannon's fingerprints are all over the current debate. I don't know if he has someone inside the Clinton camp getting her to play into his hands or whether he just jumped at the opportunity.
As far as knowing not of which I speak, that is true as far as first-hand knowledge goes. I do not hang out on the dark web. I have, however, had some rather lengthy conversations this week with people who do and who have made me look at the whole conversation with a new perspective. I'm informed, but not involved.
