A Critique of the Alt-Right

Giving the Devil his Due
Before I start ripping into the alt-right, I’m going to state some things that I actually agree with.

Cultural Relativism is Cancer
The alt-right is correct in stating that western civilization and culture is superior to other cultures. Western civilization and culture is certainly not perfect, but if you compare it to other parts of the world such as Africa or the Middle East, then there is a clear distinction in regards to economic flourishing, human rights, intellectual freedom, and social liberty, as well as the values held by different civilizations. Some on the far left argue in favor of the idea that it is racist and immoral to critique different cultures because “who are we to say our culture is better,” or that it’s only an illusion that our civilization is better when there’s “still oppression” or something along those lines, and some of them go so far as to argue that western values such as meritocracy, individualism, and objectivity are “white ideology” that needs to be “decolonized.” A critique of Islamic ideology and values for example is often interpreted as racist. Our culture is not perfect, and it’s not as if there are not flaws in it to be addressed, but it is better than other cultures, and the idea of cultural relativism is cancer.

Anti-White Policy and Rhetoric is a Problem
The alt-right are not wrong in claiming that affirmative action and diversity quotas are a problem because it discriminates against white people on the basis of race. They are also not wrong in calling out anti-white rhetoric within both the universities and the media. In universities, the promulgation of critical race theory and this redefinition of the term racism are used to implicate white people with some collective guilt and minorities with some collective innocence in regards to racism, under the guise that all white people belong to some oppressive power structure and are therefore all guilty of racism, and that black people don’t have power so they are incapable of being racist. Likewise in the media it is acceptable for certain statements to be made about the white demographic that would be considered inexcusable if you flipped the race being referred to by those statements.

There are Reasons to be Critical of Immigration
There are actual reasons to be critical of immigration policy. Some people critical of immigration policy come from a protectionist slant rather than a racist one where they’re just concerned about protecting their jobs from competition from immigration enlarging the workforce, and this is something that would affect legal immigrants as well who are forced to compete with people who illegally came here. Likewise, it is also understandable why some would be critical of immigration in a society with certain taxpayer funded social services such as welfare, or for example in the city I live more people come to live here than our infrastructure can properly handle. Then of course with things like crime and terrorism, there is a valid argument to be made that we should have documentation of those who enter the borders of our nations so that we can be properly accountable for any potential risks. Lastly, the idea that immigration could pose a threat to the endemic culture of a nation is not one without its merits, particularly considering that giving someone citizenship gives them a sliver of power over the laws you live under.

I have been called alt-right before, and that likely has to do with the fact that I actually agree with some points they make, however my similarities with them begin and end with our mutual disdain for the far left, and I find them to be hypocritical on the few things I agree with them on.

Problems in Principle With Alt-Right Ideology

Hypocrisy
The alt-right has a problem with discrimination against white people and anti-white rhetoric, which I find agreeable. The problem is they openly promote the same things against other racial groups they find intolerable when done to their own. A lot of the alt-right is in favor of an ethnostate, which would exclude non-white people on the basis of their race in a much more extreme degree than affirmative action does. Likewise they also ascribe a sort of collective guilt to other racial groups in the same manner that they take issue with when done to white people. In fairness, a lot of them would admit to this double standard, but that doesn’t make it any more excusable.

Individualism vs Collectivism
I object to the far left because I am an individualist rather than a collectivist. On principle I think the rights of the individual rather than the interests of a demographic should be paramount in society, I think people should be held to the same standard under the law and in the workforce. I also believe people should be ascribed virtue, guilt, or innocence based on their own individual merits and character rather than on the basis of their group identity. Racial collectivists such as those who are anti-white on the far left and those who are alt-right judge and treat people on the basis of their group identity and on their arbitrary characteristics rather than who they are or what they do as individuals, and I find it no less excusable when the alt-right does it. Collectivism is dangerous because it serves as justification for abuse against the individual, as was demonstrated by the numerous genocides of the twentieth century, Nazi and Communist alike. As a Classical Liberal, the principle of individualism is of paramount importance to me, and I find it disgusting when that gets undermined by the shitty narrative of “muh group is righteous and this other group is collectively guilty of wrongdoing” no matter what side it comes from. It is from the principle of individualism that we live in a society where our freedom of speech, social behavior, religion, and property rights are for the most part protected from unjust infringement, and it only makes rational sense that you judge a person on the basis of who they are rather than what demographic they happened to be born into.

They Do Not Understand Why Western Culture is Superior
The alt-right is correct in stating that western culture is superior to other cultures, but the reason why western culture is superior is because of individualist principle. The idea that the rights of the individual are paramount in society and that they should be protected from abuse from other individuals, group interests, and the state is the defining feature of western civilization and culture. Our western societies are pretty damn good, but a society where people are subject to abuse from the state on the basis of their group identity is not a good society to live in, that would be the mark of a society that lost sight of what made it great to begin with.

Technical Problems With Alt-Right Ideology

Racial Statistics
Of course differences between demographics like IQ, crime rates, personality traits exist. Jews for example have a higher IQ on average than the rest of the population, and men tend to be more aggressive than women on average. This does not mean it is remotely technically accurate to judge an individual within a group on the basis of the statistical average of that group. Another good point that Jordan Peterson makes on this subject is that if you look at group statistics, there is more variance within each group than there is between the averages of each group. So judging an individual on even accurate statistical data on their group is technically wrong.

What is Huwhite?
How is whiteness qualified and what is or isn’t white enough? Is a mixed race person excluded from the ethnostate? What about someone such as myself whose 31/32 white and 1/32 Native American, do I make the cut for the ethnostate? How do they intend to measure this? Genetically? With a color swatch? The classification of white people doesn’t seem to be technically specific enough to craft policy around in a society where race mixing is a thing.

Culture is Not Owned by Color
One of the stupidest things I’ve heard the far-left say is that things like “meritocracy” “scientific objectivism” and “individualism” are white ideologies, that is an unhinged and incoherent statement completely divorced from reality… AND THE ALT-RIGHT AGREES WITH IT. Instead of arguing as the far left does that since those things are white ideology they need to be “decolonialized,” the alt-right argues that because those things are “white ideology” we need to get rid of the darkies to preserve them. All it takes is pointing out the black people who ascribe to this “white ideology” of meritocracy, individualism, and scientific objectivism, and the white people who the alt-right would consider race traitors and the left would consider “allies” to disprove this stupid idea that a culture or idea is owned or can only be held by someone of a particular race. Furthermore, the idea that you could accredit to yourself the achievements of your ancestors is a ridiculous claim. Just because the Founding Fathers were white doesn’t mean a white American born in the modern deserves any more credit for the founding of this country than a black American. As was said by Plato “to a man who has any self-respect, nothing is more dishonourable than to be honoured, not for his own sake, but on account of the reputation of his ancestors.”

Practical Problems with an Ethnostate

Splitting Up Communities
We live in a fairly integrated society, with mixed race families, mixed race neighborhoods, and mixed race communities. People have familial and social ties beyond races, and ripping out all non-white people from those communities would cause a lot of social damage. My mom for example works with a lot of Mexicans with whom she is close friends, and she would be very emotionally disturbed if they were all removed from her life on the basis of their race. And that’s of course saying nothing about the mixed race families that would be split apart by this supposedly utopian aim.

Economic Damage
Yeah… we also live in a fairly integrated economy with a lot of whites and non-whites at the same place of work or in the same companies or industries in many different positions. It would be an understatement to suggest that creating an ethnostate would not be a good economic move. It would destabilize so many companies that have to reorient themselves, a good chunk of the workforce would be removed, brain power in intellectual pursuits would be lost, people would be appointed to positions they are less equipped to handle than those who previously held those positions. From an economic point of view it would be a terrible idea.

Global Relations
If a western nation decided to implement an ethnostate, even assuming it was done in the least genocidey way possible… how many other developed western nations would continue to ally with said country? How long would even the US maintain its position of prominence in the world if it made an enemy out of the rest of the west? Certainly there would be another country *cough* China *cough* that would be more than willing to take advantage of other countries being less willing to engage in trade and diplomacy with the US.

Strategic Problems with the Alt-Right

“Muh Realism!”
The alt-right often scoffs at the individualist principles of people such as myself, claiming that such a principle will not stand up to the voting power of racial minorities. They think it’s a fantasy that we can safeguard this principle and instead judge themselves to be “realist” and think the most practical thing to do would be to abandon individualism in the interest of acting in favor of the white racial group. There is however nothing realist about this line of thinking. Firstly the alt-right is possibly the most abhorred political group in western politics, and they are extremely reviled within the western sphere. Now take into account that even when Republicans or Democrats gain control of all three branches, they are still pretty ineffectual at actually implementing their agenda, agendas much less radical and in violation of the constitution than the alt-right’s agenda. So the notion that it’s in any way realistic that they, the most hated political group in the west, will attain more political power than the largest political parties in western nations is an absurd fantasy by the alt-right. The idea that individualist principle and values can be promulgated successfully enough in the western sphere to defeat the far left is a lot more ****ing realist than the alt-right’s delusional pipe dream.

Playing into the Narrative
The alt-right is an enemy to the far left, just as I and many others who are not alt-right would consider ourselves. The far left makes power plays by using this narrative about the racism of white people and the threat posed by white supremacy and fascism, and portraying themselves as the most suitable opposition to those things. An individualist such as myself could vy for the importance of individualist principles to both undermine the arguments of the far left, and serve as a suitable set of values to safeguard society against the far right. The alt-right however by accepting and promulgating their racist ideology are not undermining the far-left, they are reinforcing it by strengthening their narrative. In this respect, the alt-right only serves to grant more credence to their most abhorred political adversaries rather than undermine them.

Conclusion
The aspects of the alt-right I agree with are not unique to the alt-right or white identitarianism, and I find them to be hypocritical on the points I find common ground with them on. The aspects of the alt-right unique to the alt-right or white identitarianism are things I find to be completely indefensible morally, on principle, technically, practically, and strategically.

The Alt Right is openly racist. If the word "ethnostate" is used in any kind of positive connotation to what they say they believe, then they likely hold the most reprehensible political views one could possibly hold, and should be ignored/rejected/mocked/insulted as much as possible. And if such views ever gained prominence and began infiltrating the actual government, then I believe violence is an acceptable response.

Originally posted by BackFire
The Alt Right is openly racist. If the word "ethnostate" is used in any kind of positive connotation to what they say they believe, then they likely hold the most reprehensible political views one could possibly hold, and should be ignored/rejected/mocked/insulted as much as possible. And if such views ever gained prominence and began infiltrating the actual government, then I believe violence is an acceptable response.

Pretty much. Some things are beyond wrong. Modern genetics is actually being misrepresented to support those kinds of ideas.

I've never heard Ethnostate or Huwhite before. There's probably some other words I don't like if I did more than a very quick skim.

Kurk doxxing might have been worth it to avoid seeing huwhite. I'm conflicted

Originally posted by One Big Mob
I've never heard Ethnostate or Huwhite before. There's probably some other words I don't like if I did more than a very quick skim.

Kurk doxxing might have been worth it to avoid seeing huwhite. I'm conflicted

First off, who are you to say that Western individualist societies are superior to all others?

It's commonly accepted that people living in collectivist cultures like Japan and the Four Asian Tigers have the greatest feelings of belonging and hence levels of happiness .

If Aristotle said that the end goal of humanity is to achieve happiness, why would individualist societies be favored? For every one person who achieves happiness through the self, you have dozens more who are unhappy because they lack a sense of belonging. Likewise in collectivist countries, only asocial people who are unwilling to integrate into society are unhappy while the masses do.

Only arrogant, selfish people would fail to function in collectivist societies where the greater good of the people is put ahead of wants of the self. Individualist societies value people obtaining happiness at the expense other people. You yourself said that arrogance is the root of all evil, so explain yourself.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0

Originally posted by HentaiLover
Kurk says that he'd certainly guarantee that he's in better shape than 90% of you. 10 years of Okinawan Karate training is hard to lose.

1. Thanks for admitting you are a sock.

2. Figures Kurk would study ineffective martial arts.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
1. Thanks for admitting you are a sock.

2. Figures Kurk would study ineffective martial arts.

No martial arts form will win a fight for you, but it trains you to strike fast and be effective.

Originally posted by HentaiLover
This is Carter's account and it's shared with many socks (e.g JKBart, Hestler) not just Kurk.

No martial arts form will win a fight for you, but it trains you to strike fast and be effective.

Yes, but Okinwan karate is relatively ineffective compared to the martial arts of today(BJJ, Muay Thai, Sambo, etc.)

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Yes, but Okinwan karate is relatively ineffective compared to the martial arts of today(BJJ, Muay Thai, Sambo, etc.)

Originally posted by HentaiLover
Yep. That's why it's always good to stay practical and mix it up. Don't be a Shi-Cho user when you can be a practitioner of Niman.

Genius commentary Kurk.

Originally posted by HentaiLover
First off, who are you to say that Western individualist societies are superior to all others?

It's commonly accepted that people living in collectivist cultures like Japan and the Four Asian Tigers have the greatest feelings of belonging and hence levels of happiness .

If Aristotle said that the end goal of humanity is to achieve happiness, why would individualist societies be favored? For every one person who achieves happiness through the self, you have dozens more who are unhappy because they lack a sense of belonging. Likewise in collectivist countries, only asocial people who are unwilling to integrate into society are unhappy while the masses do.

Only arrogant, selfish people would fail to function in collectivist societies where the greater good of the people is put ahead of wants of the self. Individualist societies value people obtaining happiness at the expense other people. You yourself said that arrogance is the root of all evil, so explain yourself.

A drunk man is happier than one who is sober, so by your reasoning, it is preferable to be drunk.

Originally posted by BackFire
The Alt Right is openly racist. If the word "ethnostate" is used in any kind of positive connotation to what they say they believe, then they likely hold the most reprehensible political views one could possibly hold, and should be ignored/rejected/mocked/insulted as much as possible. And if such views ever gained prominence and began infiltrating the actual government, then I believe violence is an acceptable response.

Ethnostate proponents are only trying to preserve White culture you horrible white-hating-racist monster.