In the aftermath of Charlottesville and Boston, members of the so-called “Alt-Lite” have redoubled their efforts to separate themselves from the actual Alt-Right. For example, Mike Cernovich has declared that Antifa are “the bad boys liberal women with schlubby boyfriends secretly desire [and their] numbers will grow due to this” while the “Alt-right are dorks in khakis begging police for protection. Human nature tells you who will win.” He has also said that Antifa “has a strong, aspirational brand” while the Alt-Right “is associated with trashy people.” He has also accused the Alt-Right of planning “car attacks” based on an image posted to Discord depicting buses trying to escape a zombie horde in 2004’s Dawn of the Dead. He willingly made the accusation despite the context being “backup plans” and “transportation” in the “worst case scenario.” Clearly, no one was planning a murder, but “Right now ANTIFA is hot.”
Steven Crowder, of cross-dressing fame, opined that “Antifa and White Nationalists are the SAME!” Of course, his argument was that 1) neither side believes in the Constitution because Antifa does not believe in the First Amendment while the Alt-Right does not believe all people were created equal, 2) both sides play identity politics, and 3) both support “big government.” He throws in a “bonus round” that both sides oppose Israel. Interestingly, he is able to detail specific examples against Antifa while his attacks on the Alt-Right are entirely wrong or misleading at best. For example, he says the Alt-Right does not support the Constitution because “racism” violates its principles, but the Founding Fathers themselves limited citizenship to whites in 1795, 1798, and 1802, which they themselves never reversed. Benjamin Franklin also openly argued in favor of “excluding all Blacks and Tawneys” from America, and Thomas Jefferson said that should a slave be freed he should be “removed beyond the reach of mixture” lest there be a risk of him “staining the blood of his master.” It should also go without saying that far-right nationalists and literal communists are not the same thing just because neither is a libertarian.
Similarly, but perhaps in the most direct and forthright manner, Gavin McInnes stated, “Proud Boys are not Alt-Right,” and he forbade his followers from attending “Alt-Right events in ANY capacity.” He also made it clear that the Proud Boys are not a political organization but are rather “a men’s club that meets about once a month to drink beer” and “openly encourage[s] Jewish and non-white members.” McInnes describes the Alt-Right as thinking “Jews are responsible for America’s problems,” that Western Civilization is inseparable from white people, as having “an obsession with Hitler, saying socialism might work, seeing gays as degenerates and eschewing Christianity.” In contrast, “the last thing [the Proud Boys] want is for [black and Jewish conservatives] to feel uncomfortable when hanging out with their drinking buddies,” and all “white nationalists/anti-Semites are banned from Proud Boys.” One could point out that Jewish groups are disproportionately involved in trying to import Muslim refugees, supporting open borders, opposing restrictions on abortion, and promoting degeneracy, but that’d be antisemitic.
The beliefs of these
two Canadian and one American heroes have been summed up by some as “New Nationalism,” or what McInnes calls “western chauvinism.” Amongst the ranks of the Alt-Right, however, it is rather known plainly as “civic nationalism,” or “magic dirt,” meaning that the culture belongs to anyone and everyone because they transform into George Washington as soon as their feet touch American soil. This is why Crowder claims that racism violates documents written by the original American white nationalists, otherwise known as the Founding Fathers, and it is why McInnes insists that defenders of Western Civilization can and should be a rainbow coalition of Europeans, Asians, Africans, Indios, and Jews. All of these peoples can all think Western Civilization is the best, and that means they should be free to be here, albeit McInnes is also for “closed borders.” The obvious problem with civic nationalism, even the “closed borders” variety, is that the principle underlying it—that all are the same and all are welcome, at least those already here—is inherently dangerous and self-defeating.
For example, look at the fact that only 8% of blacks, 28% of Hispanics, and 27% of Asians voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Overall, Clinton defeated Trump among non-whites, 74-21, which was actually quite a bit better than Mitt Romney in 2012. Trump also outperformed Romney among Muslims, but he still lost to Clinton, 74-13. When leftists who hate Western Civilization and everything that it stands for consistently win the support of 3 out of every 4 non-whites, one has to wonder why exactly these supposed “western chauvinists” want to keep falling down that rabbit hole. In July 2015, it was estimated that 50.2% of babies under the age of 1 in the United States were non-white, and this is a long-term problem as Hispanics have a birthrate 22% higher and blacks 8% higher than whites, respectively. In other words, the United States will grow darker and darker, and there will be less and less support for Republicans.
Let’s repeat that last point. As the demographics of the nation change, there will be less and less support for the things about which the “New Nationalists” claim to care. For example, in the debate of gun control versus gun rights, blacks favor the former, 73-25, as do Hispanics, 69-28. A majority of blacks and nearly half of all non-whites also support banning semiautomatic rifles. A majority of blacks also thinks they should receive cash payments as well as special education and job training programs as “reparations” while the vast majority of whites reject reparations in any form. More than two-thirds of blacks and Hispanics support “immigration reform,” and Hispanics overwhelmingly support a path to citizenship for illegals. Blacks and Hispanics also overwhelmingly support criminalizing “hate speech,” but 3-in-4 blacks supports black athletes protesting during the national anthem. Over the last century of presidential elections, Jews have disproportionately voted for the left-wing candidate in every, single election. A slight majority (51%) of Muslims in America believe they should be able to live according to Sharia law, and 1-in-4 believe “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”
On issue after issue, a majority of non-whites are on the side of progressive socialists and communists, and a future “Brown America” would not resemble the United States as founded in the slightest as free speech was curtailed, the Second Amendment vanished, illegal immigrants were made citizens, whites were robbed by the government to pay reparations to the black majority, and, yes, all of our monuments to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and even Catholic saints would be a thing of the past. Why then do the “New Nationalists” embrace multiracialism as a core tenet of their beliefs? It seems impossible that they have never encountered any of this information, so they must know that they are turning a blind eye to the “browning of America” even though they must also know that demographic changes will ensure the destruction of everything they claim to hold dear. Is the delayed destruction and erasure of white peoples, their cultures, and Western Civilization as a whole really worth avoiding some possibly uncomfortable conversations with non-white drinking buddies? Do non-white Proud Boys really support the displacement and replacement of the people who created the civilization they claim to love?
Consider: if only white people voted, Democrats would never be able to win a national race again (as seen above). Now, Gavin McInnes has said that the Alt-Right does not “see a future for non-whites in America,” but let’s assume a future for those who actually love the United States as she was meant to be, not what they think she could be under a communist regime. For the sake of argument, let’s use the 2016 election as a baseline along with US Census data for 2016. If the United States returned to the Constitution as written and intended while allowing for loyal non-whites to remain, the US citizenry could be returned to 87% non-Hispanic white and 13% non-white, or roughly the white/non-white proportions of 1950. Would that really be some grand sin against the Constitution when the Founding Fathers wanted an entirely white citizenry? Would it be so horrible to never have to worry about some communist in a pantsuit destroying the nation, whether she be named Clinton, Warren, or Merkel? If the “Alt-Lite” truly does care about preserving the United States and Western Civilization as a whole, could they not achieve those aims with the Alt-Right rather than trying to convince the communist hordes to spare them, both now and in the future United Socialist States of America which the communists so desire?
Obviously, this is merely a thought experiment, but it raises valid questions as to why the Alt-Lite seems intent on committing ethnic, racial, cultural, and civilizational suicide when at least some of that should sound awful to them based on their own claimed ideology. Can they not reconcile “preserving white people” with “preserving non-white people”? If not, why not? Most in the Alt-Right do not seem to hate anyone, but they rather want European lands and territories to stay European, Asian lands and territories to stay Asian, and so on. If that means a predominantly white America that still includes some number of loyal, conservative non-whites, should that not be acceptable to the Alt-Lite and their non-white drinking buddies? If not, why not? Because, again, the alternative is that they claim to love Western Civilization and wish to preserve it yet will ensure it does not exist for their grandchildren.