The Alt-Right is not a serious threat to anyone in America. It is growing, and if Progressives continue their ceaseless identity politics and race-baiting then perhaps decades down the line the Alt-Right will be a real force in American politics. But for now it is a tiny movement of people who are in essence SJWs who put straight white males on a pedestal for being the best, rather than decrying them as the most oppressive force in human history – which is of course the “normal” SJW view. Both suppositions are patently ridiculous not the least because ‘white’ is in and of itself a useless label. But more on that later. Because the truth is the Alt-Right has a serious problem, well many problems but I want to focus on one in particular, they seem to have failed school.
Having recently listened to several major debates involving major Alt-Right thinkers and figures I can safely say that most of them are retarded. Not literally retarded mind you but they are at least as stupid as Progressive SJWs as they demonstrate a serious lack of command of the facts and issues. Seriously the only Alt-Right figure of note I’ve been impressed by is Jared Taylor who, from what little I’ve seen of him, appears far less extreme and authoritarian than most Alt-Right figures.
It’s hard to know where to really begin because their seems to be such a dearth of knowledge and intellect in most Alt-Right figures but if I had to start somewhere I choose you – English. These guys don’t seem to understand what words and phrases mean. In his 4hr+ video on Andy Warski’s channel Richard Spencer describes the US as a corporation which it is not. This is mostly relevant because the moderator turned debater JF cites corporations as examples of individuals being able to work with “collectives” (which I’m putting in quotes because they misuse that word a lot) without the “collective” oppressing the individual. And Spencer claims that collectivism always wins out over individualism and cites how the governments of nation-state force you to abide by their rules even though you didn’t enter willingly into this agreement.
If that sounds autistic to you I’ll try to unpack all the issues with this logic. At the most basic level Spencer is classifying all groups as collectives – and these two things are not the same. For example the citizens of Syria are a group but that group has severe fractures over ethnic and religious differences and can’t be considered a collective at all. In a collective all the people in the collective work for the collective’s goals, in Syria different subgroups of citizens are fighting for different goals. The same can be said of any Western democracy, the citizens of the country constitute a group but they aren’t collectives because if they were none of them would have more than one political party, the point having multiple parties is to allow subsets of the group to form their own groups and argue for different agendas. In the same sense Spencer associates individualists with individuals, and sure individuals can be individualists but that doesn’t mean individualists can’t form a group to advocate for individualism. He also either ignores or doesn’t understand the benefits a nation-state’s citizens enjoy by virtue of being citizens (he just criticizes their obligations like following laws and paying taxes) and how citizenship is not a contractual agreement like you would make with a corporation. How anyone can actually fail to understand any of these basic ideas while claiming to represent a political movement is beyond me.
In another debate Greg Johnson almost says freedom is slavery by arguing that if other people know what’s better for you than you do then those people dictating how you should behave, with the backing of force if necessary, is actually more liberating than having the freedom to try something which might be a bad idea and failing. It should go without saying that freedom includes the freedom to fail. In fact I recall an economic paper or book excerpt arguing that the strength of America’s economic system was that it allowed people to fail and try again, and that this process ultimately worked out as a net good for the market even if individuals suffered for their failures. The idea that Greg thinks other people telling him what do to is somehow liberating is downright baffling. First of all how do these other people know what’s best for me? And even if by some miracle they knew for sure what I was thinking and what would indeed be best for me, if I lived my life by their dictates how am I free? Freedom from failure, which can’t naturally be achieved anyway but since that seems to be the argument I’ll go with that, is not freedom. This is a common problem with Progressives too. They use freedom in the sense of freedom from X rather than freedom to X.
For example a Progressive might argue they should be free from discomfort, in the same way Greg is arguing that he should be free from bad decisions. But these “freedoms” are not only impossible to achieve but put extreme limits on individuals. In the SJW case I would not be able to discuss an idea which made this person uncomfortable if their “freedom” was attained. And in Greg’s case I wouldn’t be able to drive after one beer even though I wouldn’t even fail a CA breathalyzer test after 1 beer because technically even 1 beer would improve the chances of bad things happening when I was driving. Now in Greg’s case I sure he would argue that the limits placed on people would not be so extreme, I mean he can’t know that unless he was the one setting the limits but ok let’s assume he’s right – why can’t we just have a law in a liberal system, like you can’t have Y% blood alcohol and legally drive, just do the job for us? Will some people ignore the law and end up in accidents – yes – but will they be forced not to drink and drive at gunpoint (although again, it would impossible to enforce 100% of the time) – no.
Another serious issue with the Alt-Right and the SJWs is a complete lack of understanding of history. The SJWs still want to build a Marxist utopia even that’s been tried many times in many places and it invariably leads to famines, huge increases in poverty, demonstrable reductions in personal freedom and a marked increase in state violence. The Alt-Right are no better though. Richard Spencer for instance argued that we should institute a hereditary aristocracy in his white ethno-state with his justification being that there will always be aristocrats. When challenged on this he claimed that the aristocrats of history didn’t have any legal advantages over the common folk. This is flat out wrong and I can’t believe he said it with a straight face. As someone who studied history I can tell you that both in Europe and in Japan (which I’m including to prove that ideas are not bound to a race) there were laws in place which restricted how people could dress so that wealthy merchants were not mistaken for nobles. That sounds petty but think for a second if the US government turned around tomorrow and said anyone who isn’t a billionaire can’t wear Ray-Bans or something – then you realize how remarkably controlling such a law is. Aristocrats in the past would forbid you from wearing whatever clothes you wanted and their influence and prestige would get laws made to enforce their desires.
Another problem with Spencer’s claim here is that he’s equating the aristocrats of today, like the Bushes, Clintons or Kennedys with the aristocrats of history. And sure he is right that there will always be rich families who have lots of political influence, but the comparison overall is still wrong. A Bush has no more rights than an average Joe, he just has more money and connections, and while said money and connections means he can do a hell of a lot more than an average Joe, the Bush is not born with more rights just because he’s a Bush. In the past it didn’t matter if you were a brilliant leader or a madman with a title, so long as you were a noble you had legal rights and privileges that the peasantry didn’t. To claim otherwise is to be woefully and/or willfully ignorant of history or to just be a liar to push your agenda. And considering that Spencer literally said some men are born to be kings I think I’ll go with him being a moron.
There are still a multitude of problems common to both the Alt-Right and the SJWs but I will stop here for now. Their consistent ignorance of the facts, characterizations of history and inability to use common English words without changing the definitions of the words to suit their purposes, is about all I can attribute to poor academic performance. And despite my joke about how they all failed school it’s not that these people are all actually uneducated, they’re just really stupid because they’ve chained their world view to an ideology and can’t see beyond it. That’s why they can say stupid shit like, a white minority in the US means the white race is dying – despite the fact there are more white people alive today than ever before, or that America is a white supremacist patriarchy despite the fact our previous president was black. Facts don’t seem to mean anything to these people and they can’t face challenges head-on, they have to evade, mischaracterize what was said, change the definition of words to suit their meaning or just attack the person challenging them because their ideas don’t hold water.