- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Response to “Why the Alt Right Movement Will Fail”

[1]3,839 words

The following is a response to a pleb-tier YouTube video entitled “Why The [sic] ‘Alt Right’ Movement Will Fail [2]” which has over 60,000 views as of me writing this. [It now has over 113k views. — Ed.] In it, a snarky young nonwhite man [3] attempts to give several reasons why the Alt Right has no future. It may be best not to dignify his amateurish video with a response, but responding allows me to address several claims which need to be addressed anyway. This article will hopefully help the reader when it comes to arguing in favor of the White Nationalist position. It is addressed to the video’s creator.

* * *

The first problem with your video is that you state that the US census data show that “White alone” increased numerically from 2000 to 2010. This is true, but you neglect to mention that “white alone” is not “white” as we normally think of the term. “White alone” includes so-called “white Hispanics.” Most “white Hispanics” are Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. The former average one-third [4] nonwhite ancestry and the latter, about one-half [5]. They are responsible for most of the numerical increase in the “white alone” group. They have lower average IQ [6] than non-Hispanic whites and have been shown to exhibit a different aggregate psychological type[1] [7], i.e., the sum total of their personalities differ. These differences can be traced to genetic differences, many of which can be identified individually by SNP [8]. Granted, a few individuals in this category may have upwards of 80% white ancestry and could be construed as phenotypically white, but the vast majority probably have nonwhite admixture on par with their ethnic average, that is, between one-third and one-half. Furthermore, although the non-Hispanic white total went up slightly, it is because whites are emptying out of other nations in places like Eastern Europe and not because they are reproducing above replacement level. Further, many Middle Eastern and North African immigrants list themselves as non-Hispanic whites. These people typically do not have a white phenotype psychologically or physically, and they themselves believe this. In fact, they are clamoring for a new racial category [9] in the US Census data, which may open up the door to affirmative action programs not available to them as “non-Hispanic whites.” In any case, these so-called non-Hispanic whites from the Arab world increased via a combined effort of immigration and child-bearing by several hundred thousand from 2000 to 2010, thus reducing the true increase of non-Hispanic whites by that much.

Although truly white non-Hispanic whites may have increased slightly in total number, probably in large part due to immigration from Europe, the US Census Bureau indicates they lost proportional percentage in the US from 2000 to 2010. During this period they went from 69.1% to 63.7% of the population, thus reducing their voting power. Finally, when the 2020 census data comes out, it will likely show that from 2010 to 2020 non-Hispanic whites have decreased not only relative to other groups but also numerically. This is because the white population is older on average than the nonwhite population, with proportionately many whites being baby boomers. Proportionately many more white baby boomers will die of old age from 2010 to 2020 than in the previous decade. This, along with the low white birthrate and decreasing marginal increase in lifespans will spell the beginning of the numerical decline of whites. The forecasted shrinking of the non-white population coupled with continued nonwhite immigration has led the US Census bureau to project that whites will lose their 50% majority-status by 2044 [10], which is only 27 years away.

One might claim that the presence of non-whites doesn’t necessarily reduce the number of whites, but this is not true for two reasons. The first is that the presence of proportionately more non-whites increases the likelihood of miscegenation as whites will find it increasingly difficult to find an ideal partner of their race. Of course, the result of miscegenation, is a mixed-race person and not a white person.

The second reason has to do with the impact of economic conditions on the white birth rate. Whites have been shown to marry and have more children when they earn more money [11] as was the case when gas drillers who took advantage of the shale oil boom. Meanwhile, non-whites of the Hispanic and black variety are net tax takers, meaning they receive more in services than they pay out. Taxing whites and giving their money to non-white tax takers results not only in a direct subtraction of wealth from whites but a deadweight loss [12] in economic activity caused by the taxes creating economic imbalances and upsetting the efficiency of the market. This ultimately results in fewer good jobs, which incentivizes fewer white births, and ultimately results in fewer white people.

One could argue that Asians aren’t net tax-takers, and indeed they aren’t, but they do not make as many scientific innovations per-capita as Europeans, likely due to having less creativity, so having more of them occupy science positions creates a reduction in innovation, meaning fewer positive externalities from the creative white mind spilling into white and nonwhite nations alike. Whites don’t want to become scientists in Asian nations to offset Asians taking science occupations in white nations, and it is doubtful Asian nations would even let a sizable number of whites do this, so each time an Asian takes a post in the US that would have gone to a white person, it results in one fewer good-paying job for a white person. In general, Asians occupy high paying jobs that otherwise would have gone to whites, with Asians acting as an overclass and Hispanics as an underclass. The contribution of these two groups is contributing to the shrinking of the middle class, which is necessary for any thriving nation.

One reason Asians tend to make it to high paying careers above whites is that they suffer less from attention deficit disorder [13], making them better able to study on average than whites. The reason they have less ADHD, to the best of my understanding, is that it is associated with recent nomadic ancestry [14], and Asian groups, particularly East Asians, tend to have less of this than whites, many of whom have significant levels of Yamnaya ancestry, a pastoralist group thought to have originated the Indo-European language. Asians fail to make as many achievements in abstract thinking once in their positions, which is evidenced by fewer Nobel Prizes [15] in science and scientific papers [16] published per capita. Less scientific advancement due to their nudging out of whites harms the economy in the long run.

As stated earlier, the presence of non-whites in general increases the likelihood of miscegenation and destruction of the white phenotype. Past incidences of miscegenation are the reason most Latin Americans have between 60% and 20% nonwhite ancestry along with relatively lower IQ, lower quality of life, and lower levels of trust in their societies than Europeans. However, this isn’t to say relatively high European-ancestry groups such as Chileans, Uruguayans [17], Argentinians, and Costa Ricans don’t have it better than the blacker and more Amerindian nations around them.

Despite Latinization being the future of any diverse population, many whites say they support diversity. However, according to their population flows, they seem to prefer a pooling of around 85% whites together with 15% high IQ non-whites to provide both a socially optimal degree racial similarity along with an interesting touch of cosmopolitanism. One might claim this should be an ideal for a nation, but this arrangement is a slippery slope because non-whites will demand more immigration just as they have in all western lands. This is because they want to live in high income white societies where they can take advantage of a high trust environment until the resulting nonwhite and admixed majority destroys it. Whites will capitulate to their demands for more immigration since they like to be thought of as nice people due to having a greater degree of the Big Five Factor of Agreeableness[2] [18] in their population, so it is necessary for whites to have the discipline to advocate white ethnostates as the only alternative to nonwhite and racially mixed ones, lest they repeat the errors of their forefathers.

You decry the effect mass deportations of non-whites would have on their social arrangements. Indeed, the ordeal would be difficult. Although many non-whites would probably accept eminent domain payments and leave, especially if the alternative were being financially prevented from engaging with the white majority, many would refuse to leave no matter what. Since non-whites have lower Agreeableness on average, we shouldn’t expect all of them to comply with a peaceful deportation strategy. This means at least some violence will result, and this is regrettable. However, when nonwhite countries colonized by whites led resistance movements, they didn’t worry about inconveniences to the careers and lives of whites who they deposed from power and induced to leave.

Granted, non-whites aren’t colonialists in the true sense of the term, that is, in populating an area, dominating the locals, and answering to their home nations, but they have a sort of rule over whites in the form of political correctness, being net tax takers, and occupying upper level occupations which would be better staffed by more creative whites. Even if they don’t have the sort of control of a colonial power, they prevent whites from having optimal social and economic conditions. Whites are thus acting in self-defense so far as they expel non-whites.

If someone is stealing something from you, and you tell him to stop, thus causing him to become violent, nobody would fault you for provoking a violent altercation. Supposing the person didn’t know stealing from you was wrong, most would still say you had a right to tell the person to stop stealing from you even if it provoked him to be violent. Similarly, even if non-whites don’t understand the harm they are doing to the white race, whites are justified in constructing a policy to end it, even if it makes a few non-whites become violent.

You claim non-whites expelled from white nations would have nowhere to go. This may be true because nonwhite nations seem to be the least inclined to take refugees, even if they have a similar racial type as in the case of Saudis refusing to help Syrian so-called refugees. Then again, the Saudis didn’t have a problem of (((western media))) misleading them about the nature of the so-called refugees. Even still, the Mexican government prefers to let their mestizo exponents remain in the US and essentially doesn’t want them back.

If non-whites don’t want to help their own, then whites are not obligated to pick up the slack. The problem of non-whites lacking empathy will either need to be addressed when whites have ceased to exist or when whites refuse to help them anymore. In either case, non-whites will not be able to freeride off white generosity indefinitely. Non-whites should learn how to take care of their own while white survival is still possible.

Granted, we can’t rely on non-whites being decent to their racial brethren due to their lower average empathy, but the good news is that many White Nationalists don’t desire that all the present US territory become white. Many want to partition states to various ethnic groups including setting aside regions for people of all races who want to live together. The irony may be that non-whites actually have a better chance of receiving empathy from White Nationalists than their own co-racials. So long as the arrangements don’t threaten the social harmony that only a white homogeneous society can provide, White Nationalists would probably work hard to see that deported non-whites are not placed in a no-win situation.

You correctly cite that many whites themselves will never agree with deporting non-whites. This is true. Such whites should be permitted to leave with the deported non-whites, which will solve the problem.

As stated earlier, mass deportations may result in violence, but because at present blacks kill more whites than natural disasters[3] [19] due to having lower IQ, higher rates of psychosis, higher testosterone, and more aggression, all of which being due to genetic causes, deportations will eventually result in more peace for whites, other things being equal. This will mean greater peace among whites than the present, with the cost being a temporary flare up of conflict. Furthermore, because diversity reduces social capital [20], social capital will increase once the races separate. Greater social capital means more social interaction which will result in greater longevity [21], and the additional years lived will eventually offset and surpass the number of years cut short in the temporary conflicts related to deportation. This will hold true in the case of whites and non-whites.

Your claim — that White Nationalists will experience just as much conflict with other whites as they presently do with non-whites once the non-whites leave — implies you believe White Nationalists have an innate predisposition towards conflict which you suggest would hold true regardless of what type of society in which they live. This theory is not true because whites are genetically more similar to each other than they are with respect to non-whites, and genetic similarity theory [22] proves that conflict increases as genes become more varied, and of course genes among whites vary less than among all races. You offer whites’ history of conflict with each other in medieval times up through WWII as proof that once “people like White Nationalists” get in power they will resort to similar conflicts, but you neglect to mention that whites also had many conflicts with non-whites in the past. In fact, an Englishman was much more likely to fire a musket at a Zulu or an Iroquois than a fellow Englishman or white person of any background per encounter, and he would be much more likely to have a drink with a co-racial than a Zulu or Iroquois per encounter. The typical social interaction with fellow whites at home was less likely to result in conflict than the typical one with a nonwhite in a colonial atmosphere during the same time period. You must compare phenomena from different time periods as well as phenomena from the same time period if you wish to flesh out common factors. You must compare apples to apples if you want to be taken seriously, and you fail to do this.

Your video implies that if White Nationalists take over, we’ll see a repeat of modern warfare of the sort witnessed in WWII. However, white nations in the modern period will not make war as they did in the past because modern nuclear weapons create the stability-instability paradox which disincentivizes large-scale conflict because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction, and of course this scenario did not exist during most of the time when nations were all-white.

Finally, for the most part modern battles take place in the commercial realm and not among nation-states. We don’t live in the warrior age or the imperial age but in the merchant age, so citing examples from past ages can be anachronistic.

However, this idea that White Nationalists, if given power, will cause more conflicts should be addressed in more detail. First, most White Nationalists opposed the Iraq war and identify with a Buchananite non-intervention foreign policy. This would seem to indicate that White Nationalists would be less likely to advocate war. However, White Nationalists have also been shown to exhibit physical characteristics of having high testosterone levels (without the low black IQ, mind you) such as having a face that is wide relative to its height [23]. Curiously enough, Eastern Europeans, who are typically broad-headed or brachycephalic, tend to have wider faces than western Europeans, and a greater proportion of Eastern Europeans oppose nonwhite invasions of their nations. Perhaps it is because of higher average testosterone levels. Even if one believes having higher testosterone levels correlates with being more predisposed to conflict, one must admit that diversity is a far greater cause of conflict. Eastern European nations in the Visegrad group, which are very ethnically homogeneous, experience less conflict than multi-ethnic states like France. The former are not suffering the decrease in tourism revenue in 2015 and 2016 that France has suffered [24] after a series of nonwhite terrorist attacks which started in December of 2014. Furthermore, if cantankerous high testosterone men are the primary cause of conflict, then Hispanic and Black men would need to be excluded from white nations first because they average the highest testosterone. Testosterone is correlated with murder rates, and Africa and Latin America exhibit some of the highest homicide rates in the world. The murder rate is so bad in El Salvador that one in a thousand people can expect to be murdered in a given year. Think of it as being like one or two people from your high school being murdered each year.

Furthermore, past battles between whites can be construed as somewhat corresponding to genetic difference. Protestant northern Europeans who are more disposed to egalitarianism and have more Yamnaya admixture [25] fought Catholic southern Europeans who are disposed to more hierarchy and have more Early European Farmer ancestry. As an aside, debates as to which group is whiter are irrelevant because if one construes genetic closeness to the Western Hunter Gatherer [26] to confer whiteness then Iberians having all European ancestry, especially the Basques, are the whitest, while if one construes similarity with the Eastern Hunter Gatherer [27] to confer whiteness then Scandinavians and Russians are the whitest. These differences manifest themselves in the sense that Iberians are the furthest away genetically from East Asians while Scandinavians and Russians are the furthest from blacks. Meanwhile, central and eastern Mediterranean Europeans bear more genetic affinity to Europe’s first farmers and bearers of civilization, and if that counts most then they could be construed as the whitest. Others might say whichever group is the most genetically equidistant [28] of all these, such as perhaps the Germans, are the whitest. Regardless of who is the whitest, White Nationalists such as Greg Johnson support the right of groups having different white ancestry to remain separate socially and in different states if they so wish. Richard Spencer seems to oppose such partitions, but probably most White Nationalists agree with Johnson on the matter. Therefore, even if there is a slight rift in the white race, leniency in permitting nations to separate would solve it. This will solve the problem in Ukraine between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians as well as in Catalonia between Catalans and Spanish.

You mock attempts to bring back aspects of high culture from past European societies such as classical music by identifying pop artists such as Justin Bieber as quintessential representatives of modern white culture. However, one could also argue that high culture of the past never existed for the majority of whites due to only having an appeal to relatively high IQ upper classes. It may not exist for most whites in an ethnostate either, which is a tough black pill for many to swallow.

The only guarantee of a white ethnostate is white survival and not cultural associations from the all-white past. However, the culture may experience a slight moving away from low IQ, rhythm-based expressive Hispanic and black forms of entertainment and toward a more melodic white mean because markets around whites will no longer be able to rest the bulk of their material on non-whites and pick off outlier, low-IQ whites as easily since the groups would inhabit separate nations. Granted, if the Internet becomes even more central to the expression of music, it will render obsolete location-based commercial radio, perhaps permitting equal types of exposure to all music around the world. This is a problem because a combination of Dionysian white expressiveness and primitive black rhythms benefit low-IQ over high-IQ individuals in the mating game, because the former can better “get down” to such music due to having greater psychological and intellectual similarity with the black and Hispanic average. The only answer will be the development of musical forms that appeal to low- and middle-end of the white bell curve better than black music but which do not appeal to blacks and Hispanics. Of course, this sort of thing exists in the mosh pit scene, which is in decline, but hopefully a new, more dignifying form of white self-expression will replace it.

One thing which impressed me about your video was that you seemed to agree with the premise that a shrinking white population was a problem as you tried to argue that it wasn’t happening. Unlike you, many actually celebrate the white race’s decline, like when a university professor proclaimed “What I Want for Christmas is White Genocide [29].” By seeming to agree that the white race’s decline would be a problem, you are in some small way pro-white. However, the rest of your video is poorly conceived. You play games with time periods by shifting to whichever period makes whites look bad, i.e., bad wars of the past and bad music of the present. You are thus cherry-picking and comparing apples to oranges. The suggestion that an all-white society founded by White Nationalists necessitates a level of conflict similar to pre-modern Europe makes for a comically fantastical doomsday scenario. (The inhabitants of the all-white Orania community [30] in Africa aren’t exactly killing each other off.) The same level of moronic inaccuracy occurs when you omit that “white alone” includes people who actually aren’t white. Your appeal to an alleged sacrosanctness of non-whites being able to live wherever they want is a far less formidable ideal than whites remaining a living human group and having people in the future to remember them.

Regarding how likely the Alt Right is to succeed, about one in ten Americans [31] support White Nationalism. If we assume all of this tenth are white and that roughly 60% of Americans are white, then about a sixth of white Americans support White Nationalism. If a third of the population’s support is necessary for political change, as it was in the American Revolution, then the Alt Right will have to double its support to become viable. Furthermore, a good number of whites will have to become brave enough to express their views publicly such that if (((agitators))) want to get them fired, it will mean an economic collapse. We are not at this point yet and won’t be for some time.

You are correct that White Nationalism is far off in a practical sense and even perhaps against the odds, but great things require beating odds. Overcoming unique evolutionary obstacles is what pushed the white race to become who they are, and in order to stay who they are, they will have to continue to beat the odds.

Consider it a challenge accepted.


[1] [32] I can’t cite the source for reasons I cannot divulge, but an Internet search for “MBTI and race” should bring it up.

[2] [33] Whites score higher as Feelers on the MBTI, which is strongly correlated with the Big Five Factor Agreeableness.

[3] [34] Since blacks kill more whites than natural disasters, if leftists were consistent, they would not only cite natural disaster death tolls as a justification for combatting climate change but black crime as justification for racial separatism.