Whether “right wing” or “alt right” or “conservative” or even such right-associated terms as “libertarian,” all the label does is create a ready made excuse to:
a) Exclude Whites from the ingroup.
b) Include non-Whites in the ingroup.
c) Argue over whether an otherwise pro-White person or policy is truly “right wing” or “alt-right” or “conservative” or “libertarian.”
Fortunately, this dynamic helps to clarify things quickly. A Jew like Ben Shapiro can be “conservative” and “anti-left” and “anti-progressive” – he can even be a nationalist (which he is, he’s an Israeli nationalist, a Zionist.)
But Ben Shapiro will never be “White” and he’ll never be a “White Nationalist.” A figure like Ben Shapiro will always, 100% of the time, support Jewish nationalism while attacking White nationalism – any nationalism for Whites. Shapiro will attack immigration restriction in Ireland, Poland, Canada, Italy, and Hungary, but will always support immigration restriction in Israel.
This double standard makes it easy to see exactly what Ben Shapiro is. In theory, there could be an Ashkenazi White Nationalist, there could even be a Zionist Jew that supports White Nationalism, but what’s the point of chasing unicorns?
There are many Blacks and Asians and Arabs that are conservative, right wing, and even nationalist, but they will never be citizens – one of the in-group – in a White nation.
So all being a “conservative” or “right winger” does is to offer up ready made excuses for not being pro-White. To put “conservative principles” or “right wing ideology” above the survival of your race, your people, your family is autism in the extreme, an anti-adaptive trait.
You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms, and you can’t hug a White child with conservative ideology. Ideologies are merely words, a construct of language. People are living beings, flesh and blood. Why should words and ideals take precedence over your own flesh and blood, your own family, your own children?
Commenter Curmudgeon at TOO makes a related point:
On another note, I have long thought the term Alt-Right was a recipe for disaster. The old Left/Right paradigm is long dead, and the sooner nationalists own that label, the better. The majority of people know someone who has a family member or friend that is struggling with economic issues. It is much easier to answer the nonsensical globalist gibberish directly, by answering every statement in terms of ‘why do you care more about the well-being of someone living in a foreign country, whom you have never met, than the well-being of family, friends and neighbours’, and ‘How does immigration make your unemployed neighbour’s life better?’ The truth is, the globalists have no logical answers to these hard questions. Exposing them to folly of their own shallow answers will not turn all of them, I personally have made several unsure of the globalist rant, and turned a few.
“Alt Right” simply became a way to add “right wing” baggage into a promising pro-White movement and led to its destruction. “Neo-reaction” seems to have been created precisely to keep Whites arguing over an ideology and never make racial distinctions – especially, to prevent any mention of the anti-Whiteness of Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, NRx goes to hysterical extremes to include anti-White Ashkenazi Jews as “neo-reactionaries” while anathematizing pro-Whites who object to anti-White Jews or won’t subscribe to various hypothetical intellectual obsessions.
It’s putting the cart before the horse. Without Whites, there aren’t going to be any conservative Whites, nor libertarian Whites. So like a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it, no Whites are going to hear you signalling how principled you are about private property rights and the non-aggression principle.
Do you think any non-Whites will care what some conservative, “right wing” libertarian ideologue White thinks about anything?
I’m not White supremacist enough to think they would, or should.