Version 2.1, last updated 9/4/17
For suggestions or submissions, please contact the author.
In the most literal and broad sense, the alt-right is an alternative to the existing conservative right, which we view to be weak, ineffectual, and debased by progressive and egalitarian principles.
More specifically, "alt-right" refers to those who believe in advancing the fundamental human rights of self-advocacy, self-determination, and self-preservation to all European ("white") peoples and nations. We extend these same fundamental human rights to all other races and nations as well, though the alt-right was established by Westerners for Western interests.
The alt-right (while primarily an American phenomenon with American origins) has significant overlap with the European Identitarian movement, and has many European adherents and supporters.
We believe in the Self-Determination, Self-Advocacy, and Self-Preservation of European peoples and nations. We extend those same rights to all other peoples and nations as well.
We believe in Love of our Own, not Hatred for Others.
We believe in embracing National and Ethnic Identity, symbolism, and ideals... while also supporting a united and cooperative European Identity.
We believe in Ethnic and Cultural Diversity - But true diversity can only be maintained internationally through the continued separation of distinct peoples and cultures. A globalized, integrated world with mass migration will tend to destroy true diversity and blend away our unique identities into a bland mono-racial, mono-cultural world.
We believe that Multiculturalism is a Weakness - Multiculturalism within a nations borders destroys social cohesion, decreases social involvement, and increases crime and antisocial behavior generally. An ethnically, culturally, and linguistically homogeneous nation will tend to yield the best outcomes.
We believe that Demography is Destiny - In order to preserve a nation or culture you must preserve the type of Man that created it. The notion that a State could replace one ethnic group with another and achieve identical outcomes strikes us as absurd. The more the US looks like Brazil, the more the US will function like Brazil.
We believe in Ethnonationalism - A Nation is not defined by land, nor by government, nor by ideas. A Nation is a People, united by a shared heritage, language, and ethnic ancestry. Nations are merely extensions of the fundamental, evolved human impulse toward tribalism based on kinship. We believe that in-group/out-group preference is both natural and desirable. Individualist philosophies and policies, while viable within the tribe, are suicidal when applied to humanity universally.
We believe in being Forward-looking - We are not bound to any specific period nor ideas of the past.
We believe in Pragmatism, not Idealism - We reject principled defeat and have no interest in being martyrs for impossible ideals. We will do and say whatever it takes to win and to advance the interests of our people.
We believe in Race Realism - Race is a legitimate biological category, races have differences with real-world implications, and race is the foundation for identity.
We believe in Gender Realism - We understand that gender and sex do not vary independently, and that the genders have significant biological and psychological differences. We favor traditional gender roles and the family unit as the basis for society.
We believe in Social and Political Hierarchy - What Nature has made unequal, no man or institution can make equal. The fundamental inequality of Man is both self-evident and scientifically verifiable. We generally oppose egalitarian philosophies or policies.
The demographic trends point toward whites becoming displaced minorities in the nations their ancestors built. Whites have declined from around 90% of the United States population in the 1960's to 60% of the population today. That's a 30% relative decline in just 50 years, which is incredibly fast in historical and demographic terms. This change has largely been precipitated by the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which massively shifted immigration toward non-whites. And these trends are only projected to continue, with whites dropping below 50% and becoming a minority in the next couple decades. In fact, white children are already a minority. A single individual could live to see the United States decline from a 90% white nation to a minority white nation in their lifetime.
The situation in Europe is likewise bleak. Indigeneous Europeans have birthrates below the replacement rate (2.1 children per woman), which means they are quite literally dying off. At the same time, Europe is importing millions of migrants with high birthrates who will displace and eventually take over European nations. These foreign peoples are establishing unassimilated ghettos, bringing in foreign culture, foreign language, and foreign religion which will permanently change the landscape of Europe over the next few decades. Ethnic Britons are already a minority in London; ethnic Germans are already a minority in Frankfurt. The city of Paris is following similar trends. The peoples, cultures, and nations of Europe which have existed for thousands of years are being destroyed before our very eyes.
This is why self-preservation is necessary.
In order to preserve our lands and our people, we must be able to advocate on behalf of white interests. But in the modern age, whites advocating on their own behalf is considered "racist." We can be vilified, ostracized, fired from our jobs, or even disowned by friends and family, simply for engaging in the same ethnic advocacy which is openly celebrated by all other groups. The blatant anti-white propaganda and conditioning has led to whites having a suicidal disregard for their own peoples and nations, and is leading to their gradual displacement and dispossession. In the modern world, whites are uniquely denied the right to an identity, to a nation, and to open political interests.
This is why self-advocacy is necessary.
Some variation of "why do you care" is perhaps the most common question I get asked. It says a lot about the person asking it, and how they fundamentally differ from those of us in the alt-right. This question more than any other reveals what the alt-right has to offer the modern youth.
We care because other people matter, because our past matters, because our future matters. We care because caring grants life meaning and purpose.
A person who asks "why do you care about your race" is a person that feels no emotional connection whatsoever to their people and its history. It is a person who lacks an identity that extends beyond simple hobbies and interests. It is a person who has fully embraced the individualism which modern society has forced onto whites in order to deny them a collective identity. These individualists are rootless, disconnected, deracinated... they live for themselves, for the satisfaction of their own desires and whims, and can't imagine placing value or stock in the legacy of their ancestors. In short, they have been conditioned by our consumerist society to be selfish egotists and to reject responsibility for anything beyond the self.
The primary cause of nihilism and depression today is alienation, not only from the divine, but from a collective sense of identity. Alienation from your own natural, historical identity, from your Tribe. It is this alienation, nihilism, lack of identity and collective purpose which is responsible for our collectively suicidal behavior, such as the decline of white births below the replacement rate. We have lost our way and lost interest in survival itself because we have wiped away all the traditional immortality ideologies which historically absorbed man's hunger for self-perpetuation and heroism.
In truth, the individual is a pathetic and worthless ideal to live for, a creature with no future. What we offer is identification with the collective, which is the means by which we transcend the bounds of the ego and the limits of individual mortality.
This nihilistic egotism is an attitude fairly distinct to modern whites, who have been psychologically abused for decades with collective shame and guilt. African-Americans still use terms like "brother" and "sister" to describe one another, which illustrates the natural sense of community and attachment they instinctively feel for one another. There can be no doubt blacks still have a sense of collective identity, which is manifested in movements such as Black Lives Matter.
Our white ancestors never asked themselves "why they care" about their people or tribe. It was something that came naturally to them, as it came naturally to all peoples throughout human history. Only those who have undergone extensive social conditioning and progressive education to reject their identity think in such a disconnected, individualist manner. We have been taught to reject our past, to be ashamed of our history, to hate our ancestors. Those ancestors fought, worked, struggled, and even died to provide their posterity (YOU) with a better life and a better future. They built the wealthy, prosperous, and safe Western Civilization which the rest of the world envies and seeks to emigrate to. It is your responsibility and your honor to carry that torch forward, to ensure it doesn't whither and die on your watch, but gets passed down to the next generation.
In this duty, responsibility, and honor, we find purpose, fulfillment, and meaning.
The alt-right has no clearly defined leadership, though we have many figureheads who have been very influential to the movement. These include:
Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute and AltRight.com, Daniel Friberg of Arktos and AltRight.com, Jared Taylor of the New Century Foundation and American Renaissance, Kevin MacDonald of The Occidental Observer, Eli Mosley of Identity Evropa, Mike Enoch and SeventhSon of TheRightStuff, Andrew Anglin of the DailyStormer (onion link, requires Tor), Henrik Palmgren and Lana Lokteff of RedIceTV, Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents Publishing, Peter Brimelow of VDare, Millennial Woes on YouTube, and so on.
This is certainly not an exhaustive list, and many names will necessarily be left out.
The alt-right tends to be neutral economically and tolerates a wide-range of economic opinions, with the exception of Marxism.
There is a sense in which the alt-right feels that both capitalism and communism suffer from the same fundamental flaw: that it treats people as nothing more than deracinated economic units. What international capitalism has wrought is a dissolution of unique identities and cohesive, encapsulated communities into a globalist monocultural market based purely on consumerism and materialism. While it has been highly effective at producing lots of "stuff" for us, it has come at the cost of what we consider to be higher human values. We would certainly be willing to sacrifice some wealth and economic efficiency in order to end mass immigration, mass outsourcing, and the mass displacement of local family businesses.
In other words, we typically oppose both free market capitalism and communism in favor of what could be termed economic nationalism, the notion that economic policy should be pragmatically tailored to serve the interests and basic values of the people and the nation.
The alt-lite are those on the Right who generally agree with our tenets, but who fall short of advocating ethnonationalism. They are united by their opposition to progressivism, and often support either civic nationalism or individualist libertarianism. Many were supportive of the Trump campaign and found their rise during that time.
Prominent figures of the alt-lite include Lauren Southern (who sometimes skirts the alt-right), Gavin McInnes, Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, Steven Crowder, as well as a plethora of YouTube personalities.
Classical Marxism was largely focused on economics, with the primary Marxist dichotomy defined as a class struggle between the economic proletariat and bourgeoisie. Over time, Marxist theorists began to recognize that a purely economic basis for social action was insufficient, in part due to the persisting public view even among the proletariat that capitalism was a successful and desirable system.
In response, the Marxist class struggle was generalized out of economics and into a broader dichotomy between "oppressor" and "oppressed." This allowed Marxist theory and social action to be applied to all aspects of social and cultural life, not simply economic. For example, the differences in traditional gender roles could be described not as harmonious cooperation between the sexes, but as a patriarchal imposition from the oppressive male to the oppressed female, forming the basis for modern Feminism.
Thus, "Cultural Marxism" is an umbrella term used to describe all those schools of thought which critique Western civilization and Western values through an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy. Some trace the formation of Cultural Marxism to the Frankfurt School and the development of Critical Theory. Academic fields such as gender studies, ethnic studies, and postmodernism, political movements such as third-wave feminism and black lives matter, as well as concepts such as "privilege" and "non-binary gender," can all be considered examples of Cultural Marxism.
While it is true that Leftists do not call themselves Cultural Marxists, that does not suggest the label is somehow invalid, or that it is a "conspiracy theory." The Left embraces a term which means precisely the same thing: Intersectionality.
We value true genetic and cultural diversity, which can only be preserved internationally through the continued separation of distinct people. What is called "diversity" today is really integration, which destroys all forms of actual diversity and unique identity.
The problem with the modern use of "diversity" is that it has largely come to mean "fewer white people" and is often used as a justification for anti-white policies. Mass immigration and integration have expanded to the point that whites are being displaced and losing sovereignty over their own homelands, becoming disenfranchised minorities in the nations and cities our ancestors built. London is no longer a majority British city, for instance, and is governed by a Muslim mayor, something that would no doubt cause past Britons who had a sense for heritage to roll in their graves.
When an immigrant population is a tiny percentage of an area, they are far more likely to assimilate, to conform to the local culture, language, and laws. But when an immigrant population grows large enough, they cease assimilating. They form a distinct ethnic enclave, essentially supplanting a foreign people and culture within another, splitting the nation in two. This is a recipe for disaster. Division, animosity, even violence are predictable outcomes. When a nation is ethnically, culturally, and linguistically homogeneous, there is greater social cohesion. People feel a stronger connection to other members of the group, and this is manifested in their behavior. There is a greater willingness to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of the group, and less inclination to harm or steal from the members of your own tribe. Homogeneity simply creates a more effective, cooperative, well-functioning society.
For one thing, civic nationalism represents a failure to understand race realism, as it suggests that race is only skin deep. The notion you could fundamentally change the demographic make-up of a nation without changing the outcomes of the nation is absurd. Demography is destiny. But there is a deeper flaw in this ideology...
Civic nationalism ignores what a Nation truly is, and boils it down to empty abstractions. It does not view people as they are and ought to be, with a deep sense of identity and heritage, but as a meaningless abstraction called "Man," a featureless blob, a deracinated consumer, an economic or political cog in a machine. A Nation is not an idea, but a People, and thus civic nationalism ignores precisely what makes a nation valuable and worth preserving in the first place.
The source of modern day nihilism is not just the loss of God and religion, but the loss of a collective sense of identity and heritage, of which religion is just one part. In America we often claim that it doesn't matter who you are so long as you believe in our shared values. Not only does this fail in practice, but it turns the reality of the world on its head, because our shared values are a product of who we are as a people. Modern American ideals destroy our collective identity, and are rendering Europeans a minority in the wealthy, safe, and prosperous nation their ancestors built.
Consider a simple analogy... You are an individual cell, but exist within a larger organism. And this is an apt analogy, as you are not entirely independent and self-sufficient, you rely on the existence and cooperation of others within a social structure to survive and live a quality life. So long as you foster the growth, the survival, the propagation of the organism of which you are a part, you are a healthy cell. But when you forget your origin, forget your role in the greater whole, when you cease to identify as a part of a greater whole and identify as a disconnected individual, you become a cancerous cell that is harmful to the organism. Such a cell does not recognize that when the organism suffers or dies, all cells suffer and die with it.
We are not claiming nor stealing the accomplishments of others. We are taking pride in a gift that was handed down to us, an inheritance passed to us from our ancestors. They fought, worked, struggled, and often died in order to provide their posterity with a better future and a better life.
No man is an island, and the life you live is not purely your own. You did not build the structures you inhabit. You did not invent the technology that surrounds you. You did not establish the wealthy, safe, clean, prosperous nations and institutions you live in today.
You inherited your life, you are enjoying a world that was passed down to you from your ancestors. And rather than taking pride in their achievements and striving to pass down your own in turn, do you intend to halt the thousands of years of progress and simply exploit what they gave you like a parasite?
We hope not. We hope you will once again reclaim your heritage, and your identity, to become who you are.
The term "cuck" from an alt-right perspective began as a very simple analogy: Allowing foreigners to invade, exploit, or attack your nation or people is compared with cuckoldry (derived from the cuckoo bird, which supplants its eggs in other species nests). In other words, a cuck is a man who allows his wife (nation) to sleep with another man (foreign people), and who invests time and resources into raising a child that is not his own. The term can be used more generally either as a noun to describe a man who has emasculated himself, or as a verb for weak and submissive behavior. "Cuckservative" in particular refers to a conservative who is terrified of offending liberal orthodoxy, terrified of being called a racist, to the point they are willing to throw their nation, people, or political allies under the bus. They are the weak, ineffectual, dying brand of conservatism which we hope to replace.
The video World War 3: The Cuckoo Invasion of Europe does an excellent job of illustrating the "cuck" metaphor and its associated emotional connotations.
The term is both useful and necessary for achieving our political ends. The primary political concern of the vast majority of people is avoiding negative opinions or labels, preserving a positive reputation, and virtue-signalling to others to fit in. They are terrified of the term "racist" in particular, to the point they are willing to "cuck," to sell out their own people and nation for social capital and positive reputation. Therefore, since the majority of the population only cares about feelings, reputation, labels, and avoiding being viewed negatively by others, we must impose harsher labels and insults on them than the Left does. We must attack their feelings and reputation, bully them into submission, just as the Left has accomplished through terms like "racist." This is why the term "cuck" is absolutely necessary for the Right, and why it is used as a tool to shame or criticize others.
No. The alt-right supports the self-advocacy, self-determination, and self-preservation of all races and ethnicities. We simply believe whites should not be excluded from engaging in those fundamental rights.
We do not advocate any race ruling over another, nor do we believe in an absolute racial hierarchy where one race can be said to be "superior" to another. We acknowledge there are specific traits (like IQ, or the 100 meter dash) where one race can be superior to another on average, but a general superiority of a race is a subjective and unmeasurable metric by which to categorize populations.
In order to answer the question honestly, you must first have a clear definition for the term. By racism, do you mean racialism (the belief that races exist and are different)? Do you mean ethnocentrism (preferring your own kind)? Do you mean irrational hatred for other races? The term has become vague to the point of being near meaningless except as an epithet.
We do believe that race is a valid biological category and that races are different. We do believe that preferring ones own race and culture is not only natural and morally acceptable, but also that people have a duty to defend and preserve their own kind. So we believe in both racialism and ethnocentrism.
A small number do embrace the label "racist," as a means to take power away from the word and to force the Left to justify their premises. But since the most common implicit definition for racism is hatred for other races, and since the term is almost universally applied as a pejorative insult, very few will embrace the term to describe their own philosophy.
For further reading, see the article Why Racism Will Not (And Should Not) Die.
These are two separate questions, and deserve two separate answers. But first, it is important to note that most of the alt-right will bristle at this question, and rightly so. We have come to recognize it as most often an attempt by others to deconstruct and destroy white identity, and thus justify the displacement or destruction of our people. We will quickly point out that this sort of questioning of identity, this deconstruction of identity, is rarely if ever posed to other groups or races. You will never hear someone question "what is black? Who is black enough for you?" The notion of challenging or negating black identity would be considered very improper, and the same attitude ought to be taken toward whites.
Now to address the first question... "White" is, generally speaking, a euphemism for European, which is to say, a descendant of peoples that evolved on the European continent. To take a wider and more scientific approach, whites are descendants of Proto-Indo-Europeans, who originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Neolithic period and migrated throughout Eurasia. The PIE were among the first to domesticate horses and other cattle, to develop agriculture, and to develop the wheel. Nearly all European languages, as well as near-Eastern languages such as Sanskrit, are derived from the PIE language which spread through migration. The word "arya" in Sanskrit means "noble," and is the root for the term Aryan, though the Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian people are merely a subset of the larger Indo-European group.
The question "who is white?" will get a wide-range of opinions, not only within the alt-right but among people generally. The common consensus among the alt-right are to avoid specific, technical responses, and to take a more inclusive rather than exclusive definition in order to retain a solid base for the movement. If you look white and identify as white, that is sufficient for the majority of the alt-right.
The so-called "JQ" is used to refer to an awareness that Jews in the West are over-represented not only in government, media, and finance, but also over-represented in pushing policies or ideas which, from our perspective, have undermined Western peoples and civilization. These include Classical/Cultural Marxism, Communist activism or revolutions, Feminism, Freudian psychology, Boasian anthropology, the push for mass immigration/refugees, and so on.
This has perhaps best been described and explained by Dr. Kevin MacDonald in his Culture of Critique trilogy as the result of naturally conflicting ethnic interests.
There are a wide range of opinions on this matter in the alt-right, with some considering it largely insignificant and others considering it extremely significant. The documentary Defemation (produced by a Jew) does an excellent job illustrating some of the issues associated with Jewish ethnocentrism/Israeli nationalism and the lobbies against "anti-semitism" by groups like the Anti-Defemation League (ADL).
Let me pose a counter-question. 96% of African-Americans voted for Barack Obama. Does that mean there was a "black conspiracy" to get Obama elected? Of course not, they were simply voting in what they felt to be their ethnic interests.
In the same way, Jews often have ethnic interests which conflict with the interests of European peoples. Calling this a "conspiracy" is just a way to discredit what is really common sense: that ethnic groups have competing and often contradictory interests.
One of the primary Jewish interests is to permanently weaken or eliminate the threat of "antisemitism," and one means of accomplishing this goal is to reduce the risk of European nationalism by rendering European nations more racially mixed/heterogeneous through immigration and miscegenation. The Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas also made significant strides in the West toward deconstructing the ideas of race or ethnocentrism entirely, thus undermining white collective identity. This ever-increasing process, often referred to by buzzwords such as "diversity" or "multiculturalism," can be described from one perspective as merely fighting against racism, but from our perspective represents the threat of racial destruction, sometimes referred to as "white genocide" or "white displacement."
Identity politics (exclusively for minority groups) has become the dominant political strategy of the Left. The strategy thus far for the excluded whites has been to reject identity politics entirely, arguing in favor of either individualism on the libertarian side or civic nationalism on the conservative side. These whites have foolishly attempted to convince other ethnic groups to reject identity politics and embrace individualism or civic nationalism as well, a strategy that was doomed to fail, and for obvious reasons.
The real reason the average white person rejects identity politics is simply because they've been conditioned by society to feel a social stigma against white identity itself. The decades long process of cultural and social conditioning has instilled in whites a collective sense of guilt over historical injustices and a mortal fear over the charge of racism. This collective stigmatization has resulted in whites having a near suicidal disregard and indifference toward their own people at a time when racial identity is becoming more prominent and powerful in minority ethnic groups, something which the Left would no doubt characterize as "internalized oppression" were it found in any other group. Modern day non-whites have not experienced the same stigmatization of their identity, and thus have no issue embracing their own natural collective ethnic impulses. Whites have been denied what is being openly celebrated in all other groups.
The net result of rejecting identity politics is that white identity, and only white identity, has no voice in politics. This is the primary cause for the gradual displacement of Europeans in their own countries. Therefore, the problem isn't identity politics itself, but the simple fact that whites have been excluded from participating. Every time you argue that a nation has the right to protect its borders or preserve its demographics, you are arguing in favor of identity politics, and there is nothing wrong with that.
The Leftist will naturally argue that whites need no identity politics to compete with minority interests because whites were and are the dominant ethnic and political force in the West. There are a number of problems with this argument, the most glaring being the fact that whites, who comprise a mere 60% of the current US population (and declining), are far less politically homogeneous than any other ethnic group, due in large part to the social conditioning mentioned above. Only 56% of whites voted for Donald Trump, a small majority contrasted with the 96% of blacks who voted for Barack Obama. In addition, minorities are politically homogeneous even across ethnic boundaries, such that blacks, hispanics, et al. comprise a generalized "non-white" coalition in the Democrat party; a coalition which ironically includes a large subset of white voters. Thus, the number of whites who are either consciously or unconsciously voting in white interests is a paltry minority of the nation, rendering the Leftist argument of a "dominant ethnic group" laughable at best.
The more important argument against this Leftist position is that the dominance of an ethnic group in society ought not render that group politically nor morally impotent. On the contrary, to be the historical majority elevates the importance of that majority's interests in the society and culture above all others. The founding people of the nation ought to have the primary say in the future and direction of the nation, and to argue otherwise is to favor subversion and ethno-cultural destruction over self-determination and traditional continuity.
I'm sure you will come back and tell us about the virtues of being a moderate centrist when the average American city both looks and functions like Brazil... But let's tackle this question in depth.
What the "moderate" fails to understand, through lack of historical perspective, are two fundamental facts: 1) that the center is always defined relative to the existing political spectrum, and 2) that the existing political spectrum is almost perpetually shifting to the Left.
It is not a static position nor a persistent ideology. What is called "moderate" today would have been called "progressive" yesterday, and what you call "extreme" today would have been considered "moderate" yesterday. You can't be neutral on a moving train.
Let's take an example. During the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, the bills supporters had to convince the public that the new law would not change the demographics of the United States (something which ultimately turned out to be false). The reason they had to convince people of this was because the "moderate" political desire of the public at that time was the preservation of the largely European demographics of the country. Wanting to preserve a mostly white nation used to be the mainstream, common sense position, while today it is "extreme" and "racist."
What a "moderate" really means is not a person who is "sensible and rational," but a person who meekly conforms to the popular opinions of his day.