The Alt-Right FAQ has been restored, due to several requests. Note that some of the links below may now be broken due to the massive overhaul of my site.
Version 3.2, last updated 7/9/18
For suggestions or submissions, please contact the author.
The Alt-Right is a political movement defined by self-advocacy of Europeans (whites).
In just 100 years time the United States declined from a 90% white nation to a minority white nation. Europe is likewise predicted to become a majority Muslim continent at some point in the future.
We believe this destruction of European peoples, European cultures, and European nations must be stopped.
The alt-right 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 peoples and nations.
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 Ethnic and Cultural Diversity - But true diversity can only be maintained internationally through the continued separation of distinct peoples and cultures. What we call "diversity" is really integration, which destroys all forms of unique identity and blends away our differences into a bland mono-racial, mono-cultural world.
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 in Love of our Own, not Hatred for Others - "Racism" is traditionally defined as irrational hatred for another race. Our ideology is not focused on hatred for others, but on a desire to preserve and protect European peoples.
We believe in embracing National and Ethnic Identity, symbolism, and ideals... while also supporting a united and cooperative European Identity.
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.
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, Jared Taylor of the New Century Foundation and American Renaissance, Kevin MacDonald of The Occidental Observer, Mike Enoch and SeventhSon of TheRightStuff, Andrew Anglin of the DailyStormer, Henrik Palmgren and Lana Lokteff of RedIceTV, Millennial Woes on YouTube, and so on.
This is certainly not an exhaustive list, and many names will necessarily be left out. Be sure to check out the links page for more sites and channels.
The alt-lite are those on the Right who generally agree with our tenets, but who fall short of explicitly advocating for white interests. 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), Andy Warski, Stefan Molyneux, Gavin McInnes, Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, Steven Crowder, as well as a plethora of YouTube personalities.
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. This question more than any other reveals what has gone missing in public consciousness and why the alt-right is necessary.
We care because other people matter. We care about our past and the sacrifices our ancestors made for their people. We care about the future of our countries and the world our children and grandchildren will inherit. We care about Western civilization and know it can only be preserved by preserving the type of man that built it, the European.
We care because multiracial societies have a weakened sense of identity, culture, and belonging. We care because we know that importing third world citizens will eventually lead to third world conditions. We care because we don't want to feel like foreigners in our own countries, surrounded by foreign languages, foreign culture, and foreign people.
It is important to note our European ancestors never asked themselves "why they care" about their people or tribe. It was something that came naturally to them, as it has come 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 as to reject their racial identity. We have been taught to reject our past, to be ashamed of our history, to hate our ancestors. Our race alone is kept in fear of a natural ethnic identity through scare labels like "racist."
A primary cause for nihilism and depression today, for declining white birth rates, for the white opioid crisis, is this sense of alienation from a collective identity. A person who asks "why do you care about your race?" is a person that feels no sense of belonging, no emotional connection whatsoever to their people and its history. It is a person who lacks an identity that extends beyond simple hobbies and personal interests. It is a person who has fully embraced the individualism which has been forced on whites in order to deny them a collective identity. Whites around the world are engaging in collective suicide because we've swallowed a suicidal ideology. We have lost our way and lost interest in survival itself, because we have been told that survival is racism, and that our people don't matter.
Our ancestors fought, worked, struggled, and even died to provide their posterity 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 our responsibility and our honor to carry that torch forward, to ensure it doesn't whither and die on our watch, but gets passed down to the next generation.
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.
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 white people.
You can deconstruct literally any concept or category to try and refute it. This is very common in philosophy and goes all the way back to Plato, which is why Plato came up with his notion of an ideal form to solve this issue. "For example, a particular tree, with a branch or two missing, possibly alive, possibly dead, and with the initials of two lovers carved into its bark, is distinct from the abstract form of Tree-ness. A Tree is the ideal that each of us holds that allows us to identify the imperfect reflections of trees all around us." -Wikipedia
The problem arises when people only deconstruct the things they don't like. Atheists deconstruct Christian morality and mythology. Buddhists and Hindus deconstruct the idea of a self or an ego. And those who have been conditioned to be anti-white deconstruct the idea of whiteness.
Nobody deconstructs other identities, because nobody has a problem with other identities. Only white identity is an issue, and so they will continue to deny it is valid or exists at all. 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.
So what is white? "White" is a euphemism for European, meaning a descendant of peoples that evolved on the European continent. To take a wider scientific perspective, whites are descendants of Indo-Europeans, who originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Neolithic period and migrated throughout Eurasia. The Indo-Europeans 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 an original Proto-Indo-European 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 of "who is white" makes the mistake of assuming white is a binary category. A person who is 70% white is simply 70% white, and do not need to fall into a blanket binary category. The common consensus among the alt-right is 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.
I generally avoid using the term ethnostate, because of the many confusions and misunderstandings surrounding the term. I go into detail on my issues with the term and a proposed alternative in a recent article here.
To put it most simply, an ethnostate is a state which explicitly protects or advantages the dominant national ethnicity. Israel is widely recognized as a state for the Jewish people, and has laws aimed at preserving it as a Jewish state, and thus Israel is an example of an ethnostate. Japan is another example frequently cited by the alt-right. Note that these countries are not 100% ethnically homogeneous, and thus that ethnostate does not mean "only one race."
The United States could be described as an ethnostate in the past, since it had laws explicitly protecting it's white heritage. The first naturalization act of the United States restricted citizenship to "white persons." Even as late as the 1920's immigration laws were established with the intent of preserving our racial demographics. This all began to change in the 1960's, when Americans were slowly convinced we were always a "nation of immigrants" and had no ethnic heritage worth preserving.
A new American ethnostate is an ideal for the alt-right, a vision to inspire us toward a common goal. We recognize such a goal is unlikely given current demographic and political realities, but may be a possibility further into the future. Many in the alt-right support the notion of balkanization, convincing a heavily white region of the United States to secede and form an ethnostate. This would be the simplest solution and would not require violence or mass deportations. TheAlternativeHypothesis created this video which goes into one such balkanization proposal in greater detail.
The term "Cultural Marxism" receives a lot of criticism, both within and without the alt-right. Some call it a conspiracy theory, while others claim it reveals an ignorance of history or Critical Theory. However, these criticisms fall away if the term is taken literally: Cultural Marxism is simply Marxism applied to culture.
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.
What individualism really amounts to is a unilateral renunciation of power. Humans evolved to live and act as part of a group due to the clear survival advantages collectivization engenders. The evolutionary purpose of tribalism is the highly effective group propagation of genes. To reject collective identity or behavior is thus to renounce those evolved survival advantages, rendering your group (which is to say, all individuals in your genetic group) vulnerable to genetic destruction.
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.
Imagine for a moment that two soccer teams take to a field for a game. One plays collectively as a team, cooperating and passing the ball and so on. But the second team has been convinced that "collectivism" is wrong, and that each individual should pursue his separate interest. In effect this turns the second team against itself, as their own members fight one another for the ball instead of cooperating to pursue their common interest. Any game played between such teams would obviously result in a blowout in favor of the so-called "collectivists." If the collectivist team is particularly clever they may realize they have a strong incentive to advocate for "individualism" in all opposing teams, since this increases their advantage over them.
In this light you can begin to understand the true purpose of Individualist philosophy. It is meant to weaken the natural, cooperative, defensive instincts of a group, spreading division and atomization, rendering that group vulnerable to exploitation and destruction. If everyone in the world embraced individualism simultaneously, perhaps this wouldn't be an issue. But in the real world, only whites are taught to embrace individualism, while every other group, from Jews to Muslims to blacks to hispanics, all retain their natural collective identities and thus increasingly gain political, financial, and demographic power in nations built by whites. These groups have also learned to pressure whites to reject collectivization through labels like "racist," keeping their host weak and vulnerable.
We hope whites will again learn to become who we are.
Part of basic human empathy is the capacity to feel pride or joy on behalf of other people, just as you can feel pain on behalf of other people. This is not some sort of pathological "stealing" of achievements as people erroneously suggest; it is a natural manifestation of healthy social behavior. Let's take a simple example to illustrate this concept.
Let's say your grandfather was a great man. Maybe he had great character, or was a war hero, or built a successful company from scratch or some such thing. Let's say you take pride in his achievements, and you tell people what a great man your grandfather was, and try to emulate his example and be more like him.
Is this pathological in some way? Are you somehow taking "responsibility" for his actions? Are you trying to "claim" them as your own? Are you saying you don't have to accomplish anything now because your grandfather was such a great guy, and so now you can sit on your ass and revel in his achievements?
Of course not. This would be a completely absurd analysis of your pride in your grandfather. And by the same token it is a completely absurd analysis of ethnic pride. We aren't claiming anything, not stealing anything, not using past accomplishment as an excuse for passivity. On the contrary: if anything it is a call and a demand to action. What right do we have to sit back and do nothing in the face of their achievement and sacrifice? When we take pride in our heritage we are showing reverence for a gift that was handed down to us, an inheritance passed to us from our ancestors. We recognize that they fought, worked, struggled, and often died in order to provide their posterity with a better future and a better life, and we thus recognize that is our responsibility to not let that legacy falter and vanish. And the only way to protect that legacy is through the same identity which inspired our ancestors.
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.
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 Defamation (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).
For more detail on this issue see my criticism of Jordan Peterson's arguments on the JQ.
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.