I've thought for some time that the position of people on places like AltRight (not to speak of Phora, etc.) amounts to a lot of vanity-driven personal primadonna grandstanding: to take any position at all that is on the edge of political discourse in order to make themselves look unique in comparison to mainstream Republicans or even to Tea Partiers, who are then painted as "a bunch of pussies," etc. This isn't to say I disagree with the idea that race is politically important, or with the fact that most Repooplicans
in fact pussies, because I agree with both things; but I also think the conflict between democracy and aristocracy is important. And yet though I stand on the side of aristocracy I don't go around in public (including writing in public) calling for the overthrow of democracy and its replacement by an aristocratic system. I realize this is not going to happen, it's ridiculous in a modern state not to speak of modern America, and its only purpose would be to attract attention to myself and discredit every other position I take. Now, my argument is that the "racial" right is
for the most part
(not in every case) doing just this; because if they really cared about the particular issues they say they care about, they would try to find the arguments that would be most conventional, and argue those well.
Take for example immigration. I agree with the Sailer's case, including both his references to HBD and to the fact that America was conceived historically as an Anglo nation; I agree with Putnam's study about the social ills inherent in "diversity"; I agree with Gottfried and others that American Jews promote open borders and other similar things for noxious ethnic and pathological reasons; and so on. I wonder, though, what any of this adds...in other words if there are already vaguely mainstream or even "neocon" reasons to oppose third world immigration, arguments that are much more powerful in public, what is the point of adding these other things?
Here for example is Mark Krikorian
You can see at the beginning of this video that he takes a non-racial ahistorical view (and in my opinion a very wrong view) that "the immigrants of yesterday were just like the immigrants of today," and pays lip service to other such nonsense. He seems to have no reference in his mind either to racial realities, or to America historically conceived as an Anglo/Northwest European nation. So I was getting ready to hear a compromiser, and pettifogging weak-kneed attack on "illegal" immigration; but by the middle of the interview, I liked him, in fact he manages to support a very vigorous anti-immigration position. The question is then how would it have helped him at all to bring up any of the other things I mentioned...that would have just alarmed some people, and arguably played into the hands of the open-borders people. And his case against immigration would have been no stronger than it already is.