I couldn’t help but smile while reading a recent article written by an utterly bemused outsider apparently trying to define the burgeoning alt-right phenomenon. This one coming from a British libertarian magazine. All of the articles that I’ve read on the subject written by outsiders seem to follow the same plot line: demonize the movement and its adherents without any legitimate effort to understand it. And DEFINITELY don’t put into print its logical arguments. This treatment of the subject seems to me to betray a fear on the part of journalists that anything more than a superficial glance into the subject might force them to question some deeply cherished beliefs. After all, it’s no coincidence a certain part of the alt right dubs itself “the red pill”. Accepting the truth is not always pleasant.
The most amusing part to me is the floundering to associate the alt right with an established unflattering archetype. They always try to do this, but they have some trouble with consistency with which archetype they cast. While the typical knee-jerk reaction by leftists is to characterize us as old, crotchety, poorly-educated white men, this article calls us a “horde of pimpled ‘alt-right’ acolytes [of Milo Yiannopoulos]”. In other words, a bunch of angry nerds who can’t get laid venting their frustrations by trolling on the internet. Plenty insulting, but entirely contradictory to their usual archetype. Pimpled nerds are typified as being young and educated. The inconsistency obviously destroys the credibility of their accusations, but it is worth noting, according to a study dug up at the esteemed Chateau Heartiste, that calling men pimply nerds is a more effective insult than calling them uneducated and old. The former demeans the sexual worth of the target. Perhaps they’re taking a page out of the alt-right playbook; too bad their accusations ring hollow to the ears of the glorious hypermasculine crusaders of the alt right.
The central premise of the article–that the alt right is really just the right wing analogue of the SJWs on the left–is, of course, ludicrous. The left believes that opposing ideas must be censored. The alt right believes in free speech, and that in an open marketplace of ideas ours will decisively win. There is a nugget of truth, however, in the claim that the alt right claim victimhood in much the same way that SJWs claim victimhood for various minority groups. The truth, or course, is that whites, males, etc. are actively impeded from achieving success in many endeavors by the equalist system, yet still come out on top due to superior intelligence, motivation, etc.; and the underperforming minorities are given every advantage but are unable to effectively capitalize on them. Essentially our “victimhood” stems from equality of opportunity and theirs from equality of outcome. Obviously, to someone who accepts the uncomfortable truths of human biodiversity, ours is the only legitimate complaint.
That said, any complaining about victimhood–especially by those who end up more successful–is poor strategy. It comes off as weak and supplicating. If the history of race shows us anything at all, it is that what is ours is what we take for ourselves. Expecting fairness as a result of sympathy on the part of our inferiors is pathetic. The West belonged to our ancestors because they took it by force and claimed it as their own. If we are to keep it, it will be by the same means. The obstacles in the path of whites and males are there because we put them there. It is up to us to remove them.
Lastly I will address the claim that the alt right is harmful to freedom of speech. The article claims that the alt right is bad for free speech because we substantiate the claim that anyone who wants free speech are secret bigots (side note: the dictionary definition of “bigot” is “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.” Leftists’ accusations are almost always projection). Their argument, essentially, is that speech deemed offensive by a lot of people shouldn’t really be free at all, but the fact that it is is merely an unfortunate consequence of difficulty of distinction or enforcement or some other technicality. Defenders of truly free speech do exactly what the article calls “phoney”: in the words of the article “idiotic right wingers desperate to say the wrong thing, even if they don’t really mean it.” Saying the “wrong” thing is exactly what defines the boundaries of our freedom of speech. If Milo Yiannopoulos says something deemed “really awful” (Wow. Just wow.) by the mainstream, and doesn’t get murdered by hysterical leftists, that demonstrates that I am almost certainly free to express an opinion that is merely moderately controversial. And for that, I owe my thanks to Milo and all of the other tireless boundary-pushers in the war on free speech.