This essay was adapted from remarks at a press conference on the Alt Right held by the National Policy Institute, September 9, 2016. It will appear in the forthcoming volume The Alternative Right, ed. Greg Johnson (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2016)
What is the Alt Right? It is a broad, dissident movement that rejects egalitarian orthodoxies. These orthodoxies require us to believe that the sexes are equivalent, that race is meaningless, that all cultures and religions are equally valuable, and that any erotic orientations or identification is healthy. These things we deny. The Alt Right is also skeptical of mass democracy. It opposes foreign aid and foreign intervention—especially for “nation building.”
Given the loose nature of the movement, there are people who consider themselves “Alt Right” but who disagree on one or more of these points—except one. The entire Alt Right is united in contempt for the idea that race is only a “social construct.” This is an idea that is so wrong and stupid that only very intelligent people can convince themselves it is true.
Race is a biological fact. Does anyone think that the differences between Danes and Pygmies are a sociological illusion? A barely socialized two-year-old can tell races apart at a glance. There are countless race differences in such things as skull structure, twinning rates, and susceptibility to disease. It is even possible to tell a person’s race from the varieties of bacteria that live in his mouth!
Human races have been evolving separately for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, and evolution has marked their temperaments and mental abilities just as it has their physical characteristics. Different races have different average IQs, and the evidence is overwhelming that these differences are, to a substantial degree, genetic.
Orthodoxy insists that this is “pseudo-science” that has been “discredited.” Nonsense. No one has discredited Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn, Michael Levin, Michael Woodley, Philippe Rushton, and Robert Plomin.
Orthodoxy on race leads to endless folly. There are approximately 13,500 school districts in the United States. In every one, test results fit the pattern for IQ: Asians get the best scores, followed by whites, then Hispanics, then blacks. Is this because every district is biased and prejudiced? Of course not. This pattern reflects biology.
Those who deny biology always try to “narrow the gaps” in test scores. That was the purpose of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, which required schools to bring racial averages up to the same level. No school could. This silliness consumed huge amounts of time and money, and required so many exemptions it was finally set aside as meaningless. It was crushed by the reality of race.
The world makes no sense without an understanding of race. Why is black Africa poor? Why is Haiti—populated by the same people but with a completely different history—equally poor? Why do blacks in America, Canada, and Britain—likewise with very different histories—show exactly the same patterns of crime, poverty, illegitimacy, and school failure? Why, on the other hand, are Asians ahead of whites on all these measures? Because race is real.
No coherent social policy can be based on egalitarian dogmas about race. That is why everything from education to welfare to housing to policing to immigration policy yields deformed results. If you cannot understand race you cannot understand anything else.
Is it harsh to explain black and Hispanic failure in terms of inherent racial differences? Whites must speak in these terms in self-defense. Since orthodoxy has decreed that all groups are precisely equal, it permits only one explanation for non-white failure: white oppression. An entire industry has risen up to stoke white guilt and purge whites of “unearned privilege.” We are not responsible for the shortcomings of others, and we despise those who claim we are.
Race is not just real: it is central to group and individual identity. All other racial groups take this for granted; only whites must pretend that their race means nothing to them. Question: What do you call a black person who prefers to be around other black people, and likes black music and culture? A black person. What do you call a white person who listens to classical music, likes European culture, and prefers to be around white people? A Nazi. All non-whites are expected to have a strong racial identity; only whites must not.
And yet, even if they do not admit it to themselves, whites act on the basis of race all the time. When the neighborhood turns black or Hispanic, they move away. When their children’s school fills up with non-whites, they change schools. This is as true of “liberals” as it is of “conservatives.” As the late Joseph Sobran used to say, “in their mating and migratory habits, liberals are no different from members of the Ku Klux Klan.”
People of all races prefer to be with people like themselves, and church congregations prove it. Ninety-five percent are at least 80-percent one race, and many are 100-percent one race. This is because churches—unlike neighborhoods, companies, private clubs, and schools—are not yet required by law to integrate. Congregations reflect complete freedom of choice, and when Americans are free to choose they gravitate to people like themselves.
Finally, the Alt Right recognizes that whites have legitimate interests as a people. One of the most obvious is to resist the waves of non-white immigration that are dispossessing us. We refuse to stand with arms folded and watch our children become a minority; if current ideological trends continue, they will be a hated minority.
Virtually all whites everywhere in the world face the same crisis of dispossession. The only exceptions are a few Eastern European countries that refuse to accept immigrants or refugees. Ironically, whites who lived behind the “Iron Curtain” were protected from the mental poisons that paralyze whites and keep them from taking the most elementary steps to remain masters in their own houses.
The Alt Right is a necessary alternative to a “respectable” right that has completely capitulated. In the 1960s, National Review defended South African apartheid and Southern segregation. It accepted the reality of race and discussed racial differences in average IQ. Today, no publication outside the Alt Right dares discuss the implications of low black and Hispanic IQ or the need for whites to act in the name of their race and culture. “Conservatives” no longer try to conserve what is most important: their own people.
The Alt Right laughs at the idea that “diversity is a strength.” Diversity of language, religion, but especially of race bring conflict and tension. The worship of diversity leads to idiotic statements like that of General George Casey, who commanded the American troops in Iraq: “I firmly believe the strength of our Army comes from our diversity.”
Does General Casey really believe that the army is strong because of black and Mexican and Filipino soldiers? Do equipment and training have something to do with it? Has General Casey forgotten the murderous racial tensions in the Vietnam-era army? Doesn’t he remember Major Nidal Hassan, who killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 more at Fort Hood? Does he think the all-white armies that fought at Gettysburg or on Iwo-Jima were pitiful bands of defectives? Does General Casey believe his own rubbish? Even our generals are eunuchs, taught to believe that dispossession is wonderful.
We are told over and over that it is the duty of all Americans to “celebrate diversity.” It really is a celebration for non-whites, because diversity means greater numbers and growing influence—for them. But to ask whites to “celebrate diversity” means asking them to rejoice in their own declining numbers and dwindling influence. Only whites, only a thoroughly denatured people could ever be browbeaten into celebrating impending oblivion.
As waves of non-white immigrants sweep over us it is common to say that diversity is Americas “greatest strength.” Does anyone realize what that really means? It means that the 90-percent white America of the 1950s and ’60s was about to choke to death on its own homogeneity but was saved by Mexicans and Haitians. It means whites were a moribund people brought back to life only by the lucky arrival of people unlike ourselves.
Nothing is more grating than when non-white immigrants themselves throw “diversity” in our faces—as if they came for the sole purpose of bringing us this precious gift. They came, of course, because we built a wonderful society. People who have made their own countries miserable come to take advantage of a society they could never have created—and if they come in large enough numbers they will turn our country into something completely alien. And we are supposed to thank them for this.
Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine going to China and saying, “It’s not a bad country you have here, but it’s got a real problem: too many Chinese. You need to ginger the place up with a couple of million Iraqis, a stiff dose of Haitians, and enough Venezuelans to set up ‘little Caracases’ in all your big cities. Diversity is a strength!” The Chinese would call for the men in white coats.
When the Alt Right dissents from racial orthodoxy, it can count on being called names. The liberals’ favorite is “white supremacist,” which is the most emotionally charged way to try to discredit a white person. “White supremacy” implies nostalgia for slavery, Jim Crow, and lynchings, and suggests we want to rule over people of other races. This is foolishness. I have never met anyone who wants to rule other races. We want to be left alone so we can be the people we were meant to be. The expression “white supremacist” should be dropped from current use, but the more it is used the more ridiculous it sounds.
Our opponents call us names because they cannot refute us, and calling us names is the most graceless way of admitting they have no argument. It means no more to call us racists than to call us giraffes. Our opponents must instead explain why we are illogical or mistaken—which they cannot do. They know that “conservatives” scurry into dark corners when they are called names; not us. We are proud to stand up for our people, and names will never frighten us.
Liberals now call so many things “racist” the word has practically no meaning. Whatever it means, though, it implies moral inferiority, that we dissidents are not just mistaken but bad. What nonsense. There is no higher morality than to work for the survival and prosperity of one’s people. We spit on the idea that all other groups may advance their rights while only we—only white people—may not.
What we ask for ourselves is nothing more nor less than what we want for people of all races: the right to pursue their destinies free from the unwanted embrace of others, to seek a future that is uniquely theirs within neighborhoods, institutions, regions, and ultimately nations in which they are the permanent and undisputed majority.
It is we who are the champions of true diversity. Imagine the whole world becoming the multi-culti mix to which orthodoxy condemns white countries. Could the delicate culture of Japan survive mass immigration? Would India still be India if millions of foreigners moved there? Of course not. And yet Europe, America, Australia, Canada—all white nations are to welcome aliens and we are to smile as we are submerged.
What whites are expected to do is without precedent in human history. We have the power to keep our lands for ourselves, but we are throwing them open to aliens, aliens who despise us as they take what is ours. Many nations have been overrun by powerful invaders. Never has any people or nation let itself be pillaged by the weak. This is a mental sickness unique to whites and unique to our era.
The media have tried to attack Donald Trump by blaming him for our support. This is deeply dishonest; the American Communist Party endorses Mrs. Clinton, but no one says that discredits her. But the media attention has backfired. It has introduced our ideas to millions of people, many of whom we are winning over to our side.
Donald Trump may win or lose, but we will grow, with him or without him. We will not only grow; we will prevail. Our vision of mankind, of society, of history, of right and wrong is deeply rooted in morality and human nature. We are right, and our enemies are wrong. The folly that has seized our people will pass, and we will come through this crisis a wiser, stronger people.