Distinctions Between Alt-Right and Traditional Conservatives

The thing about PragerU is their videos appear to be shallow and sensational on the surface, which usually detracts value from my first watch-through. By my second or third, when I go through with a critical eye trying to find logical inconsistencies or ideas that I disagree with, I discover they’re always much more well-put-together than I initially assumed after reading the title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHXL00wY3nY

The “alt-right is closer to leftism” “right-wing SJWs” and “national socialism is still socialism” phrases that have been enormously watered down by the internet, came about because anons online recognized the truth behind them. No matter the intellectual capacity of the people making these arguments, or the attention span of their audiences, the alt-right’s outright rejection of individualism makes their ideology more similar to radical left-wing movements than to the mainstream conservative movement in America.

The speaker in the video isn’t the only one who has been exploring alt-right ideas. While I agree with most of his conclusion, aside from his assertions on the group’s attitude towards religion, there is something I believe he overlooked, something which many members of the alt-right may not be consciously aware of, which I will try to explain now.

Thinking back to my high school civics lessons, a footnote of the class stuck in my mind. That is the question, when creating a new nation and constitution, of which newborn babies get to be citizens. The two most obvious answers are “babies born within our borders” and “babies whose parents are already citizens of our country” (as a fun experiment, think about which you would prefer before reading on, and see if your preference and geography align as I predict). The wikipedia pages for these respective choices are below:

http://archive.is/6hDlC - place of birth

http://archive.is/Tae4A - citizenship status of parents

If you look at the map diagram in the first link, you will notice that the overwhelming majority of nations in the Americas and Australia (the traditional “new world”) grant citizenship to people born on that land. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of nations in Europe, Asia, and Africa grant citizenship only to babies who are the children of current citizens. Why is this?

Well, think about when the current residents of each continent came to live there. In the “old world”, most groups of people have lived on the same land for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. People in Italy can trace the history of their ethnic group back to the Romans and further. People in Wales can trace the history of their ethnic group back to the Druids and further, etc. Given this, it should be hardly surprising that these places are more hesitant to grant citizenship to children of immigrant non-citizens. They may speak the language, and they may feel more at home surrounded by the culture and laws of their host nation rather than that of their ancestors, but they are not ethnically of their host nation.

By contrast, the “new world” is much younger, with a history filled not with tradition, but with rugged trailblazing and exploration; where people whose ethnic groups come from all over the globe can join together as citizens of a single nation. A person from 19th century China may shudder to think of their descendents being neighbors and friends with those of the nation of oppressors that fought and killed them during the Opium wars, yet we find that in modern day Philadelphia. A person from 1st century Germany may shudder to think of their descendents being neighbors and friends with those of the nation that tried to colonize them and destroy their culture, yet we find that in modern day New York. Even the heroes of the Alamo, Travis, Bowie, and Crockett, who we think of as undeniably Texian, were born in South Carolina, Kentucky, and and Tennessee respectively. Children of nations overflowing with contempt for one another have come together under common flags in all parts of the “new world.” They came to us from “wherever”, but they died as Americans. With this mindset to look back on, it’s hardly surprising that our lands still cling to the tradition of giving citizenship to anyone born on our soil, despite complications with people abusing that process for free visas. It is the choice that our founding fathers made, and I agree with it.

I point this out, because by virtue of a nation being an ethnostate, it seems obvious that nation would prefer to grant citizenship only to children of citizens, rather than to people who come from abroad and therefore belong to a foreign ethnicity. This, therefore, unless I’m mistaken in even my most fundamental observations of alt-right ideology, is the method of granting citizenship that the alt-right would like their home countries to have.

The observation that I believe Mr. Knowles missed in the Prager video is one that can only be made by someone familiar with both an “old world” and a “new world” mindset. It is simply that the American alt-right are “old world” thinkers living in a “new world” nation. The energy and focus of the American alt-right would be better spent on Europe, because the general American public will be unreceptive to their ideas as a default.

Subscribe to my YouTube channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfPBpjMhW4ZhHXA1V_1VVHg