A non-bitter argument.
In response to some of my criticisms of the Alt Wrong, Greg Johnson writes:
Bitterness is a kind of neurosis, Ted, and you have the worst case I have ever seen. The embittered person carries around a lot of grievances, and unloads them on whoever reminds him, even tangentially, of the causes of his discontent. Bitterness destroys objectivity and justice, which are signally lacking in your ranting about the movement. You really need to disengage from this. It is not healthy for you, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing for the greater good of the cause.
That’s something to consider. There is some truth to that, although I would argue that my grievances, such as they are, are completely legitimate. That I behave in similar fashion in “the real world” does suggest that my basic character is in the direction of relentless vindictiveness. Indeed, being very critical in “real life,” I have been admonished by someone I know personally, telling me that “you should criticize only when you have a constructive suggestion to make to improve the situation.” Very well. How would I respond to accusations of “White supremacy” without invoking Asian (or Jewish) IQ and without calling myself a “Yellow supremacist?”
I could of course direct the accuser to my writings on White inferiority (from an adaptive fitness standpoint) that are analogous to an old Strom ADV broadcast on the same topic that made a positive impression on me. More fundamentally though, I would argue thus (sentences in bold are excerpts useful for a shorter “sound bite”):
Racial preservation, White advocacy, and racial nationalism are not at all dependent on notions of superiority or inferiority. Racial nationalists such as myself make an analogy between family and ethnic group/race. Political scientist Dr. Frank Salter uses the term “ethny” to describe various types of population groups such as ethnic group and race, and he argues that individuals have interests – genetic interests – in their ethny just as they do with their family. Further, a person can identify with ethny through shared history and culture in addition to the purely biological aspect of group identity. Just as a person’s defense of family is not dependent on the notion that their family is “superior” but simply because it is their own, so does defense of ethny derive from a sense of belonging, a sense of loyalty, and acknowledgment of the fundamental interests a person has in the continuity – genetic and otherwise – of their ethny and in the interest they have in its well-being and advancement. While a parent may brag about their children, their caring for their children is due to the kinship they have in them and notions of superiority/inferiority have nothing to do with it. After all, parents will care for children who are sickly retardates and hardly superior by any reasonable measure. It is not by chance that Salter used “child equivalents” to express the level of genetic interest a person has in their ethny, and such equivalents are independent of any ranking of phenotypic characteristics. True enough, White accomplishments are a matter of record, and one can make the argument that humanity would benefit by White continuity, but the argument for racial self-defense ultimately does not derive from such considerations, but is inherent in the unique existence of every ethny.
Now, Alt Wrong representatives are certainly intelligent and articulate, some are familiar with Salter’s work, and nothing stops them from making similar arguments. Why they have not done so, and instead fall back on “high Asian IQ” arguments is something to ponder. Regardless of their motivations heretofore, I would strongly suggest that they switch their arguments away from a hierarchical ranking of traits (that ostensibly favor Asians and Jews) and instead base racialist arguments on kinship, which would always favor those more closely (genetically) related to you.