As promised, and because I not not believe the alt-lite can or should be the work of any one person, I have provided a version of my "Distinctions between the Alt-Right and the Alt-Lite" section, free for comment. It is of course just my opinion anyway, but if my arguments are legitimately refufuted by any comments here I will remove them from this section or change them. Of course these distinctions are just my opinion anyway, but I would like to see them become a relatively accurate reflection of how the alt-lite actually thinks.
Jews: The Meme of Jews as nefarious, slimy monsters bent on exterminating the white race is perhaps my greatest problem with the alt-right. Incidentally, it has also been described by the the Daily Stormer as one of the core principles of the movement. It is largely because of this that I wished to build on Vox Day’s notion of the “alt-lite”. To those insistent that “the Jews” are the most dangerous threat to Western civilization and its ethnic European people, I would ask this “which Jews”. No amount of, what I grant are very well documented, arguments for Jewish intervention in bringing about the decline of the West can change the fact that these are still only some Jews.
Jews have contributed hugely to Western civilization, from Freud to Einstein, and to categorically declare war on them in this way helps no one. To point out those specific Jews who, perhaps because of the networks they established through the Jewish community, have damaged the West is reasonable. Indeed, the role of largely Jewish organizations, like the Frankfurt school, in bringing about the sad state of the West is indeed clear. But so is the role of non-Jewish ethnic Europeans. Furthermore, what about those Jews who fight harder and smarter against the left than nearly anyone else? Half of the alt-right organizes around Breitbart for goodness sake, a publication created by a Jew. Rebel media is another example. I simply cannot reconcile blanket Jewish hatred with these examples, nor can I understand why the Alt-Right refuses to apply the simple solution to this dichotomy staring at them in the face, which is to recognize that Jews, like everyone else, are individuals. They can condemn those who have brought about the demise of Western civilization, while finding allies in others. This is not idealist thinking, it is pragmatic, and it should be advanced within the alt-lite.
Women: The suicidal excesses of modern feminism are clear, and their impact on Western civilization are fundamentally disturbing. The memes men as stupid, violent creatures, who are always in a position of “privilege”, is entirely absurd and unhelpful. Further, the astonishing collapse of ethnic European birthrates world-wide is likely at least partly a result of the role of mothers and homemakers being so regularly ridiculed at all levels of society, but mostly top down as a result of modern feminism. Little girls should see the roles of mothers and homemakers as desirable, important, and entirely necessary. The absence of people willing to fulfill these roles may be the single most damaging aspect of the status-quo for the West, so its presence should also be recognized as the most important aspect.
Generally speaking, an honest observation of human society would demonstrate that there is value in the distinction of roles between men and women, particularly with respect to child-rearing. Men are generally better at certain things, whereas women are generally better at others, though exceptions should not be ostracized. Human talent should be valued, from whomever it emerges, as it is the most valuable commodity a civilization can have.
Ultimately, Western civilization has a long history of proud upright women making all the difference between success or utter destruction (Boer women shooters, Joan of Arc, etc.). Despite the influence of the “Manosphere” in the alt-right, it is clear that women have very important roles to play in society at all levels. Their potential contributions to society are lost by restricting them to the domestic sphere, and the the unique aspects that collective female participation in every area of human exploit should be valued. I do not think that a future for Western Civilization, or its European ethnic groups, can be secured without equal participation of 50 percent of its members. However, I also do not believe such a future can be secured unless ethnically European women recognize the imperative of motherhood, and men accept and celebrate their role as fathers. And soon.
Scientific Racism: Most scientists agree that there are little to no recognizable differences in innate capacity between human races. It seems difficult to believe that EVERY biologist in the world is corrupted by the seditious Jewish media. I would be lying if I said that those who argue otherwise did not do their homework and produce NO compelling evidence to support their case. However, one may remain inclined to say that opposing standard scientific convention because it offends some deeply held sensibility amounts to anti-scientism, anti-intellectualism, and conspiracy theorizing.
It seems to me, as a non-specialist, that the jury is out on the issue of whether there are measurable differences between human races, but that is largely because the issue is so highly politicized in every which direction. However, even if it were true, that on average there is some difference in intellectual capacity between humans ethnically deriving from Europe, Africa, and Asia, the fact that there are brilliant people in the world of all races, suggests that such a discovery should have no relevance toward what is expected of a person of any race on and individual level. Indeed, much like my position on Jewish people, I think if specific racial and ethnic groups have their homogeneity secured at least somewhere, all other human interaction should emerge from a recognition of common humanity first. Thus, even if it were true that a disproportionate number of Jews have played leading roles in causing the decline of Europe and the West, or even if it were true that there is some difference, on average, between those of European, Asian, and African descent, it does not follow that such is true of ALL members of these races. I take this pan-ethnic individualism to be one of the most valuable contributions of Western civilization, and I would not see it given up lightly. For those who don't agree with my on this point, ask yourself this. What does it matter anyway? How does condemning the capacities of non-European ethnic groups advance the cause of creating a homogeneous homeland for those of European ethnicity?
Individualism: It is hard to argue against the proposition that one of the West's greatest contributions to the human race is the focus on the individual. I, and many pro-western historians agree, that an individualist mindset is what sets the West apart from other societies, and as such I believe its two basic tenets should be upheld by any reasonable person sympathetic to the alt-right.
The two key tenets to an individualist outlook are that...
1. Individuals make their own decisions, and exhibit personal traits, based on which they can and should be judged by others
2. Individuals are not responsible for the decisions and traits of any demographic group that they inhabit involuntarily
Bear in mind that the second basic tenet draws a distinction between those who are part of groups voluntarily and involuntarily. Only the former can be judged by the decisions and traits of the groups they inhabit. If they are unaware of the questionable decisions and traits that typify their chosen group, then that becomes an indictment on them, not those condemning them on behalf of their group. Unless a self-defined member of a certain group can draw a reasonable distinction between how they define their personal group identity, and the decisions and activities of the group to which they adhere, then it is entirely legitimate to judge this individual based on the decisions and traits of their group, and to act accordingly. Legitimate attempts to distinguish one's own remit of responsibility from that of the group to which they choose to adhere will often require creating a whole new group definition to avoid succumbing to the No-True-Scotsman fallacy (like distinguishing between the alt-lite and alt-right) . Obviously, the latter requirement excludes the "Not real Islam" brigade, since all Muslims by definition profess to believe in two collations of documents (Qu'ran, Surah) that stipulate the positions they must take on certain matters in order to legitimately call themselves "Muslims".
It is worth bearing in mind that the second tenet of a consistent adherence to Western individualism requires the benefit of the doubt for a Muslim who was not in a position to choose their faith. It only makes sense to try to de-program their brainwashing, to hopefully acquire a new anti-Islam ally. Of course those who can be reasonably said to have CHOSEN to follow Islam, especially those living in the West, deserve the harshest indictment for perpetuating an atrocious cluster of ideas that are a direct threat to the West. They are an enemy to any sane adherent to Western civilization, and certainly anyone who is anywhere on the "alt" spectrum.