Race is the foundation of identity
This was in the alt-right “meta-political manifesto” and reflects a classic blind-spot among White nationalists. In American Renaissance a statement which may seem similar is claimed in the “about us” page:
Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society—language, religion, class, ideology—it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of some of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century.
If you had someone from mars looking down at America, he would see this statement as true. As much as the Blue Whites and the Red Whites may hate each other, they have more in common with each other, as far as culture, desired lifestyle, economic status, and even where they physically live, than the Blue Whites do with their precious Oppressed Blacks. But to say that identity falls along these fault lines is preposterous. In some parts of the Deep South where Whites vote almost as a racial bloc, you could argue that it does. In South Africa, it does so quite clearly, overriding other distinctions like language or religion. But in most of America outside the South it would be preposterous to claim race as the foundation of identity. Religious and political views, self-perceived social class, and even what clique one was part of in high school,* matter much more than race for determining identity for most White people. And for the alt-right then, they become another identity group, heretics against the mainstream political religion of most Whites, who see them as much more alien then they see non-Whites. Some on the alt-right, Jared Taylor for example, understand this. Others do not, LARPing as if they are foot soldiers in an ethnic conflict rather than a (small) political faction regarded as immoral by most of the people whose interests they are supposedly looking out for.
No Enemies to The Right
A variation is “no enemies on the right.” But what constitutes the right? Are pedophiles a part, if they claim to be as such? The Left would surely opine that they are, of course, and thus on the right we should hold our noses and tolerate them, because they are on “our side” aren’t they? To some this argument is just a mask, they want to include the Daily Stormf*g because they support it’s ideology, others just fall mindlessly for this stupid cliche as eagerly as Leftists embrace cliches like “America is a nation of immigrants” without asking why? Where did such a quote come from?
It appears to have originated in a similar phrase used by the Left. The earliest use of the phrase I could find is in an implication that it was used in Tsarist Russia in a book “The Liberation Movement in Russia, 1900-1905:”
…willingness to participate in the elections served to inform all those concerned that the policy of ‘no enemies to the left’ was no longer in force
How’d that work out for the non-Communist Left in Russia?
But then we come to what seems to be the major argument for the policy: the Left does it. And they largely do, but it’s only possible because of two factors: the Left’s control of most of the media and the refusal of the remaining Right-wing media and politicians to attack the Left’s associations with the far-Left. Left-wing radicalism will be mostly ignored by the media. When the Communist Party endorses Hillary Clinton, it goes unreported. Obama’s initial refusal to disavow Reverend Wright worked because McCain refused to attack him on it. But then the alt-right looks and this situation and say:
It’s not faaaaiiiiiiiiir that we are associated with right-wing radicals and the Left isn’t.
Yes, it’s not fair. It’s also not fair when one side has a knife and the other a machine-gun: the smart response is not for the weaker party to wholly emulate the tactics of the stronger party.
*I think much of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, especially among libertarians and “rationalists,” is due less to his policies or his political incorrectness, but due to the fact that he is a classic Chad, he reminds them viscerally of the guy in high school who shoved them into a locker and made out with their crush.