One problem is the meaning of "white". After subjecting or exterminating blacks and hispanics in the US, for example, white people will begin turning to one another for scapegoating. Are gay, lesbian, or bi white people truly white? What about Jews? Catholics? Jehovah's Witnesses? Socialists? Women who aren't sufficiently feminine? Men who aren't sufficiently masculine? The disabled? People of mixed race? And on and on and on.

What the alt-right means by "white" is actually an archetype, or maybe several archetypes. The degree to which someone conforms to that archetype is the degree to which that person is white. But where to draw the line is completely arbitrary. In fact, the archetypes themselves are completely arbitrary. It isn't based on reason or moral principles because people who want society to be based primarily on demagoguery and jingoism are neither reasonable nor moral. There is therefore only one way to settle this-violence. All nationalist, supremacist cultures destroy themselves from their own violence. It wouldn't have mattered if Germany had won WWII and entered into a Cold War with the US. To maintain the momentum of a revolutionary movement, one has to constantly deploy the same level of demagoguery and jingoism to keep the nationalism alive. Otherwise, people will simply find other things to do than wave flags and turn their Jewish neighbors into the Gestapo. The violence can only go outward for so long-the resources, personnel, and will to fight being strained across broad stretches of the planet. It either continues expanding and dissipates or collapses in on itself like Rome, or it has to turn inward and use those weapons against its own people. This is what has happened in North Korea. If you go to North Korea, you notice that they constantly play revolutionary music in public places, and live as if they're frozen in time. North Korea can't expand outward, and to maintain revolutionary fervor within they use the fear of totalitarianism combined with music, marches, demonstrations, assassinations and work camps, etc to maintain power over their own population.

The other problem is the idea that the people of Africa, the Middle East, and South America are savages and not civilized. This of course, depends on your values. If you read the descriptions of the countless indigenous cultures made by European explorers, missionaries, conquistadores, and other genocidists, you'll find that many of the cultures they plundered were actually quite peaceful. They were sustainable, living mostly in harmony with the ecology of their respective environments and were more healthy than the Europeans indicated by their tallness, cleanliness, fitness, beauty, and longevity. There were some indigenous cultures that were extremely violent and warlike (not that this justifies them being exterminated by a people even more violent and warlike from half way across the world), but most weren't. There are innumerable instances of Euro-American settlers and pioneers who voluntarily went to live with indigenous tribes. When the puritans would exchange prisoners of war with natives, the puritans captured by the natives would have to go back in chains, and would frequently run off to rejoin the indians, but the indians captured by the puritans would happily go back to their native families.

The savage, barbaric people are those busy bodies who think they should be concerned with how people live on other continents (of course, nobody goes half way around the world to "civilize" anyone-this is always just a cover for resource plunder, enslavement, and other crimes against humanity because the people who do things like this are too morally and spiritually impoverished to even admit outright what they're doing). I think people who cultivate warrior cultures and rape and steal are savage and barbaric. And the most prolific people to do all of these things, are white people.