There is a common logical fallacy in the way many people represent themselfs in the "alt-right" while critizising the french-new right for doing it right.
People when representing their position to outsiders (let's say a journalist who wants to learn about your world view) tend to misrepresent themselfs especially in relations of in- and out-group. Many just spurt out "We are for white people" and believe that amounts to any position at all or is convincing on an academic level in any way. It isn't. And despite of what you think it's not even realy true.
(I'm of course aware of what people mean with that statement but the person you try to convince isn't).
There is the tendency in the american new-right (I don't like to use the term alt-right because obviously many here don't even recognize it as real) to assume that sub-concious racial bias is equaly potent as concious racial decisions. I heard it from many vocal persons who just declare "I think most white people are actually racist and will agree with us and join us when the time comes even if they disagree with all other policies. Race loyality is stronger than ideology!" This is a mostly delusional statement that I fear has grown out of a big circle-jerk experience in the last couple years of growth of the right-wing (especially in the US). What this implies of course is that the common left leaning white naive democrat will support his white tribe when the anti-white narrative is being pushed openly.
Of course that is true for many conservatives who were already either in the libertarian or paleo-con nieche of thinking but the truth is that this wont be true for most whites and it doesn't have to.
(And in the extreme case of a race war tribal instrincts would work overdrive of course - i don't contest that) In fact this isn't even true for most people here.
And that is the crux: People declare "We are for White people" but then post "I would rather get rid of all liberal whites than all negros. They are traitors!" You obviously are not for every white person then.
Before I continue I want to make a small analogy here: In the 1930s germany both the NSDAP and the KPD were fighting for the support of the overall worker population that had grown to the biggest part of the country since the industrial revolution a generation earlier. The Communist of course declared "We are the Party of the Workers! We are for the Workers!". And that sentiment changed very quickly when it became aparent that most workers were not interested in a workers Utopia and voted for the fascist NDSAP. At that point these workers were declared "class traitors!". In this case the KPD was not realy for workers as their in-group but for a Communist workers state - as soon as a worker voiced criticism or supported another rivaling party they became just another part Out-group. Most workers wereagainst the communist by the end of the 30s and the communists were against the "class traitors" - So obviously the KPD made a mistake in in/out group expectations.
Another example is the alliance between Germany and the Empire of Japan in World War II. Hitler fought together with Japan against fellow european brothers. of course was Hitler for european civilization and the european heritage but he never made the mistake to confuse who his in-group and who his out-group is at any given point. He would rather ally a Japan that was totally inline with his world view than ally fellow europeans who were enslaved by a perversion of ideology that is liberalism. In his own words he respected the Japanese and Chinese for their pride in their own people and history while he despised the spanish anarchists who would desecrate their own past. Another personal example is of a filippino guy I know who browses Holla Forums and totally wants the US to become great again even if that meant that he had to fuck off from the US when the time comes. He wants fascism for white countries and fascism for his own country.