Some members of the Alt Right seem to have a grudge against individualism. They dub it egotistic, destructive and harmful to the individual, claiming their collectivism is superior. However, this analysis couldn't be further from the truth. First and foremost, individualism is about self-interest. If something goes against your self-interest and you support it, you're obviously not being individualistic in this case. This goes against the most common argument the Alt Right gives against individualism, that being "If you're an individualist surrounded by collectivist you're at a disadvantage", as obviously whatever policy you're associating with collectivism is the self-interest, and therefore it is still individualistic to support these things.
Usually it would not matter if an individual called their individualist desires collectivism, however this is sort of a different case. Many people who identify as Alt Right hold the conviction that a strong central government or military dictatorship is an ideal way to run a country. While this isn't fully accurate, with many Alt Right people support democracy or libertarianism in some form, authoritarian members of the ideological label do exist prominently. They use their identification with collectivism to justify this position; however, the issue that this might create is that the leader may not operate in the people's self-interest. While it is easy to argue a lot of dictators have benefited their country in some way, in many cases, even "good" dictators can suffer from a level of incompetency that does go against the people's interest. Additionally, a dictator can act in the people's interest but later betray it. Another issue with dictatorship is that it's unsustainable. In everything from technology to administration, decentralization is a trend that any system goes through. If you look at technology, economics, government, the environment etc. this trend of decentralization exists. Due to entropy all systems eventually decentralize, the most decentralized of all systems being anarchism. Therefore, the only revolutionary idea would be decentralization.
Advocating for centralization is inherently counterproductive; the reason for this is that it goes against the current and therefore will not be able to gain traction. If you look at history, the only successful centralist revolutions only occurred in situations where the current system had failed or if the current system was overly centralist in some respects. Every Marxist-Leninist and fascist revolution falls under this classification. Additionally, authoritarian systems never did last an extended period, probably the longest and most successful of all of them being Getulio Vargas, Integralist list leader who created an organic totalitarian state to enact necessary reforms; however, he himself lost power as dictator but was reelected as leader of the republic shortly after. This is a clear indication his reforms were good; however, it also shows that decentralization is not afflicted by the quality of any centralized authority, rather it seems an inevitable trend that occurs in all parts of human life. There are many non – political examples of decentralization occurring; one of which is IT departments. A recent phenomenon is the existence of mini IT departments across industries. In previous times, IT departments were very centralized; however, due to entropy this is no longer the norm, with most IT departments becoming very compartmentalized. Decentralization can even be found in nature. A good example would be ant colonies; how ant colonies accomplish tasks is that different departments will perform different tasks to achieve their main goal. Furthermore, probably the best example of decentralization outside of politics would be in AI. AI developers previously had focused on making a singular centralized AI to accomplish task, however AI developers now have shifted the focus onto making many AIs that achieve different parts of the same task.
Another issue with the Alt Right's view on individualism is that they are somehow convinced that it's against self-interest. This is an odd belief as the core tenet of individualism is the pursuit of self-interest. They as well try to claim that the individual self-interest goes against the self-interest of the community, therefore, is bad. This is as well an odd position to hold, as the community is composed of individuals; therefore, it is odd to claim that these individuals are all oppressing themselves/each other; however, this isn't an entirely unreasonable proposition per say. Obviously in communities you will find some level of oppression; however, this is not from the community or people within it really. It generally comes from outside forces, like the government. The reason why communities don't have more autonomy is because they're prevented from gaining it by the government. Additionally, the government forces people to pretend to accept things they do not accept in their community. An example of this the Alt Right will agree with is diversity. The government has created the laws in a way that assume humans are not naturally ethnocentric and self – segregationist, therefore this causes conflict by forcing compromise between people of distinct cultures, nationalities and ethnicities that do not get along. They do not get along due to the nepotism that results of having people of distinct cultures/ethnicities located in the same area. Therefore, when the Alt Right denounce individualism for being pro multi-culturalism they're misunderstanding the fundamentals of the ideology. They're realizing that the effects on culture capitalism brings are against their self-interest, not individualism.