“Unite the Right” and Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right

Richard Spencer and his crew had a “unite the right” protest or demonstration earlier (see here). I’m sure everyone knows about it. Spencer also posted his thoughts on what it means to be alt-right (see here).  I don’t know if Spencer’s thoughts about the alt-right movement are definitive, but I do know that “the right” cannot be united if it includes Spencer’s alt-right movement. I also know that I cannot unite with Spencer’s movement. Let me explain why.

There are at least two necessary conditions of any united movement amongst two or more groups. Here is the first:

1. Each movement must share a common idea or interest.

This is a no-brainer: There can be no unity unless there is commonality. We don’t have to be the same in every respect, for that would be make us monistic rather than a unity of groups, but we need to share some commonalities. This is a logical requirement.

The second necessary condition is this:

2. No group within the unity can have primary philosophies or goals antithetical to the principles or values of another group within that unity.

This second condition might not be as intuitive as the first, but it is still necessary for sustained cohesion. Thus, it is a practical requirement. But why think it’s true?

Consider black Republican or conservative groups, those who are part of “the right”. Most other people on “the right” value their efforts and identify with them in many ways, wishing them the best in the furtherance of their interests. I suspect that these black groups feel the same. But how do you think they view the white nationalists on “the right”, those such as Spencer and his crew?

To be sure, they might see some commonalities and even believe that Spencer’s take on the alt-right is not explicitly racist, just as I do. But I suspect that they will also see Spencer’s white nationalism as antithetical to their interests, for it suggests that Spencer’s America is a white America, one where blacks cannot substantively contribute and belong.  Said differently, Spencer’s America is not for black people. The face of his America should be just white; hence, its face should not also be black.

Thus, while these black groups and Spencer’s alt-right movement could fulfill the logical requirement of unity, say, if they considered a movement strictly based upon animus toward leftist ideology and big government, I don’t think that they could ever fulfill the practical requirement, because they’d know that their core interests are antithetical, which would undermine a sustained group cohesion. In fact, I suspect that a close cooperation amongst these groups would result in open hostility, even violence, particularly given white America’s history of systemic mistreatment toward black people.

We can reason similarly for any two groups with antithetical interests, like, say, Islamists and the so-called LGBT, communists and capitalists, Antifa and virtually anyone who disagrees with them, Catholics and Satanists, and so forth, which thus gives us good reason to believe in the truth of 2.

Implications?

What I said here leads me to the conclusion that insofar as “the right” includes the alt-right, there can be no unity, because many persons and groups from “the right” believe this truth:

3. The flourishing of a conservative or right-wing American nation does not require the hegemony or subservience of any race or social class; instead, its flourishing is predicated on the beliefs, character and efforts of the families and individuals who constitute it as well as the freedoms they uphold.

That truth, or something quite like it, is a core belief of many persons and groups on the right, myself included, but it seems antithetical to Spencer’s understanding of the alt-right. Thus, for reasons mentioned earlier, there can be no unity amongst the right, for the practical requirement can’t be met.

Does this make me a “cuck”? 

I like that word and concept. It’s useful, but I don’t think it applies to me. Here’s why. I affirm virtually every truth of traditional conservatism. I am a nationalist, a Christian nationalist to be exact. I favour strict and limited immigration. I advocate for natural law and western values, and I argue against anything “LGBT”, feminist, multicultural, progressive, and globalist. Heck, I think women should choose to turn back to the household, returning to the vocation of motherhood. In short, modern liberals hate me, and I’m cool with that. What I am not cool with is any conservative movement focussing on race rather than the quality of our character and the contents of our beliefs. That’s a deal breaker. That’s a whole lot of nope, nope, nope, and nope. That doesn’t make me a cuck. It just means that I’m not a white nationalist.

So to the alt-right and Spencer, we agree on a lot – we might even agree more than not. But that whole white nationalism thing, with the Roman salutes and all, that’s just not kosher.

13 Comments

  1. A funny coincidence, I was just reading this on Wikipedia earlier. Your stance is currently covered by the label “Alt Lite”. Although a name that isn’t imposed from the outside would be better, if there is to be a name.

    • Yes, the alt-lite conforms much better with my ideas, but we differ on their civic nationalism. I prefer civic nationalism over white nationalism, but civic nationalism seems to exclude Christian nationalism.

  2. What are the Right and the Left? One way of defining them, at least nowadays, is that Leftists are those who think equality is the highest value, and Rightists are those who don’t think so. I don’t know. I’d prefer to see a Unite the Whites movement instead, one where white people who want their race to exist and flourish come together on that basis setting aside differences between Leftists and Rightists. Guess it would really be Unite the Pro-Whites. (And in theory it could include ‘allies of color’.) My hunch is that the Right is even more diverse and divided than the Left. Nothing much is common ground except hating the Leftist tyranny we all have to live under for now. But it seems we hate very different things about it, and some things that some of us hate others think are just fine. Maybe Divide the Left would be a more useful strategy if we could get our act together.

    “Consider black Republican or conservative groups, those who are part of “the right”. Most other people on “the right” value their efforts and identify with them in many ways, wishing them the best in the furtherance of their interests.”

    Aren’t these really just _very_ small groups though? Does it really matter whether a United Right is congenial to them? And what do these black groups think of things like BLM? I know there are some individual black people who think BLM is vile, but on the whole don’t even ‘conservative’ blacks tend to be very tolerant (at least) of Leftist extremism when it’s being instantiated by their brothers and sisters? I imagine this alone would make it really hard for non-black conservatives to work with them. Is there any good example of an effective and truly multi-racial conservative movement or party or anything? On the ground the Left nowadays is basically just the Anti-White-Man movement. Everything seems to come down to that. Nothing makes sense unless we assume that’s their real guiding spirit. I figure you may deny this. But if you’d admit that’s what the Left is now, isn’t it necessary to have a Pro-White-Man movement in order to stop them?

  3. The foundation of the Alt Right is identity > culture > politics. In short this means that politics is downhill from culture, which is downhill from identity. The Alt Right is of the belief that civic nationalism has failed because ethnic groups emigrating to the United States arrive with their own history, traditions, and identity, which they will not give up and when you have competing ethnic identities, identity politics is inevitable. In other words, it isn’t identity politics causing division, but division causing identity politics. A large number of new immigrants have no historic or ancestral ties to the original colonies, the Founding Fathers, or anything related to America. Put simply the Alt Right believes a common ethnic identity is necessary, but not sufficient for a stable and united nation. A hyphenated America is a Balkanized America. The solution offered by Richard Spencer’s White Nationalist subclass of the Alt Right is to keep America White; no Little Siagons, no Chinatowns, no barriors, or Koreatowns, just united ethnic White Americans. Ethnic identity will outlast temporary opinions, which change generation after generation. The Russian people still exist despite a bloody revolution and decades of communist rule. None of that could destroy the Russian people, but what can is mass immigration. That will replace and destroy a people.

    • Thanks for that. But what interests me about the alt-right here is that when European immigrants began to arrive (Irish, Italians, Greeks, say), they weren’t even considered white. The common cultural thread, if there were any, was Christianity. Heck, the British and then French were once considered different races even though they had the same skin tone. I suspect that the de-christianization of American is inseparable from its current identity politics.

    • You make a good point and that is a major flaw of White Nationalism, at least when seen through a European lens. A Croatian is not a Serb, an Italian is not a Spaniard and so on. However, a generic white American can make sense because most whites are European mutts. I tend to believe that white nationalist are narrow minded, focusing only on ethnic and racial division. I don’t deny that this is a real problem, but there are other divisions equally or more important. We have no common religion and no common political ideology. Christianity is attacked, the Constitution is attacked, and so on. Division happens on many fronts. A re-christianized America is necessary for the survival of the country.

  4. “What I am not cool with is any conservative movement focussing on race rather than the quality of our character and the contents of our beliefs. That’s a deal breaker. That’s a whole lot of nope, nope, nope, and nope. That doesn’t make me a cuck.”

    It actually does make you a cuck if you support or go along with the replacement of the white population of your country. (That’s pretty much what it is to be a cuck.) But, putting that aside, what is your reason for “nope, nope, nope, and nope”? Sounds like the “just no” or “I can’t even” kind of response we hear from leftists. Do you think that “content of character” is unrelated to one’s genetic background? Do you believe in Darwinian evolution? Can you explain why we should think it’s plausible that despite evolving separately for tens of thousands of years at least, in different climates, with different historical conditions, different racial groups will all amazingly exhibit the same “content of character” or ability to have the same “content of character”?

    • It’s a whole lot of nope for a few reasons. For one, I don’t understand conservatism to relevant to race, but only ideas and character and virtue. Secondly, I reject the idea that the American nation is so closely tied to race, finding it more pertinent to western principles and Christianity, which can be believed by any race.

    • “For one, I don’t understand conservatism to relevant to race, but only ideas and character and virtue.”

      So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that there’s this thing “conservatism” and by definition, or something like that, it doesn’t take race as relevant. If that’s right, why should anyone who cares about the flourishing of society care about “conservatism” if racial issues are indeed quite relevant to the flourishing of a society?

      You acknowledge that character and virtue are important. But, again, you haven’t explained why we should think that character isn’t significantly influenced by race.

      “I reject the idea that the American nation is so closely tied to race, finding it more pertinent to western principles and Christianity, which can be believed by any race.”

      This seems like a bizarrely narrow and reductive notion of what America is. On this view, one could replace the entire population of America with Chinese people that dress in traditional Chinese clothing, speak Chinese exclusively, etc, as long as they accept “western principles” (whatever those are) and are Christians. That would still be America on your view. (Would it even be necessary for them to live in the geographical region we call ‘North America’? If so, why?) Presumably America is more than that. And if that’s right, then I wonder why we wouldn’t think that race isn’t part of the story.

      Regardless of your answer, a lot of people _do_ see race as an important part of the story, even if they don’t explicitly acknowledge that or even quite realize it. What do you propose for those people? Should they be forced to live in countries where they watch their notion of what it is to be a country violated? If they see having a racially homogenous society as an immensely important requirement for human well-being, should they be prohibited from being able to have their own territories within countries where they can enforce their ideas or be prohibited from seceding from countries that refuse to enforce racial homogeneity?

  5. “2. No group within the unity can have primary philosophies or goals antithetical to the principles or values of another group within that unity.”

    It seems to me that you’re overlooking a kind of strategic unity that could be very important, though. Even if people like yourself and the alt-right ultimately have deep differences, you have a common enemy that seems far more dangerous: the left. If you were to defeat the left together, there would be space for you and the alt-right to work out differences and divide the spoils, so to speak. Does that seem reasonable?

    • Their efforts can overlap and such, but there would be no unity of two as one. How silly, for instance, would black or Jewish republicans look marching next to some of those guys in that VA march? Can you imagine what that would feel like for them? Not practical.

    • Being allied doesn’t require marching together for causes where there are obvious conflicting goals or interests. But it can involve not publicly objecting to or “disavowing” groups with whom you are allied, supporting their right to speak, etc.

  6. We’re talking about unification, not being allies. That march was for the unification of the right, but it was imbued with white nationalism and supremacy. Their public disavowing of Jewish and black republicans, even if not publicly expressed, is implicit and obvious. You’re free to believe what you wish here, but it is unlikely that I will budge.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)