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.
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.
- Part 3: Responding to Transgender Philosophers: Robin Dembroff’s Pronoun Argument - January 17, 2018
- Part 2: Responding to Transgender Philosophers: “Talia Mae Bettcher” - January 15, 2018
- Part 1: Responding to Transgender Philosophers – “Talia Mae Bettcher” - January 14, 2018
- On Half Men: A Rant Againt Feminism and the Neglect of Virility - January 8, 2018
- “Philosopher” Robin Dembroff Writes About Roy Moore - January 5, 2018
- Don Lemon and Ryan Anderson Debate Homo “Marriage” Stuff - January 4, 2018
- What We Can Learn from the Nativity Story - December 25, 2017
- What is natural law? - December 23, 2017
- In Defence of Philosopher Tully Borland - December 7, 2017
- On the Black Family, Absentee Parents and Progressivism - November 24, 2017