Over the past few years, I've become inured to "hatchet job" profiles of me and organizations I'm involved with. I actually find many of them rather amusing. And generally, I adhere to the maxim, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." After all, I first encountered "academic racists" like Louis Andrews, Sam Francis, Kevin MacDonald, and Jared Taylor by reading their SPLC profiles. Whatever the intentions of the authors, hit pieces direct energy and interest towards our movement; and we'd be remiss not to take advantage.
Thus, when the young Washington, DC-based writer Lauren Fox approached me about a profile in Salon, I expected more of the same. Instead, I found Fox to be a fair and genuinely intellectually curious person; she seemed interested in actually understanding her subject, not just pointing and sputtering.
And as it turns out, Fox has written the most flattering hatched job in history! She determines I'm a hater, but can't help admitting that she was taken in: "I was alarmed by the number of times I had found myself nodding along with him."
What follows are a few objections, clarifications, and additions.
Richard Spencer: Insidious . . . Hate-filled . . . Well-Manicured
For the interview, I invited Ms. Fox to my underground lair.
Richard Spencer sat sipping his chai latte at the Red Caboose, a train-themed coffee shop in downtown Whitefish, Mont. Clean-cut and restrained, he reminded me of a hundred outdoors-obsessed people I had known growing up here in the Flathead Valley, a resort area nestled in the shadows of Glacier National Park.
But Spencer’s tidy appearance is about more than his sense of propriety; it’s a recruitment tool. Spencer advocates for white separatism and he wants to shake his movement’s reputation for brutality and backwardness.
“We have to look good,” Spencer said, adding that if his movement means ”being part of something that is crazed or ugly or vicious or just stupid, no one is going to want to be a part of it.” Those stereotypes of “redneck, tattooed, illiterate, no-teeth” people, Spencer said, are blocking his progress. Organizations that monitor domestic hate groups say it’s just this unthreatening approachability that makes Spencer so insidious.
Don't be fooled by appearances. Beneath my preppy persona lies . . . well, more of the same, actually.
I would emphasize, though, that what blocks the progress of nationalism are not "rednecks" per se. Indeed, the folks Salon might deem "rednecks" are probably some of the most healthy and well-adjusted people in the country.
What blocks our progress is the meme that has been carefully implanted in White peoples minds over the course of decades of programming, from Mississippi Burning to Lee Daniel's The Butler—that any kind of positive racial feeling among Whites is inherently evil and stupid and derives solely from bigotry and resentment. And that the political and social advancement of non-Whites is inherently moral and wonderful.
When an average person hears the word "nationalism," the image in his mind's eye is either that of Adolf Hitler or Ethan Supplee (the character actor who made a living playing obese, racist buffoons). Needless to say, we've got to work to change that. "Looking good" is a start.
Fox accurately conveys my message that our movement must move beyond immigration as an overriding political concern:
Spencer says now, more than ever, it falls to people like him to be engaged and savvy if America is going to combat the growing threat of diversity. In particular, he’s irritated by the rise of U.S. minority births, which outnumbered white births for the first time in 2011.
“People have not really grasped that. Even if we shut off all immigration, the country is going to demographically undergo a tremendous transformation,” Spencer said. White people “need to start thinking about a new ethno-state that we would want to be a part of. This is not going to happen in the next election or in the next 10 years probably, but something in the future that would be for our great grandchildren.”
He’s open to founding a such an “ethno-state” in various locations in North America and even on the moon.
A lunar ethno-state might sound silly, but my point is important. The preconditions for an ethno-state are an ideal—a conception of Who We Are—the will to enact a new political order, and the historical opportunity to do so. This is why I think arguing about when and where is, at this moment, trivial; clearly, in 2013 and the foreseeable future, a White ethno-state of any kind is not in the realm of possibilities. What we can do now is make the moral choice that, first, our people must survive and, second, that an ethno-state is a political order in which our culture would flourish.
In the late 19th century, leaders in the Jewish diaspora made this moral choice. Their "dream" of a Jewish ethno-state in Palestine—which struck most contemporaries as "impossible"—came into being when events granted them an opening.
What opportunities will come our way is up to the fates. But again, all the money and political connections in the world will not create a White ethno-state if we lack a spiritual commitment to one.
The "E" Word (Eugenics)
I seems that I had her . . . up until the point she asked me my opinions on global population trends.
Spencer and I emailed and spoke on the phone over a period of four months before I’d asked to meet him. I was living in Washington, but was planning a trip back home. Over the phone, he’d seemed radical. In person, he was easier to take, in conversation he meandered from D.C. landmarks and comic books to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Then we crashed into eugenics.
“We are undergoing a sad process of degeneration,” he said, coming back to minority births in the U.S. “We will need to reverse it using the state and the government. You incentivize people with higher intelligence, you incentivize people who are healthy to have children. And it sounds terrible and nasty, but there would be a great use of contraception.”
He didn’t mean the government should encourage people to use birth control pills and condoms. He was advocating for some type of government-forced sterilization.
“They could still enjoy sex. You are not ruining their life,” Spencer said.
First off, when speaking with Fox, and afterwards via email, I made it quite clear that I advocate the promotion of contraception technologies like the Norplant system, and that I do not support sterilization.
That said, I never shied away from the fact that, for contraception to have a positive, eugenic effect, it must be programatic.
Mankind has reached what could be called an evolutionary "singularity," in which natural selection no longer plays a role in human reproduction. Due to modern medicine and the revolution in agriculture and food production, there are few evolutionary pressures preventing those with congenital defects—or, quite frankly, those who are moronic or criminal in nature—from reproducing. In fact, in the context of the egalitarian welfare-state, there are incentives for such individuals to reproduce with abandon. (The cult comedy Idiocracy is based on this premise; and the film is funny because it's true.)
Today, contraception and birth control are nothing less than a curse! Those with the foresight to engage in "family planning" are exactly the kind of responsible, intelligent people who should be reproducing. And increasingly, middle-class White families are so over-burdened with taxation and the rising costs of housing, healthcare, and education that they don't feel they can afford children. This is not only a dysgenic catastrophe but a moral one as well.
On the other hand, individuals with low innate intelligence or even criminal personalities—those who should be limiting their reproduction—can't be bothered to purchase a condom.
Understandably, talking about population control makes people queasy. But whether we like it or not, overpopulation may be the most consequential social phenomenon of our time.
Who can contradict naturalist and filmmaker David Attenboroguh's recent statements on the matter?
“[W]hat are all these famines in Ethiopia, what are they about? They're about too many people for too little piece of land. That's what it's about.
“And we are blinding ourselves. We say, get the United Nations to send them bags of flour. That's barmy.”
Fox was also interested in my comments on the Paris Peace Conference (!).
He also said: “Today, in the public imagination, ‘ethnic-cleansing’ has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution — done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.” This is true if you consider setting the stage for World War II successful.
I, of course, hardly endorse Wilsonian foreign policy; and without question much of the re-drawing of the European map did factor into the run-up to the Second World War. (I'm glad Salon is now endorsing these revisionist views (!).)
My point, however, was something different. I find it remarkable that, by 1919, Romantic ethno-nationalism had succeeded in capturing the imagination of elite political actors. After a major crisis, the ideal of "national determination"—which would have been rejected out of hand by imperial elites decades earlier—played a major role in the post-bellum reconstruction of Europe. Again, my hope is that the ideal of the racial state can play a political role in our future.
Don't Look Back in Anger
Fox relates our goodbyes:
Packing up, Spencer and I walked slowly out of the coffee shop together, returning to earlier conversations about Washington politics. As we shook hands and parted ways, I turned briefly to get a glimpse of him walking away. I couldn’t help being surprised that that same well-manicured man had just expressed so much hate.
Who knew what evil lurks in the hearts of men? My guess is that more and more seemingly normal people resonate with "hateful" ideas.
One of NPI's goals is to encourage White people to get in touch with their feelings.