• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

CounterPunch needs you. piggybank-icon You need us. The cost of keeping the site alive and running is growing fast, as more and more readers visit. We want you to stick around, but it eats up bandwidth and costs us a bundle. Help us reach our modest goal (we are half way there!) so we can keep CounterPunch going. Donate today!
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Richard Spencer is Not a “Dissident Intellectual”

“You are yelling at a dissident intellectual!”

So Richard Spencer shouted multiple times at his hostile audience in Gainesville.

It’s an awkward way to describe oneself, but Spencer––a graduate degree-holding think tank head whose security cost Florida $600,000 from fear of riots––might look like someone who fits the bill.

That appearance is deceiving. Richard Spencer is not a dissident intellectual.

He has only prejudice, in its most brute, unsophisticated form. The only thing separating him from other trolls is a three piece-suit and broader familiarity with continental philosophy.

During his failed event on October 19th, Spencer tried to hold a Q&A session. One student asked Spencer, whose main political goal is the creation of an exclusively white ethno-state, what standards he would use to decide who is or isn’t white.

Spencer laughed, “We always get this one.”

He handed the microphone to Mike Enoch, a white supremacist podcaster. Enoch’s answer was to refuse the question, accusing the student of asking it in bad faith. The student insisted on hearing an answer from Spencer, who then answered a different part of her question while remaining completely silent on who counts as “white.”

It makes sense that they would “always get this one.”

Libertarians should be able to explain what constitutes a rights violation. Communists should be able to explain who falls within the Proletariat. These can be difficult distinctions, but they matter––because they’re at the heart of those philosophies.

So too should this student’s question matter to Spencer and Enoch. The line between white and nonwhite is the foundation of their professed beliefs.

Listening to the way the Alt-Right talks to themselves helps make sense of why they might avoid a question like that. In a podcast discussion between Spencer and Enoch, they mock libertarians as “autistic.” In context, the point behind this use of “autistic” as an insult is that working for logical rigor in your beliefs is ridiculous. They have learned to live with contradiction, and feel no reason to answer basic questions like “who is white?”

At one point, students’ chants moved to “Let’s go Gators, let’s go.” As part of his ongoing meltdown, Spencer mocked their attachment to “sportsball.” This is not the first time Spencer has sneered at sports. At Auburn, a student had brought up in a Q&A that the cultural attachments of southern whites are often decidedly multiracial, giving college football as an example. Spencer immediately denounced college football for that very reason, as it, in his view, distracted from more basic identities.

Understanding why Spencer views whiteness as more fundamental than “sportsball” requires understanding where he gets his ideas about identity.

To the extent that Spencer has any intellectual grounding, it comes from Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt. For Schmitt, politics is always about a conflict between one’s friends and enemies. A “friend” in this context means those you would die fighting to defend, an “enemy” means those you would die fighting to destroy. These identities are often formed through contrast with one another. Addressing the fact that political conflicts are often framed in terms of abstract values rather than mere tribalism, Schmitt says this is just propaganda. He further holds that political conflict of this kind is inescapable, because they give us meaning.

Spencer’s Schmittian background, then, does more to explain why his ideas are not intellectual than it does to show how they are. Beneath everything, there is only conflict for Spencer – not a conflict of abstract ideas about justice, but between groups of people. As he sees it, that conflict cannot be resolved. It can only be won or lost. Everything else is strategy.

Spencer’s whole philosophy, then, is a kind of “sportsball.” His political goals are not about advancing a view of justice, they are about scoring touchdowns. Arguments aren’t assessed for truth, they’re assessed by how well they move the ball forward.

Part of the alt-right’s success, compared to other white supremacist movements, is in their ability to look like they’re engaged in good faith discourse. People lower their guard and don’t see these agents of deception for what they are.

This is why many people support violence against white supremacist speech and assembly. Ideological racism works like a disease, and we must stop it by any means necessary. The problem with this view is that violence strengthens the disease instead of containing it.

On the field of ideas, the alt-right can only succeed to the extent that they can advance prejudice without being too obvious. The field of violence has different rules, where being wrong is no disadvantage. In the chaos of that violence, concrete information about what happened is harder to obtain. People still want believe something, though, so they use knee-jerk prejudices to fill the gaps.

Good strategy should aim at finding ways to show Spencer for what he is. Large, united, public rejections every time they attempt to assemble help to do this. It shows that they are not being taken seriously as just another idea worthy of consideration.

Spencer is not only willing but yearning for massive state violence to be used against millions of nonwhites––eager for them to be uprooted and thrown thousands of miles from home. That this would have disastrous consequences even for the remaining whites doesn’t faze him. They would be deprived of countless loved ones, along with the economic benefits that come from an open society. Appealing to that won’t help because he doesn’t care about what’s good for whites as individuals. He cares only about whites as a group––a group he can’t even define.

If Florida is any indication, Spencer will soon become the next Fred Phelps, the late patriarch of the viciously homophobic Westboro Baptist Church, with giant counter-protests popping up everywhere he goes. Those counter-protests will reaffirm that no matter what other disagreements we have with each other, we reject him and his movement. He will not be able to reverse the liberalization he fears.

Jason Lee Byas is a fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org). He is also a PhD student in Philosophy, living sometimes in Champaign, IL and sometimes Norman, OK.

More articles by:

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

Weekend Edition
May 24, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Rob Urie
Iran, Venezuela and the Throes of Empire
Melvin Goodman
The Dangerous Demise of Disarmament
Jeffrey St. Clair
“The Army Ain’t No Place for a Black Man:” How the Wolf Got Caged
Richard Moser
War is War on Mother Earth
Andrew Levine
The (Small-d) Democrat’s Dilemma
Russell Mokhiber
The Boeing Way: Blaming Dead Pilots
Rev. William Alberts
Gaslighters of God
Phyllis Bennis
The Amputation Crisis in Gaza: a US-Funded Atrocity
David Rosen
21st Century Conglomerate Trusts 
Jonathan Latham
As a GMO Stunt, Professor Tasted a Pesticide and Gave It to Students
Binoy Kampmark
The Espionage Act and Julian Assange
Kathy Deacon
Liberals Fall Into Line: a Recurring Phenomenon
Jill Richardson
The Disparity Behind Anti-Abortion Laws
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Chelsea Manning is Showing Us What Real Resistance Looks Like
Zhivko Illeieff
Russiagate and the Dry Rot in American Journalism
Norman Solomon
Will Biden’s Dog Whistles for Racism Catch Up with Him?
Yanis Varoufakis
The Left Refuses to Get Its Act Together in the Face of Neofascism
Lawrence Davidson
Senator Schumer’s Divine Mission
Thomas Knapp
War Crimes Pardons: A Terrible Memorial Day Idea
Renee Parsons
Dump Bolton before He Starts the Next War
Yves Engler
Canada’s Meddling in Venezuela
Katie Singer
Controlling 5G: A Course in Obstacles
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Beauty of Trees
Jesse Jackson
Extremist Laws, Like Alabama’s, Will Hit Poor Women the Hardest
Andrew Bacevich
The “Forever Wars” Enshrined
Ron Jacobs
Another One Moves On: Roz Payne, Presente!
Christopher Brauchli
The Offal Office
Daniel Falcone
Where the ‘Democratic Left’ Goes to Die: Staten Island NYC and the Forgotten Primaries   
Julia Paley
Life After Deportation
Sarah Anderson
America Needs a Long-Term Care Program for Seniors
Seiji Yamada – John Witeck
Stop U.S. Funding for Human Rights Abuses in the Philippines
Shane Doyle, A.J. Not Afraid and Adrian Bird, Jr.
The Crazy Mountains Deserve Preservation
Charlie Nash
Will Generation Z Introduce a Wizard Renaissance?
Ron Ridenour
Denmark Peace-Justice Conference Based on Activism in Many Countries
Douglas Bevington
Why California’s Costly (and Destructive) Logging Plan for Wildfires Will Fail
Gary Leupp
“Escalating Tensions” with Iran
Jonathan Power
Making the World More Equal
Cesar Chelala
The Social Burden of Depression in Japan
Stephen Cooper
Imbibe Culture and Consciousness with Cocoa Tea (The Interview)
Stacy Bannerman
End This Hidden Threat to Military Families
Kevin Basl
Time to Rethink That POW/MIA Flag
Nicky Reid
Pledging Allegiance to the Divided States of America
Louis Proyect
A Second Look at Neflix
Martin Billheimer
Closed Shave: T. O. Bobe, the Girl and Curl
May 23, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Belligerence of Empire
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail