FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Richard Spencer is Not a “Dissident Intellectual”

by

“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:
November 21, 2017
Gregory Elich
What is Behind the Military Coup in Zimbabwe?
Louisa Willcox
Rising Grizzly Bear Deaths Raise Red Flag About Delisting
David Macaray
My Encounter With Charles Manson
Patrick Cockburn
The Greatest Threats to the Middle East are Jared Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman
Stephen Corry
OECD Fails to Recognize WWF Conservation Abuses
James Rothenberg
We All Know the Rich Don’t Need Tax Cuts
Elizabeth Keyes
Let There be a Benign Reason For Someone to be Crawling Through My Window at 3AM!
L. Ali Khan
The Merchant of Weapons
Thomas Knapp
How to Stop a Rogue President From Ordering a Nuclear First Strike
Lee Ballinger
Trump v. Marshawn Lynch
Michael Eisenscher
Donald Trump, Congress, and War with North Korea
Tom H. Hastings
Reckless
Franklin Lamb
Will Lebanon’s Economy Be Crippled?
Linn Washington Jr.
Forced Anthem Adherence Antithetical to Justice
Nicolas J S Davies
Why Do Civilians Become Combatants In Wars Against America?
November 20, 2017
T.J. Coles
Doomsday Scenarios: the UK’s Hair-Raising Admissions About the Prospect of Nuclear War and Accident
Peter Linebaugh
On the 800th Anniversary of the Charter of the Forest
Patrick Bond
Zimbabwe Witnessing an Elite Transition as Economic Meltdown Looms
Sheldon Richman
Assertions, Facts and CNN
Ben Debney
Plebiscites: Why Stop at One?
LV Filson
Yemen’s Collective Starvation: Where Money Can’t Buy Food, Water or Medicine
Thomas Knapp
Impeachment Theater, 2017 Edition
Binoy Kampmark
Trump in Asia
Curtis FJ Doebbler
COP23: Truth Without Consequences?
Louisa Willcox
Obesity in Bears: Vital and Beautiful
Deborah James
E-Commerce and the WTO
Ann Garrison
Burundi Defies the Imperial Criminal Court: an Interview with John Philpot
Robert Koehler
Trapped in ‘a Man’s World’
Stephen Cooper
Wiping the Stain of Capital Punishment Clean
Weekend Edition
November 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Thank an Anti-War Veteran
Andrew Levine
What’s Wrong With Bible Thumpers Nowadays?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The CIA’s House of Horrors: the Abominable Dr. Gottlieb
Wendy Wolfson – Ken Levy
Why We Need to Take Animal Cruelty Much More Seriously
Mike Whitney
Brennan and Clapper: Elder Statesmen or Serial Fabricators?
David Rosen
Of Sex Abusers and Sex Offenders
Ryan LaMothe
A Christian Nation?
Dave Lindorff
Trump’s Finger on the Button: Why No President Should Have the Authority to Launch Nuclear Weapons
W. T. Whitney
A Bizarre US Pretext for Military Intrusion in South America
Deepak Tripathi
Sex, Lies and Incompetence: Britain’s Ruling Establishment in Crisis 
Howard Lisnoff
Who You’re Likely to Meet (and Not Meet) on a College Campus Today
Roy Morrison
Trump’s Excellent Asian Adventure
John W. Whitehead
Financial Tyranny
Ted Rall
How Society Makes Victimhood a No-Win Proposition
Jim Goodman
Stop Pretending the Estate Tax has Anything to do With Family Farmers
Thomas Klikauer
The Populism of Germany’s New Nazis
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail