RSS Feed MenuBefore one proceeds with an article explaining what goes on in the white nationalist world, it’s probably important to explain exactly how one knows about it.
I have always been intrigued by the bizarre. I’m familiar with every weird movement in the book: from astral projection to suppressed Nazi technologies to black magick — yes, with a ‘k’, if it’s loony, I’ve probably studied it. (With apologies to John Avlon, anyone who thinks that Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann represent the lunatic fringe of America is not being very adventurous.) Why exactly I take such an interest in the field is something of a mystery even to me. I suppose that, to a degree, I’m attracted to the creepy, mystical aesthetic surrounding it. It’s also continually fascinating to explore the outer regions of the human experience.
Now, anytime one researches this area, he’s sooner or later bound to come across what I call the Nordic cult. Its dominant branch is ‘Odinism,’ which seeks to revive ancient Pagan tribal religions from Northern Europe, with a special focus on the warrior-god Odin. Alternative Right’s Richard Spencer — who is also a former employee of The American Conservative, one might add — is in a Facebook group called the “IrminFolk Odinist Organization” (and another called “Society for the Re-Definition of the word ‘RACISM’”). Odinism is typically — though not always — racialist in orientation, usually emphasizing the bloodline of the adherent. A white nationalist text I once stumbled across put it thus: “It’s not you, it’s the chain, the chain, the chain…”
Strictly speaking, they are not white supremacists. When white nationalists use the word “racism,” they are not calling for the subjugation of other races. They simply want them to live somewhere else, with their “own kind.” The races naturally do not intermingle well, they maintain, and inborn biological differences make it impossible to form a cohesive mixed-race society. As an article on Alternative Right puts it: diversity is a “siren song.” This is by-the-book collectivism, no matter how much Spencer protests to the contrary.
Contra Charles Johnson, none of this has anything to do with the Republican Party or mainstream conservatives. This is a fringe movement that gladly declares itself reactionary. One ought to understand it, though — to differentiate it from rank-and-file right-wing beliefs, and to grasp the beast as it is, rather than as one supposes it to be.
* * *
In the course of my readings, I picked up contacts within this bizarre movement, and was once invited to a white nationalist gathering by an acquaintance of mine who lives in the area. I’ll call him John. I don’t ask for John’s conversation, nor did I ask for him to invite me to this event, but he’s thirty years old and lives with his mother, so his social skills are a little lacking. He was told to bring someone he knew, and for whatever reason, he thought to ask a gay, atheist, classical liberal.
I wasn’t told the location — it was a secret! — so I just gave him my address and told him to scoop me up. After being hopelessly lost for about an hour, he finally arrived. Coincidentally, my mother was making her way home (I’m in college) at this very moment and wondered where on Earth I was heading and who on Earth I was with. Trying to explain it to her, John informed her, without looking her in the eyes, that it was a Northern European cultural festival. Fine, good enough explanation for her, she said — and as we drove off, he explained why he couldn’t look at her in the eyes: she’s a MILF! (Even the most manly and racially pure get nervous around pretty women.)
Sadly, when I arrived, the festival was already over. All that remained were four or five stragglers and the head honcho: a fat, hairy, shirtless man bearing a Thor’s Hammer necklace. Now, I’d planned my day around this event and I didn’t intend to leave without some good anecdotes, so I asked some of them for information about their ideology and their organizations. One of them handed me a business card promoting the “Wolves of Vinland,” a “folkish heathen” organization that revolved around ancestor-worship, Nordic pagan imagery, and racial purity.
In the meantime, I’d seen the wife and children of the master of the house going back and forth. All of his young boys sported neo-Pagan Thor’s Hammer necklaces, and their father proudly announced to his guests that he was raising his children to be warriors. Even at school, he said, they’re proud of their ancestry. When students ask them why they wear the hammer, they’ll explain that they are proud to be Nordic. (The subtext of the conversation was: ‘I intend to live vicariously through them, for I am one hundred pounds too heavy to be any kind of warrior.’)
I sat and watched in morbid curiosity. The conversation soon shifted to the direction of the movement, and three of them discussed who counted as legitimate members of the folk. The first man, whose ancestry could apparently be traced back to Northern Europe, thought that the folk, properly conceived, was strictly a Nordic venture. Norway usually gets top billing among subscribers to this line of thinking, but Sweden and Denmark are almost always approved. Iceland and Finland are usually good to go, too. But to preserve the purity of the folk, there should be action toward excluding those of impure, non-Nordic ancestry.
Another man, whose heritage was German, argued that the blood of the folk actually extended to central Europe and the surrounding areas. Conveniently enough, the third man, whose ancestry was Irish, believed that anyone of any European ancestry should be included in the folk. The folk are a pan-European movement, not a Northern European one — even though, he admitted, the purest folk were of Nordic descent.
They also discussed an event from earlier in the day, when a white woman apparently brought her racially impure boyfriend to the event. Many of the folk approached him, telling him that his presence made them uncomfortable. Not surpisingly, he was acquiescent and left. (What he was thinking by showing up in the first place, I have no idea.)
John sat back in silence for most of the time, although I did provoke him by saying that he had a rather Jewish-looking nose. He was livid while driving me home: “You can’t say things like that! They might think I’m a Jew! Please don’t ever say anything about me looking like a Jew!” I suggested that he try to find friends who aren’t going to judge him based upon whether he has a “Jew nose,” but I somehow don’t think the message hit home.
* * *
The ‘Alternative Right’ most diverges with American conservatism in the way that it takes a sledgehammer to classical liberalism. A crude ‘might is right’ philosophy is applied to human action, with the understanding that group loyalty and self-preservation within the collective is the only way to prosper. Richard Spencer seems to have picked at least part of it up after a hideously poor reading of the works of Friedrich Nietzsche — he is a self-proclaimed Nietzsche fanatic (although, like most wannabe-ubermensches, Spencer is little more than a scribbler).
Christianity is abhorred because of its inclusiveness. Nietzsche’s attack on the ’slave morality’ of Christianity — which is a swipe at altruism, mostly — is extrapolated to an understanding that Judaism and Christianity are too racially impure. Anyone can become a Christian — all that’s required is faith in the divinity of Jesus. This is what sparks the impetus to Odinism: it’s more selective, and one’s membership is determined by his genetic makeup, rather than individual accomplishments or personal beliefs.
Even one’s musical tastes must be examined through the lens of race. White nationalists tend to pass over American pop culture in favor of Norwegian ‘black’ metal — bands such as Burzum, Emperor, and Immortal. Some of the musicians are racists, some are not; all are nihilistic and aggressive. Black metal is characterized by a depressive, hopeless sound, featuring thrashing guitars, inscrutable bass-lines, screamed vocals, and lyrics glorifying mystical fantasies and the icy landscapes of the North. If one keeps a certain distance from the music, it is actually quite gorgeous at times — if a bit of an acquired taste. (Burzum’s “Dunkelheit” and Emperor’s “The Acclamation of Bonds” are both excellent.)
Many of the musicians are infamous for church-burnings. Burzum’s Varg Vikernes — or, as he prefers, ‘Count Grishnackh’ — was imprisoned fifteen years ago for the brutal slaying of a rival musician and was only recently released. A former drummer for the band Emperor was imprisoned for the murder of a gay man who propositioned him. Aggression, aggression, aggression. As a brief perusal of the comments at the website “Occidental Dissent,” which reprinted my confrontation with Richard Spencer, will show, the attraction toward the violent nihilism embodied by these bands is hardly an accident.
* * *
While not all of the Alternative Right contributors subscribe to this silliness, a good portion do. Richard Spencer sympathizes with it, at the very least. But whatever the makeup of the sympathies of the contributors, one must not mistake Richard Spencer and the Alternative Right for conservatives. They’re not, and they don’t pretend to be. More of a cult than anything else, these proud reactionaries are primitivists, tribalists, and racialists. They despise modernity, classical liberalism, individualism, and any attempt to suppress what they view as the natural right of the hammer to tell the nail whether it stays up or gets pounded down.
The far-left has its deconstructionists and postmodernists, and the far-right has its reactionaries and tribalists. Neither camp is intellectually serious, neither has any real influence; both are composed of pseudo-intellectuals who think that they’ve stumbled onto The Real Truth that’s being suppressed by an elite power structure (that’s why they both hate the Jews!). The trouble comes when Spencer and his ilk try to wrap up their excrement in bows and ribbons. The fringe needs to stay confined to the fringe: that’s why articles about these, er, folk, by me, Tim Mak, and David Frum are necessary.
Postscript:
Richard Spencer has been claiming that I simply made up the dialogue we had last year. Suffice it to say, I don’t have any particular motivation to make such a thing up. If I wanted to piggyback on someone else’s name to gain notoriety, I could have chosen someone a lot more interesting than him.
Alex Knepper // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:20 am
Ah, Thatcher! Endlessly quotable. One of my favorite political figures of the last century.
I like Northern Europe for its aesthetic. It has a very evocative sense to it stemming from its history and landscape. (And hey — by the standards of Spencer’s crowd, I’m part of die volk. Gotta go worship my ancestors sometime, right?)
M Pearle // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:54 am
***(that’s why they both hate the Jews!). ***
Interesting that you don’t mention that the author of the article you mention earlier “As an article on Alternative Right puts it: diversity is a “siren song”, is written by Professor Robert Weissberg. Also, you’ve misrepresented it – it’s actually about the unintended consequences of some EEOC policies rather than against diversity per se.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-siren-song-of-diversity/
Alex Knepper // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:06 am
The commenter “M Pearle” is using a typical collectivist defense: the human shield argument.
“The Jews are subversive traitors who need to be kept an eye on,” says Abraham Goldberg.
“Isn’t that anti-Semitic?” replies a casual observer.
“Of course not. Didn’t you see my last name?” — what?
Fool — ! Noam Chomsky’s a Jew — and an anti-Semite. Apparently Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a spot of Jewish blood. This human shield argument — usually tokenism in some form — is meant to hide the ugly anti-Semitic lunacy the site harbors.
lesacre // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:12 am
Alex Knepper,
“I condemn all forms of collectivism, including all claims based on ‘ancestry.’ Pride in one’s heritage — which is a mere accident of birth — is a false shortcut to individual pride. Real pride is based on personal accomplishment — and nothing else. Racialists are leeching parasites who try to take what doesn’t belong to them. “My ancestors were X and Y” — OK, that’s wonderful for them — and who are you?”
So do you condemn these sentiments too? —
“Mr Obama himself denied something: the millennial Jewish connection to the land of Israel. Yes, the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history of persecution. But a homeland that was merely a place of refuge could have been located anywhere: Uganda, as some proposed, or Uruguay, or (in strict reciprocal justice) Bavaria perhaps or Austria.
The aspiration for a Jewish homeland specifically in the Holy Land of the Bible is rooted not in persecution, but in a thousand years of Jewish political sovereignty, more than 3,000 years of spiritual and religious connection, and now more than 150 years of modern resettlement of the ancient land. This resettlement was legally recognised in the treaties and commitments that followed the first world war, not the second.” — Frum
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/347
Just a tool.
Alex Knepper // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:37 am
Just because I write for David Frum doesn’t mean that I have to agree with every word that the man has ever uttered. One of the reasons he created this site is because he hates party-line dogma. The difference between David Frum and man-on-the-street types who take some sort of pride in heritage is that they, unlike the alt-right types, don’t tell people to “stick to their own kind.”
I have written elsewhere about Obama and Israel: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/06/obama-abandons-israel.html — The prose is a little clunky at the beginning, but it picks up.
sinz54 // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:43 am
Alex Knepper: “Again, the traditional understanding of nation is one where the citizens view themselves as being ancestrally related.” — That’s the beautiful thing about America. It changed that.
Correct.
America was created, not out of a race or ethnicity, but out of an IDEA–the idea that all men are created equal and equally entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that the purpose of government is to ensure all that.
That was a truly revolutionary idea in 1776–various thinkers had proposed it but none had actually gotten a state to implement it. In many parts of the world, it’s still a revolutionary idea.
When we talk about “American exceptionalism,” that’s one of the things that made America exceptional.
sinz54 // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:47 am
lesacre:
A good reason to put the Jewish homeland in Israel was that so many Jews already lived there or traveled there to escape European persecution.
Would I prefer if all states were like the United States–devoted to freedom of all peoples? Sure. Maybe in the Star Trek era of the 23rd century, the whole world will be like that.
But why attack Israel as a “Jewish state” now, when its rules for non-Jews are far more liberal than the rules for non-Muslims in the Muslim states of the Middle East?
There are Arabs in the Israeli Knesset.
How many Christians are there in the Saudi government?
Alex Knepper // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:54 am
“But why attack Israel as a “Jewish state” now, when its rules for non-Jews are far more liberal than the rules for non-Muslims in the Muslim states of the Middle East?” — Exactly. While Israel is a state set aside for a group that has faced historic persecution, it is also a secular state, a beacon of technology and modernity, and an oasis of political freedom in the middle of a wasteland of primitivism.
Still, I must say that the idea behind it is pretty crazy: “Hey guys! Let’s transport millions of Jews into the center of the Muslim world! Better yet — we’ll make an explicitly Jewish state, make it really tiny, and plop it right next to a bunch of Muslim countries! What could go wrong?”
Independent // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:59 am
Alex, you’ve pivoted from outraged indignation to self-effacing humor and then back to self-righteous condemnation of others.
Through it all, the argument you picked up from Tim Mak and expanded with some personal experiences gives FF readers more reason to doubt your maturity and seasoning.
What started as a personal recollection of “standing up to evil”, in your mind at least, is now laughable… and you’re both the joke and joke teller. Give it a rest, pal.
_richardbspencer_ // Mar 15, 2010 at 11:07 am
All Hails the FrumForumVolksgemeinshaft!
This is Richard Spencer.
Unfortunately, I had to make a 9-hour road trip yesterday that left me completely exhausted. I’ve just now recovered and am working on a response to this hilarious piece on me. Hopefully, I’ll be able to publish it by this afternoon. (But I’ve also got some editing work to do today.)
In lieu of an actual formal debate, I’d suggest that Mr. Kneppert just dramatize how he’d like the debate to go. It could begin as such, “After Richard Spencer had taken off his bearskin and smeared the calf’s blood from his lips, he told me, ‘Let’s settle this like real men of the West — through brute force!’ ‘But no!’ I protested, ‘as a believer in Classical Liberalism, I demand that we arrive at conclusions through more civil means…”
Take from there, Alex!
M Pearle // Mar 15, 2010 at 3:07 pm
***America was created, not out of a race or ethnicity, but out of an IDEA–the idea that all men are created equal and equally entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that the purpose of government is to ensure all that.***
Lawrence Auster has an interesting take on this:
“Unadorned is absolutely right when he says: “Well then, that’s our challenge… squaring ‘All men are created equal’ … with a nation’s equally sacred right to preserve its heritage …”
In fact (though this would astonish most contemporary people), the two principles are not opposed to each other. Jefferson has always been accused of hypocrisy for writing “all men are created equal” while owning slaves. But he also wrote, in Notes on the state of Virginia: “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live under the same government.” So he’s saying blacks should not live UNDER whites, but should not live WITH them as equals either, but in their OWN country. This is entirely in keeping with “all men are created equal” properly understood. The Declaration was saying “We British-American colonists, as a community, have the same right of self-government as the English.” In other words, the Declaration is not just asserting equality of rights of individuals, but the equality of rights of respective political communities; that after all is the main point of the Declaration (as M.E. Bradford persuasively argued). That implies the existence of distinct political communities, not the merging of all political communities into a single global community based on nothing but the equal rights of all individuals (which is the way modern liberalism would understand it).
So Jefferson’s ultimate hope that the slaves would both be free and would leave America to to form their own political community elsewhere which would then enjoy its rights as a political community is perfectly in accord with the Declaration properly understood.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 1, 2003 8:48 AM”
He also notes in the preceding article:
“An immigration law which is based solely on utopian ideas of multiethnicism, and which excludes all other values, is just the kind of “strictly logical application of [a] single principle in public law” that Mosca criticizes as the essence of despotism. There are other interests which deserve to be taken into account along with equality, namely the general welfare and the quality of life of the people who already live here, and the preservation of our society’s political and cultural identity. We have already seen that the 1965 legislators implicitly understood this problem. When they spoke of equal treatment before the law, they meant it in terms of individuals, not in terms of mass migrations that would totally change the country. But today we have lost the ability to make that vital distinction.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001100.html
sinz54 // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:08 pm
M. Pearle: “….nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live under the same government.” So he’s saying blacks should not live UNDER whites, but should not live WITH them as equals either, but in their OWN country.
No you’re reading it backwards.
When someone says “Nothing is less certain than X,” they mean that X is extremely uncertain.
In this case, the extremely uncertain proposition is that the two races cannot live under the same government.
S.L. Toddard // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:21 pm
“Because one can choose to be an American. Being an American has nothing to do with one’s heritage, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or any other identity trait. Being an American, rather, is about ideas”
That is the idea of the “propositional nation”, and it is a left wing canard, a weapon wielded to dispossess and displace Americans in their own country. Up until the 20th century there was no confusion as to what an “American” was. “American” is not merely a nationality – and it certainly is not merely a term that describes persons of a particular ideology, as Mr. Keppner proposes – it is also an ethnicity. Unhyphenated Americans, i.e. ethnic Americans, i.e. simply Americans, are the descendants of the original British settlers, as well as the descendants of those who came after that assimilated into American culture to the extent that they are culturally indistinguishable from the descendants of those settlers. That being said, anyone can choose to be an American *citizen*, but one simply cannot choose to be an American. If anyone can be an American than the term is meaningless. A Frenchman who chooses to believe in X, Y and Z does not cease to be a Frenchman.
“I condemn all religions, but ones that can’t even be entered into unless one is of a certain ethnic makeup is especially abhorrent. Yes, Judaism is one of those religions”
Just to be clear here, Mr. Knepper: due to its ethnocentrism, you find Judaism “abhorrent”. Correct? You dislike all collectivism, whatever its origin – Nordicist collectivism, Jewish collectivism etc. Since your dislike of collectivism is so even-handed, could you please link us to any of your pieces here at Frum Forum (or anywhere else) wherein you condemn Jewish collectivism?
“Saying that black people are better at basketball or that white people are better at rock music is not racist.”
Actually, it is – “racism” merely describes the belief that race accounts to some degree for differences in character and/or ability (basketball).
“When I use the word ‘racism,’ I am referring to the belief that one ‘race’ is inherently, as a whole, superior, and that race is a proper demarcation for human ‘types.’ ”
This contradicts your previous statement about basketball and rock music.
“Because it (people preferring the company of those with whom they share an ancestral memory) is profoundly irrational. It is not based on values or accomplishments. It is based upon blood, upon who had sex with whom — accidents of birth”
As is family. And it does not really matter whether you believe it is “irrational”, what matters is that it is *true*. People prefer the company of those with whom they share an ancestral memory. Studies show that diversity and social harmony are inversely proportionate (Diversity and Community in the 21st Century, R. Putnam). Should these facts not inform our immigration policy? And why publicly shame those who honestly profess an affinity for their own that all people share, world wide?
“I favor a fairly open immigration system in principle, but not while we have this welfare state. There’s a profound incentive against assimilation”
If ethnicity is meaningless, then why should anyone assimilate at all? If American identity and European heritage are bound in no important way, then what purpose is there in having immigrants assimilate? Why not run them through a course in their native language indoctrinating them into the ideology you believe defines an American?
“Because I find Odinism, neo-paganism, and this entire movement as hilariously cheesy and dumb as the Rastafarians in Jamaica”
Would you please link to any of your anti-Rastafarian pieces?
“The difference between David Frum and man-on-the-street types who take some sort of pride in heritage is that they, unlike the alt-right types, don’t tell people to “stick to their own kind.”
Of course he does – in advocating a Jewish ethno-state, he is advocating that Israeli Jews “stick to (their) own kind”. Just to be clear again, you *oppose* a Jewish homeland based on a Jewish ethnic identity, correct?
S.L. Toddard // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:30 pm
“When I use the word ‘racism,’ I am referring to the belief that one ‘race’ is inherently, as a whole, superior”
Then will you retract your accusation that Richard Spencer et al are “racist”? I suspect that Mr. Spencer, along with most writers at Alt Right, understand that IQ studies reveal that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians are “superior” to Europeans as far as mean intelligence goes.
Perhaps you are confusing “racist” and “ethnocentrist”. Racism is to Ethnocentrism as Nationalism is to Patriotism. The racist/nationalist (neoconservatives like Mr. Frum would be included in this category) roars “I love my people/country because it is #1!” (Mr. Frum would roar this about America, even though the American people are not actually *his* people). The ethnocentrist/patriot loves his people/country because it is *his*. It is a far more profound attachment than any fleeting, shared ideology.
S.L. Toddard // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“one can choose to be an American. Being an American has nothing to do with one’s heritage, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or any other identity trait. Being an American, rather, is about ideas”
What ideas define “an American”?
Traditionalist // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:39 pm
At least you are honest about being a liberal, be it a classical one. Individualism is a myth of the present.
Read “Vindicating Stereotypes and Discrimination” by J Kalb: http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1448
Read “The Morality of Everyday Life” by T Fleming.
Alex Knepper // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“Just to be clear again, you *oppose* a Jewish homeland based on a Jewish ethnic identity, correct?”
Yes — but I can understand why one would support a Jewish homeland, given the persecution that the Jews have faced over the centuries.
“The ethnocentrist/patriot loves his people/country because it is *his*.”
It’s not his — it’s unearned; he was born into it. I love my country because of the values that we share. If another country popped up tomorrow that came closer to my personal ideal — with nothing but black people living there, even! — I’d sooner shift my allegiance there (although I’d still appreciate America for blazing the path).
“Just to be clear here, Mr. Knepper: due to its ethnocentrism, you find Judaism “abhorrent”. Correct? You dislike all collectivism, whatever its origin – Nordicist collectivism, Jewish collectivism etc. Since your dislike of collectivism is so even-handed, could you please link us to any of your pieces here at Frum Forum (or anywhere else) wherein you condemn Jewish collectivism?”
Well, finding serious-minded publishing outlets that are willing to critically examine these issues is difficult. Most websites condemning Jewish collectivism are just thinly-veiled anti-Semitic ones. I’d be glad to write such a piece, but it’s awfully easy to misconstrue such an argument, given its historical overtones. The only ones who can really talk about such an argument with any seriousness are libertarians and classical liberals. Finally, I admire Jewish culture, regardless of whether it’s closed. Why spend time lobbing missiles at a productive, modern culture — especially one that’s already under so much siege?
“And why publicly shame those who honestly profess an affinity for their own that all people share, world wide?”
Because it’s irrational.
“I suspect that Mr. Spencer, along with most writers at Alt Right, understand that IQ studies reveal that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians are “superior” to Europeans as far as mean intelligence goes.”
And yet — and yet — he has no interest in sharing a civilization with them. I am forced to conclude that he either hates the promotion of intelligence — or is a blatant racist. Actually, maybe both.
Alex Knepper // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:55 pm
“What ideas define “an American”?”
Excellent question. The short version is: I believe that Americanism is the belief that the individual should be allowed to go as far as his talents, productive work, and innovation can carry him — regardless of unchosen identity traits. That the government should get out of the way of the aspiring self-made man in his quest for the good life. And that all men — regardless of background — ought to be treated equally before the law.
S.L. Toddard // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:16 pm
“It’s not his — it’s unearned; he was born into it”
That is just silly. The family you were raised in is not “your own”, because you did not “earn” it?
“If another country popped up tomorrow that came closer to my personal ideal — with nothing but black people living there, even! — I’d sooner shift my allegiance there”
So you have no loyalty whatever to the American people, apart from how far they cleave to your classical liberal ideals.
“Why spend time lobbing missiles at a productive, modern culture — especially one that’s already under so much siege?”
Because you find it “abhorrent”, of course. You reject its very basis for existence. Which makes your spirited defense at jihadwatch of that particular ethnostate, based as it is on “claims based on ‘ancestry’”, on “pride in one’s heritage”, and “collectivism”, curious if not glaringly inconsistent.
“Because it’s irrational.”
As is love of family. As is love itself. These are things you oppose as well?
“And yet — and yet — he has no interest in sharing a civilization with them. I am forced to conclude that he either hates the promotion of intelligence — or is a blatant racist”
No, you are not. You *choose* to conclude that. But you *know* that by *your own definition* Spencer is not “racist”, as he does not subscribe to the “belief that one ‘race’ is inherently, as a whole, superior”. It does not logically follow, from his refusal to “share a civilization with them” (which I’m not sure is even an accurate allegation), that he must have a belief in “racial superiority” – it could simply indicate a preference for his own, rather than foreigners.
Will you retract and apologize?
“The short version is: I believe that Americanism is the belief that the individual should be allowed to go as far as his talents, productive work, and innovation can carry him — regardless of unchosen identity traits. That the government should get out of the way of the aspiring self-made man in his quest for the good life. And that all men — regardless of background — ought to be treated equally before the law”
So an “American” is a classical liberal who believes in ethnic egalitarianism? A lifelong citizen of Tanzania, a Maasai tribesman, who believes these things – he is an “American”? George Washington was *not* an American?
S.L. Toddard // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Also Mr. Knepper (and I apologize for misspelling your name earlier) – thank you for your time and candor.
Levedi // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Thanks, Alex. Interesting article and you articulate some really important points in your replies to the comments. I’m (sort of) with Linnane on this one. I’m a professor of Anglo-Saxon literature and I do rather enjoy my own heritage, but not in a way that keeps me from enjoying the cultures of others. Besides, any good Anglo-Saxonist (professional or amateur) should read the Sermo Lupi Ad Anglos in which Bishop Wulfstan reads his own people the riot act for being a bunch of violent, drunken, slave dealing, baby killing, rapists who worship any false god who comes down the pike and have less self control than spoiled toddlers. It rather puts the warrior culture ideal in perspective.
I’m also a Christian so I had a small YES! moment when I read the folk’s reason for rejecting Christianity – we are indeed (or should be) those who proclaim that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, but all are one in Christ.”
S.L. Toddard // Mar 15, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Wulfstan’s piece mirrors Gildas’ earlier haranguing of the Romano-Britons and their “tyrant” kings, as both were facing a similar danger: the eradication of their peoples at the hands of foreign hordes.
Alex Knepper // Mar 15, 2010 at 8:04 pm
The Chinese immigrant Sasha Gong, who is now a proud American citizen and recently ran for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, said has that she was “born American.” Yes. Anyone — no matter where they are — who subscribes to those ideals, is, in spirit, an American. The beauty of the American system is its openness — you can choose to be an American, in a way that you can’t choose to be Korean, or Jewish, or Nordic. You, on the other hand, I would say, are un-American.
As far as George Washington, we ought to view him in context. He is not my favorite founding father — Benjamin Franklin takes that mantle — but some of the views are more excusable as being “of their time.” People are fallible. But the basic fact is that as long as we stayed tied to our founding ideals as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, it was inevitable that we should move forward to assimilate blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and, in more recent years, Asians from countries like Vietnam and Korea. It’s impossible to take seriously the words of the Declaration and not understand how it’s inevitable that the spirit of tolerance should march forward.
Alex Knepper // Mar 15, 2010 at 8:07 pm
“As is love of family. As is love itself. These are things you oppose as well?”
Love of family is not irrational. To love the people who cared for you, raised you to maturity, and provided you with support along the way — this is irrational? (It is irrational to say that you love family that you have never met, though, as well as to love family members that mistreated you.)
Love itself — I mean, real love — is a response to shared values. Otherwise, you may as well just pick a random name in the phone book and date them.
Sean Linnane // Mar 15, 2010 at 8:19 pm
This ‘Odinism’ Nordic cult is loosely disguised white supremacy racism. I say that as a politically incorrect guiltless white guy who has no apologies for any of the folk the Europeans dominated & oppressed in the past.
The Nazis used to celebrate this sort of thing, with their Thule Society (German: Thule-Gesellschaft), originally the Studiengruppe für germanisches Altertum (“Study Group for Germanic Antiquity”). According to its emblem, the Thule Society was founded in 1919. It had close links to the Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (DAP), later the Nationalsozialistische Partei, a.k.a. the Nazi Party.
Having said that, I understand how it is people are drawn to this sort of thing. The temptation is very seductive; this is a natural reaction to the unassailable offensive against all that is good and decent and normal of our society and our great Western Civilization. You know – the same civilization that brought forth such oppressive concepts as Democracy, Human Rights, Rousseau’s Social Contract, and Enlightenment.
To hear a German honk on about racial purity is a joke – those people were overrun by the Asiatic hordes – there’s a reason why we call them The Hun and it’s not only the spiked helmets. Check out classic Germanic facial features, to include high cheekbones and slanted eyes. “Pure Aryan of the highest Nordic purity” is a myth fabricated by the Nazis.
Anyway how do you figure a 30 year old guy who still lives with his mother is “most manly” ? His nervousness around your MILF mom is telling – this guy is uncomfortable in his own skin; hence the whole Aryan Super Race mindset.
Here’s a Viking telling it like it is: you go for that flawed “ethnic purity” philosophy and you’re cutting yourself off from all the good trim that’s out there; those green-eyed olive-skinned Lebanese beauties the Crusaders left in their wake; the French-Viet dolls of IndoChina: tall, proud Spanish brunettes the result of 500 years of Arab occupation; and lets not forget those hot Korean women of the ultimate warrior race their blood distilled from a thousand years of conflict between China, Manchuria, Japan, the Mongols and of course the Americans.
Vive la différence, that’s what I say.
STORMBRINGER SENDS