33 thoughts on “Richard Spencer”

  1. My first thought was the Mussolini and Richard Spencer were cut from the same cloth: All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. –Benito Mussolini

    My second thought was that the Interviewer failed to hammer down the question of exactly what Spencer means by a “Right”. Pragmatically, your “Freedoms” are what You and Your Community agree on — and the Community can bring force on the individual so that agreement tends to be in their favor.

    Finally, no, no I don’t see him as what I consider a Conservative

  2. At least he has now proven himself to definitely not be a part of the alt-right. Both branches of the alt-right, civic nationalists, and white nationalists, both abhor statism. DeSouza put it well, Richard Spencer is a white leftist without a party. A gadfly, a nothing-burger.

    1. “At least he has now proven himself to definitely not be a part of the alt-right.”
      Wiki claims the term “alt-right” was invented by Spencer. To me it’s not obvious that the alt-right (which covers quite a range of views centered on white nationalism) is so strongly anti-statist and that Spencer is so pro-statist as to put Spencer outside the alt-right.

      1. The “alt-right” became a thing when independent conservatives and other rightists noticed something fishy about the Bush Neocons.

        1. As I understand it, the Neo-Nazis originated the term, because they weren’t able to figure out that National Socialists are left-wing. Then the Libertarian right co-opted it, just as authoritarian socialists co-opted ‘liberal’ long ago.

          1. They fall for the same stereotypes that Demcorats inculcate in society and then align with those stereotypes. They would be right at home in the Democrat party if their skin color was different but because they are cursed by genetics, the only way to get the power they want is by being a white nationalist or claiming to be another race like Dolezal, Warren, and King.

            Often they get their start on the left but then have nowhere to rise in influence because they are the wrong race. So they go to the “right” where they have even less influence.

          2. I thought the alt-right was an offshoot of the coalition of neo-neocons who grouped with the para-Tea-Party wing of the crypto-pseudo-con movement.

            Or was it the Peoples Front of Judea?…..

          3. MFK, if that’s a sarcastic way of saying it means anything and nothing at the same time, I agree. I’ve heard “alt-right” applied to anyone who dares to take a stand against the current dominant flavor of the left.

    2. Both branches of the alt-right, civic nationalists, and white nationalists, both abhor statism.

      You still have the neo-reactionaries. They tend to lean statist.

  3. “Finally, no, no I don’t see him as what I consider a Conservative…”

    There are different conservatives, broadly a difference between American and say British conservative.
    And there is difference between American conservative.

    His statement: Spencer: “Ultimately the state gives those right to you. The state is the source of rights, not the individual.”
    Is not in accordance with American conservative.

    Roughly America different because a group of people had to decide what rights a government was going to be empowered with- and there was a mostly universal agreement, that the government’s rights should be limited.
    And their revolt against the Crown was based upon the king violating their rights. AND many British subjects would/could agree that Crown was violating their rights.

    Their is a weakness in trying to spell out the rights of a government and it seemed [and appears to me] stronger to indicate the rights of the people who were governed.

    So founders were granting rights to the government they were forming, the founders were not government nor single individual, but they were individuals, rather the State.
    And part of granting rights to government is by indicating what the rights of people have who are electing the government.
    And also what rights of the people that if violated would lead to destruction of the State.
    If a “king” established rights of people of a nation, then you would an individual or secession of individuals establishing these rights.

    But these rights are like gravity- one can be ignorant of them or deny them, but they are “god given”.

      1. Well, about 80% of US population is classified as having belief in deities. And about 90% of people in Mexico likewise has belief in deities.

        But I actually believe about 99% of Americans have belief in deities but some aren’t aware they have such beliefs- I would say they sort of in denial. And there appears to be a larger denial in Europe and certainly the case in Russia.

          1. Oh didn’t follow link, I had use different computer to listen to it.
            Never seen that recording. And I think the atheist is wrong about Peterson.
            And it seems to me that atheist are religious and worship a god.
            But I don’t necessary agree with Peterson- I would say he taking a completely different approach and getting similar conclusion I make.
            Now it makes sense to me why the atheist is convinced Peterson is lying/deceptive. And I think Peterson is trying to be as honest and truthful as he capable of being- though I would not make claim how precisely successful he is- not saying it is “the truth”
            Or he coming at it from a certain angle- and it’s not my angle. And I think he is interesting [because he coming from this different prospective].
            Now atheist is essentially worshiping a god of Luck, believes in chance.
            I don’t believe in chance but I also don’t believe that there is a plan. I believe there are reasons [rather than blind luck] that we are here. I also don’t believe in the god of destiny- another common thing to worship.
            I think if have big picture of Dear Leader, one might worship humans as gods- very common practice throughout human history. And etc.

          2. Rather than Peterson, would give some credit to Dennis Prager- I have listened to him a lot and think he is as interesting or more interesting than Peterson appears to be.
            Of course Dennis is coming from different prospective and I would love to hear Prager and Peterson argue.
            Though I imagine there is a lot of common ground between them.

          3. Also I said about 99%- and Peterson seems to say all or 100%- he might be right about it being 100%.

            But Peterson seems to think it’s a constant thing.
            And I would say if you include the entire life of a person, it might be 100% have held religious belief. And don’t think even very devote person is always being religious.
            And I would say I like “einstein’s space and van gogh’s sky” but I think I only read it once- and it seems if I really like stuff, I tend read them more than once. But not sure where my copy is, and probably read it again, if I wanted to read something.

      2. I think it is quite natural for human beings to speak their mind and defend themselves. Many of these natural rights are what tyrants try and suppress but when humans are allowed to flourish in freedom, great things happen.

        This strange rejection of humanity that many people have today is abhorrent.

    1. Quibble:
      Individual people have rights.
      The people taken as a whole, or a government which represents them, has powers.
      It is improper to speak of a government as having rights. You may speak of a group of people having rights in so far as the rights of the group derive from, but do not subsume, the rights of the members.

      Words mean things.

  4. I’m left wondering what was left out, no doubt D’Souza asked far more than a dozen or so questions and getting very short answers. At the end I was left with the impression that D’Souza, being very politically partisan, was looking for an angle to separate Spencer from Trump and to put Spencer on the left and Trump on the right.

    If that was the agenda, after a long interview with Rand and other Republican voters, after lots of cutting, it wouldn’t be hard to publish something that gave “in a purely logical sense” the impression that they were really politically closer to the Democrats.

    1. I would say the point was Spencer was a living fossil and a Dem fossil- probably “over educated” or “book learned” rather more practical and viewing world he lives in.

      So like the movie of going in bomb shelter and not emerging until 50 to 60 years later.

      1. I think Spencer went to Yale or one of those types of schools. He had a very left wing education but a white man can’t rise to prominence under Democrat’s current identity politics and progressive stack unless he pulls a Warren and lies about his ethnicity.

    2. I’m left wondering what was left out

      This is a good point. The full interview might be out there but I am not going to look for it right now.

      I was left with the impression that D’Souza, being very politically partisan, was looking for an angle to separate Spencer from Trump and to put Spencer on the left and Trump on the right.

      This is the first time in my life I have ever seen someone like Spencer asked about their political ideology. People like him are always said to be on the “right” but how? How do they fit in with a party birthed to end slavery, that got women the right to vote, and were lynched for marrying outside their race?

      The only bit of ideology ever mentioned is being racist. Democrats believe racism is on the right side of the spectrum so white nationalists are on the right QED, but anyone can be a racist. There are many leftists that are racist currently and in the past. When American media says someone if far right or extreme right wing, they always mean racist.

      This is just a BS attack and you can tell because they never actually ask these white supremacists what their actual political beliefs are. It is probably because as d’souza showed, they tend to be left wing.

      I think this stems from Democrats being ashamed of their own past and so they cast out white supremacists from their party. Democrats view themselves as being against racism so anyone not a Democrat must be a racist QED. In reality, just because Democrats are against something doesn’t mean someone else is for it but they have to fabricate that for their identity politics to work.

      1. To the left, anyone whom they’d disown is cast to the “right”. This includes embarrassments like the Nazis and undisguised racists who have far more in common with the left than with their opposition.

      1. Indeed. Under the monarchy, Americans fought a war over a tax of a few percent. Today they pay taxes ten times higher because democracy.

        The other thing about a monarchy is that they have a vested interest in maintaining a viable society to hand on to their kids. There’s no such incentive for democratic politicians who know they may only be in power for a few years: they have a limited time to loot society, and most of them make the best use of it to make themselves rich.

        Sure, there are crazy monarchs, but they tend to get bumped off by their relatives, because they don’t want to be pushed out of power by a rebellion against the monarchy.

        1. The tea tax, passed without colonial representation in Parliament, was a source of tension. But what lit fire to the tinderbox was the British army being deployed in an attempt to disarm the colonists. Had that step not been taken, war was still likely, but not until some other spark caught the growing underbrush of resentments over mistreatment.

          Along that same line, the war between the North and South went hot not when the South declared independence, but when they fired on Fort Sumter. Absent that hostile action, history might have played out quite differently.

  5. I really don’t know who this guy is, and I don’t apologize for not keeping up with all the white nationalist groups the media claims I should. But I did read that they had a rally this weekend, and more comments were made in this thread than people who showed up for the heavily covered rally.

    Let’s just say both the media and their stories are nothing but hype.

    1. Yeah, and the strange thing is that when you look at the pictures of the white nationalists, like 5 of them were minorities. I feel like this is all an elaborate troll.

      The DNC media is saying that the numbers were so small only because of what happened last time when participants were doxxed and fired from jobs. But even the original events in Charlottesville only had a few hundred people. The whole rise of white nationalism claim is total BS.

      These events wouldn’t even rate any coverage if the Democrats didn’t show up to engage in violence. Even when there is no one there to counter protest the Democrats feel the need to pick fights with cops.

Comments are closed.