James Kirchick, a Jewish homosexual, who is famous for his role in the Ron Paul newsletters scandal has a new article up about the Alt-Right:
“Identitarianism” is a newfangled euphemism for white supremacy. Coined around the start of the 21st century by the intellectual wing — such as it is — of the French far right, it has since been adopted by white nationalists the world over. Last October, I attended a conference in Washington convened by the identitarian movement’s American division, the National Policy Institute (NPI). It was fitting that the gathering would occur on Halloween, as about 150 ghouls filled the ballroom of the National Press Club. The crowd was almost entirely male, many of them (apparently taking advantage of the under-30 registration discount) young. A conspicuous number sported the Hitler Youth–inspired hairdo known as an “undercut,” short on the sides with a long part on top. …
“Holding a drink and standing by himself was Bill Regnery, a co-founder of NPI and the black sheep of the Regnery publishing clan. A mildly enthusiastic Trump voter, he bemoaned the conservative movement for having “too much involvement with the mechanics of the old America, the Constitution, bromides . . .” Asked to elaborate, Regnery replied that “the Brits have done pretty well without a constitution and maybe this country would do well without a Constitution.”
I was rather surprised by this open disrespect for America’s founding document, especially from someone to the right of Genghis Khan. But it turns out that the Constitution is largely unloved, if not outright disdained, among identitarians, who despise it primarily for extolling the virtues of egalitarianism. Writing on the website of Spencer’s Radix journal, a contributor denigrates the Constitution as a “primitive article of antiquity” that “will not solve the problems we face in the 21st century.” Proposing that “cuckservatives” who speak reverently of the Constitution be denigrated as “paper worshippers,” “vellum supremacists,” and “parchment fetishists,” he argues that the object of their admiration “has ceased to be a vehicle for progress and has instead devolved into a major obstacle to our future.”
It’s ironic that self-identified right-wingers would proclaim the obsolescence of the Constitution as a “vehicle for progress,” since that’s precisely the way many liberals see its role in American society. Spencer, “fresh from a Russian-television” interview, let it rip when I asked what distinguishes him and his movement from the conservatives with whom he used to associate. “I’m more interested in identity . . . than they are in protecting capitalism or adhering to the Constitution or whatever gobbledygook conservatives believe,” he explained. “Conservatives have been damaging to the world” and “are fundamentally boring. I really want something that is more dynamic, about our identity.” Spencer relishes the rise of a new conservative movement because — and it was at this point in his disquisition that he became most visibly excited — he’s “tired of a bunch of boring fatsos talking about how much they love the Constitution,” the word “boring” dripping from his lips with especial scorn. …”
The rest of the article is behind the paywall at National Review. For now, it will cost you .25 cents to read it.
As for the charge of Constitution skepticism on the Alt-Right, I would say we would have to plead guilty as charged. There are many reasons why the Alt-Right is dismissive of the US Constitution. This is scandalous to mainstream conservatives many of whom venerate the Constitution as a “divinely inspired” document like Glenn Beck. It is one of the key reasons that Ted Cruz has been so overwhelmingly rejected in our circles though.
1.) As a hardcore Southern Nationalist, I dislike the Constitution because I believe the Union should have never been created in the first place. Instead, the United States would have been better off evolving as several regionally based nation-states.
2.) As a hardcore Southern Nationalist, I believe that whatever there was that had been good about the Old Republic pretty much ceased to exist around 1865. The voluntary constitutional order that had been created by the Founders was annihilated during the War Between the States and Reconstruction.
Now, with that out of the way:
3.) I don’t have any love for the post-14th Amendment Constitution which created a centralized government and bestowed nearly unlimited power to Washington to intervene in the affairs of the states.
4.) If current demographic trends continue, we are headed back to the Reconstruction era when The Prostrate State: South Carolina Under Negro Government was written.
5.) Congo, Haiti, and South Africa have had many fine constitutions. Ponder what that means for our descendants.
6.) The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means … and it has ruled that abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, affirmative action, Obamacare and illegal immigration are “constitutional.” How long will it be before we have Canadian-style human rights tribunals after a left-leaning Supreme Court figures out what the First Amendment really means? How long will it be until the Supreme Court figures out what the Second Amendment really means and orders the confiscation of firearms?
7.) Considering the present state of the Western world, there isn’t much that is positive that I can say about the liberal order which is enshrined in the Constitution. Indeed, it is a cause of many of our problems and blocks any solution to them.
Finally, I am going to hit you with an irrefutable argument: watch the entirety of “Mugabe and the White African” and tell me you believe the Constitution will protect your descendants in a minority-majority America because of “American exceptionalism” when you believe it has failed to do so over the past fifty years.