The Wheat and the Chaff: The Alt-Right and Our Right to Purge
“Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
It has been hard to be a Republican for a long time now.
The party has been rife with a variety of problems that are, at this point, inescapable. Beginning around 2008, the fractious Tea Party signaled a visible split in the GOP which had been festering for a very long time. Today, that split is impossible to miss.
Across the board, conservatives have been itching for an alternative.
The rise of Donald Trump has energized what is commonly called the alt-right movement. The alt-right, broadly, is an alternative to the traditional conservative ideology which was maintained by the big-tent of the GOP.
While the alt-right is not easy to pin down, there are some basic positions constituting the movement broadly. Though not universal, here are seven of them:
1. National Identity
2. National Sovereignty
3. Opposition to political correctness
4. Racial-realism and racism
5. Authoritarianism
6. Traditionalism
7. Imperium
National identity and sovereignty are distinct, but certainly linked. Not to be confused with the feeling of patriotism towards one’s own nation or people, the idea of national identity is better understood as the reification of a people or nation over and against an outsider. To be clearer, national identity rests on the necessary distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ There is a clean definition of those who would be considered ‘in’ and those who are ‘out.’
National sovereignty, therefore, rests on the borders dividing those who are in the group from those who are out. It is tied directly to the land or physical space. Using the United States, one could say the border of the country would define our national sovereignty. This issue is intensified with the many debates and problems surrounding immigration. The notion of sovereignty extends both inward and outward depending on the degree of initiation into the broader alt-right movement. For example, outwardly one could apply this principle to the ‘free world’ or the idea of ‘Europa’ or inwardly to the Sovereign Citizen themselves.
An opposition to political correctness is frequently characterized as a necessary component of the alt-right movement, especially as it pertains to the dissemination of ideas and information. Milo Yiannopoulous, a popularizer in the alt-right movement, has aptly suggested that many who find his work entertaining are not necessarily ideologically driven but are reacting against political correctness. This is a fair assessment and he is, in many instances, probably right. His followers have been charged with racism generally and anti-Semitism particularly, to which he said many of them simply enjoy getting a rise out of people — especially online while posting anonymously.
Speaking broadly, political correctness in their eyes is in itself an authoritarian claim on the Good and therefore defines boundaries of right-speech and right-action in polite discourse. But as these defined boundaries, generally set by the establishment and slants toward the left, are politically motivated it is treated with an air of contention and disobedience.
Racial-realism is a complicated subject and cannot be treated properly in a few short sentences. The best popular proponent on the alt-right of a worldview which might be described as being in-line with ‘racialism’ is Jared Taylor. Basically, it is the belief that there are indeed differences between human races and these can be explained both culturally and scientifically. Expressed another way, it is a return to scientific racism. Radicalized by Taylor’s worldview and teachings, Dylann Storm Roof murdered nine people and injured one more at the AME Church in Charleston, North Carolina.
Frequently, race realism is bound up with two other connected narratives: the idea of racial purity and the conspiracy of the rootless cosmopolitan — the international Jew. Often combining the two, many in the alt-right hold the idea that ((the Jews)) are working together to destabilize the white world with immigrants, homosexuality, and social degeneracy in an effort to introduce a new social order. This seems to create a reactionary and isolating response which therefore speaks out against race-mixing while opposing liberalism, particularly feminism. This is precisely why so often those who they see as degenerate are called ‘cucks’ (cuckold) — implying simultaneously miscegenation, the submissive white male, and the domineering white female.
If you want to hear this explained in its own words, listen to Richard Spencer’s presentation called “Why Do They Hate Us?”
Perhaps the most interesting features of the alt-right movement are the notions of traditionalism and imperium. Indeed, it should be obvious so far that the broad spectrum described is a return to traditional values and a general sense of something lost. Be it nation, power, or identity, something once held is held no more and it needs to be reclaimed by resisting the current trends in polite discourse and the world around us. But what is not clear is exactly what has been lost.
For many I have seen, what has been lost is Christendom.
Much has been written about the moral majority movement of the 1980’s and it is well established that this is a crucial voting block for the GOP — we do not need to rehash this here. There are two major strands in the alt-right which speak to this phenomenon directly: one is Dominionism, and the other is Imperium — both of which are authoritarian at their core.
Dominionism, or the Seven Mountains, is the belief that Christian evangelicals must reclaim secular society in seven sectors: religion, family, education, government, media, entertainment, and business. This is to say their worldview rests on the distinction of the secular world being opposed in essence to the heavenly world, which therefore mandates its conquering and christening. While Ted Cruz is not normally categorized as alt-right, he is indicative of this worldview.
Imperium, however, is more interesting. It is a deeply traditional worldview which calls upon a time long-past wherein Christendom was in fact imperial. Using the imagery of Rome, Byzantium, and Imperial Russia it (mis)remembers an era wherein Christianity was the unifying ideology of all citizens in the oikoumene and the imperium was socially constructed to reflect the cosmic order. In a very real sense, it is trying to call upon the imagery of the Crusades to reconquer the Christian world. Alternatively, they may utilize the theology of Julius Evola and the cult of eternal heroism. The best example of this in the modern imagination is Anders Breivik.
Between Dominionism and Imperium is the deeply nefarious Christian identity movement. Like all of these components, they stand on their own and are not uniquely part of the alt-right — only that the alt-right embodies some of these tendencies currently. Christian identity is a racial theology which purports that white people are among the lost tribes of Israel. They suggest the Bible itself is written in an effort to explain a lost heritage and that the white people are, in fact, the chosen people of Israel. This is bound to a variety of contentious beliefs, but it is frequently partnered with the idea that all non-whites are ‘mud’ races, impure and not chosen as God’s beloved people.
These seven features of the alt-right are not universal or exhaustive, and frequently do not overlap — or at least do not overlap necessarily. Someone may very well want the return of an imperial Christianity without believing there is scientific evidence supporting inferior/superior races; or, as another example, someone may believe in national sovereignty and its potential erosion through immigration policies without believing it is orchestrated by a conspiracy of Jews and cosmopolitans. That said, these features often do overlap and they constitute a broader pattern we see inside the modern American alt-right movement.
The problem with this movement is not its popularizers, such as Milo Yiannopolous, Gavin McInnes, or Alex Jones. These people are virtual cartoons in comparison to their serious corollaries. They are entertainers, commentators, and reactionaries (respectively) who have carved out a niche which speaks to both real and imagined grievances.
McInnes aside, who is a very valuable corrective to the excess of progressive discourse, the other two commentators are people to just feel bad for. While currently they are successful in their own mediums, both Milo and Alex Jones have squandered their talents for a fleeting moment of fame, binding themselves to failing and flailing theses.
Mild mannered jokesters who like to get a rise of people online anonymously are fine. But they are being manipulated by extremist tendencies which have serious consequences for real people and their lives. Normalizing racist narratives that have we have attempted to squash for decades cannot be allowed to go unchallenged — no matter what guise they come in, joking or otherwise.
This leads us to the issue of separating the wheat from the chaff.
In order to keep Republicanism alive in the United States, we have to purge the unwarranted beliefs which have penetrated an otherwise virtuous and useful ideology. If Republicanism is conflated with conservatism, let the old saying that conservatism points progressivism in the right direction be a guiding light.
Instead, as Donald Trump has famously said, their credo is “Americanism, not globalism.”
But anyone with an eye on the world stage knows this simply cannot be.
The United States has its hands in virtually every issue worldwide. While we can either lead from behind or out front, we need to be leaders in the world and we need to make sure how we lead is virtuous and good. We have to be present for the world to see and stop extremism on all sides from arising in a concrete and institutionalized form of fascism.
Republicanism or conservatism, from now on, must instead point the progressive movement in a direction that is going to respect life and conduct itself internationally in a way which benefits the broader global order for the many and not just the few. It has to be not an alternative, but a balance for progress — seen as the one wing of the Eagle, and not another beast all-together.
This will separate the wheat from the chaff. The chaff is the bubbling fascism, secessionism, and isolationism we currently see in the extremist fringes being normalized by some of the constitutive elements of the alt-right movement.
It is my belief that with public confrontation we can persuade many of the people attracted to this movement through better ideas. For many of them, their grievances are real and not merely imagined. We can talk about these problems publicly and openly and hopefully offer them the balancing perspective that keeps them out of the fringes and in the mainstream.
The recent movie Imperium had an interesting line towards the end: “there is only one essential component of fascism: victimhood.”
In reality, everything I mentioned above can be underpinned by this essential fact. People who yearn for a more glorious past, be it Christian or White or whatever, feel as if the changes in the world have disrespected and disavowed them and their deeply held commitments. They are, in their own minds, victims.
The best way to treat a victim is with a little love and kindness. We can listen to their grievances, hear them, let them sit — but at a certain point, we need to counter them.
These bad ideas can be countered with better ones, separating the wheat from the chaff. That is our right to purge.