EXCLUSIVE: Interviewing Richard Spencer

Richard Spencer

Defend Europa’s Twolve had the opportunity to talk to Richard Spencer, the main man of the American “alt-right” movement. For those unaware, he is a prominent leader of the Alt-Right, the primarily-American white nationalist and identitarian movement. He’s the president of the National Policy Institute, and over the past year, has become a household name for our transatlantic cousins. I spoke with him about ethnonationalism in Europe, America, and the future of our collective people. He was not told what to say – these are his raw, unedited thoughts.

Part 1: America

Twolve: I’m here with Richard Spencer, the prominent American ethno-nationalist and fighter for European rights. Are you a reader of Defend Europa, Richard?

Richard: Yes, I am. Although I’ve only recently discovered the site.

T: Good to hear. So now that the dust on the Unite the Right march has settled, what are your final thoughts?

R: It was a terribly important, historical event. That doesn’t mean that some bad things happened, which they did. But not everything is going to be an easy success. It was also a major learning experience, which will effect how we do things moving forward. The bad things include, of course, the death of the counter-protestor Heather Heyer. They also include some Alt-Right attendees who have been terribly mistreated by the authorities. The good things include the fact that the main organizers and everyone surrounding me did nothing wrong; indeed, we did so much right and stood our ground against a city, police force, and state that was out of control. The police and state cracked down upon precisely the people who were non-violent (that is, the speakers and organizers and our colleagues and guests). In turn, they allowed chaos to rule in downtown Charlottesville. Worse still, the police cleared Lee-Emancipation Park and forced the peaceful people out into Market St., which was absolute Bedlam. The police endangered our lives; I sadly have reason to believe that they did that on purpose, that they *wanted* chaos in order to justify their “state of emergency” order (which was issued *before* the rally, by the way) and a continued crack down on the Alt-Right. There were a couple of bad apples on our side, yes. But overall, the attendees showed heroic restraint and should be proud of themselves. The antifa are nothing but bad apples. They were not just attacking the Alt-Right. Literally every journalist I spoke with had either been maced by them or manhandled. The antifa are truly disgusting people. The death of Heather Heyer remains quite ambiguous. I hope that Fields receives a fair trial, but I fear that’s impossible at this point. That is truly sad. We have to be realistic about what being part of a historic movement entails. It entails being attacked, in the press and by the existing authorities. It entails difficult situations, which aren’t easy victories. It will also entail, to be frank, situations like Charlottesville. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. is memorialized by the current establishment, but there was death involved with it; there was blood in the streets. When passions are high, there is often violence. The fact is, if we don’t raise passions, then we aren’t doing anything important. I certainly don’t mean that *we* should be the aggressors. We absolutely should not be. What I am saying is that we should be realistic and expect to be attacked. This is not going to be easy. We are not going to make progress by hosting wine-and-cheese parties or literary conferences. We will advance by taking risks, being public, and defending ourselves.

T: Do you think Charlottesville has been a net positive or a negative for the alt-right and the wider far-right in general?

R: A net positive, no doubt. It’s sometimes hard to see this. It’s hard for *me* to see this sometimes when I’m struggling with payment processors and recreating my websites, etc. Charlottesville proved that we are a major movement of change that is of central importance in contemporary politics. It also revealed the mendaciousness of so many in positions of power. It was also, much like “Hailgate,” a cleansing purge or weaklings in the Alt-Right. We learned who our friends are.

T: To me it seemed like “hailgate” was when you really began to become a household name among the politically active – what was it like having the world’s media watching and reporting then?

R: I don’t know how I survived the first few days, to be honest. Immediately after the conference, I was in a tremendous mood. As everyone involved, speakers and attendees alike, gave me highly positive feedback. On Tuesday, the video by The Atlantic hit and received millions of views. I was in a restaurant with a friend of mine and suddenly I appeared on a television at the bar. Surreal! The pressure was immense. And I recognized that nothing would be the same afterwards. I also responded. And recognized the need to get our side of the story outwards.

T: It was insane to see how it blew up all over the BBC and CNN.

R: Hailgate became a positive things for two reasons. First, I did not throw anyone under the bus. Of course, I don’t think the Roman salute is great “optics” for our movement; we can’t get trapped in the past or become the stereotype our detractors want us to be. But the fact is, the attendees were in high spirits (and a bit inebriated); they were also ironically throwing back the “Hitler” (or “KKK” or “Confederate”) label back in the face of their tormentors in the media. Also, I was being edgy. I knew that saying “Hail Trump! Hail Our People! Hail Victory!” would be provocative. Though I didn’t quite know just how provocative! The second reason why Hailgate was a success was Texas A&M, which followed about 10 days afterwards. The Alt-Right and I didn’t wither or apologize or call it quits. We came back with a great event and a great speech. Weaker people would have been killed by Hailgate. The Alt-Right and I were not. In fact, Hailgate is now just one part of our story. It was not the ending.

T: Given the meteoric rise you’ve enjoyed so far, where do you see the alt-right in the next 10 years? Will Americans ever be able to vote for Richard Spencer for their president?

R: Ha! They might. *That* would be a wild ride. It would also fulfill what would best be called a fantasy, and not a realistic ambition. But sometimes fantasies become reality… My realistic ambition is *influence*, that is, to influence how people think, how politicians act, and how culture is made. (And culture is more important than politics, by the way.). The Alt-Right is now in a place where we are *recognized* as a movement and idea system. The elites, and millions of normies, recognize that there is another version of the Right that isn’t about the Constitution, free markets, spreading democracy to the Middle East and all that nonsense. There is an identiarianism and identity politics for White Americans. That’s a huge step.

T: Say it all happens. White America wakes up, and you’re at the table ready to create the ethnostate. Which parts of America would it be in? Or even the whole country?

R: First off, before the Ethno-state we should advocate for pro-White policies, which are just on the edge of the Overton window or which actually can be enacted. I’ve been very clear that the Ethno-State is an ideal, that it may not appear in my lifetime, and that I cannot predict the contingencies of history. In other words, I know the Why and the What For. I can’t tell you the How. The Left and Zionists were each motivated by great ideals, namely, Communism and Israel. The Right, on the other hand, has weakened itself by simply supporting the status quo, turning back the clock a decade or two, or managing liberalism. My proposition is that the Ethno-State should be a motivating *telos*, much like the ideal of Communism animated the Left.

T: So to clarify, the ethnostate is more of the long-term, ultimate aim, and enforcing pro-white policies to counteract things like demographic shift should be the goal for now?

R: Yes. We should be firmly planted in the ground, but with our heads in the clouds. One eye fixed on the here and now, one eye, on eternity.

T: That’s a good way to look at things. So, it seems the main point the left has against you is when you spoke of a “peaceful ethnic cleansing”. What did you mean by this?

R: The speech in which those words occurred is online. (Few take the time to put my words into context.). I was referring to the “peaceful ethnic cleansing” that occurred after the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, in which the map of Europe was literally redrawn after the First World War. The guiding principle (at least ostensibly) was “self-determination” and ethnic nationalism). That said, I obviously think that “re-immigration” and population transfers are possible. And that they can be done quite peacefully. All that is required is will. If we allow populations to follow the movement of capital or the transformations of communications, then there will be no coherent nations remaining.

Part 2: Europe

T: Defend Europe (not to be confused with Defend Europa) are a group linked with the Identitarian movement who recently went into The Mediterranean Sea and policed the NGOs, who usually bring so-called refugees over to Europe, rather than leaving them in the African coast. Are you aware of their work, and if so, what are your thoughts?

R: Of course, I’m aware. Defend Europe has been doing fantastic things. It is a symbolic gesture, yes, but a powerful one. These identitarians are the vanguard of Europeans standing up for their peoples and homelands.

T: I definitely agree – we’ve got problems with these fake refugees – more so than with the ones actually fleeing Syria.

R: The refugee crisis is, to a large degree, about actual refugees from wars. Wars, by the way, supported by Washington, Brussels, London, Paris, et al. I’m thinking of Libya and the ongoing attacks against Assad. But fundamentally, the refugee crisis is itself a war: a war without bullets, an invasion of the European heartland.

T: And yet, for example, the British government is strongly against anything remotely considered far-right with one of our senior government members calling for a crackdown on “far-right propaganda”, with people on the wrong side of the law facing jail time now. How should we respond to this? So much as watching a speech by Hitler could get one thrown in prison for years.

R: The situations for Britons and Europeans is quite dire in terms of free expression. We have the luxury of free speech in the U.S.; however, that is changing, too. There is much more talk of “hate speech” than in previous years and Silicon Valley acts as a de facto censor. European identitarians have been excellent in navigating current realities. In some ways, outright censorship can be a benefit, in that it forces one to express oneself philosophically, make one ideas fresh and new (not stuck in the past), and be creative. The key thing is that we must understand our movement as *international* (dare I say *global*), that is, as involving White people around the world. Ethno-nationalists in, say, Poland and Hungary have made tremendous strides; however, I sometimes wonder if they lose sight of the bigger picture, that those countries cannot ultimately survive on their own, that they must be integrated into a bigger geopolitical bloc.


Ethnonationalism has made a great rise in Europe these past few years, with Brexit, FN in France, PVV in Holland, AfD in Germany, and of course Polish and Hungarian nationalism. But, especially in Western Europe, these parties and movements are civic nationalists at best, and Geert wilders of the PVV having visited Israel numerous times and being a proud Zionist. Are they doing this for optics, or are they genuinely that cucked?

R: I think they are genuinely cucked, to a large degree, and with some notable exceptions. It’s also a very complicated phenomenon. Let’s take Brexit. Brexit voters supported Brexit as a way of voicing their opposition to non-White immigration. In other words, for the voters, Brexit was all about race. Unfortunately, the leaders of Brexit didn’t care about this, or, in fact, were pro-immigration and anti-White. These leaders viewed getting out of Europe as a means of getting into the Third World, namely the markets around Britains former colonies. They were globalist libertarians and Thatcherites. Thus, Brexit as a phenomenon was quite positive. But the reality of Brexit was something else entirely. Moreover, the Visegrad bloc is a quite positive phenomenon, and yet still exists within the shadow of NATO and thus the pro-American world. What I’m trying to communicate is that the international Alt-Right isn’t just a stronger form of conservatism. It offers a fundamentally different paradigm. We also recognize that the current paradigm must change if the White race is to survive.

T: Japan’s immigration system is frequently regarded as the gold (or at least the silver) standard among our side – with its harsh requirements and tendency to prefer Asians over non-Asians. Could this be implemented in Europe and America to the same effect, or would we have to go for something a bit different?

R: Yes and no. Implementing a Japanese style system is eminently *possible*. The fact that such a thing is viewed as “unamerican” or “un-European”—impossible and/or evil— demonstrates the degree to which the obstacles we face are psychological and moral, not just political. Moreover, we’ve crossed a Rubicon in so much of the European world, which makes a Japanese system insufficient for saving our race. Even if all immigration were halted tomorrow morning, Whites would still become minority in the United States in my lifetime. Not too long ago, Western and Central Europe were immune to such a problem; but over the past two decades, that has changed. We are all in the same boat: that “2050” (or thereabouts) date for minority status holds for the core European countries, such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Therefore, we must be more radical (in the best sense of the term) than Japan. We must seriously consider more dramatic measures like “re-immigration” and population transfers. The greatest psychological trauma of all this is the loss of a concept of a “homeland.” Who could say that about Germany at the moment? Or America or France? We’ve become strangers in our own land. This is why my conception of the Ethno-State is *post-national*, so to speak. The post-national Ethno-State must be a homeland for our race, in the truest sense; there must be a right of return and racial citizenship for all Whites: German, Slave, Celt, Latin, et al.

T: It is commonly touted that a reason for Britain’s demographic shift is due to the Tony Blair government forming a lax immigration policy simply to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”. Since then, our situation has worsened drastically. Morally, what does this say about neoliberals and leftists, that they would use a silly political dispute (not even a phoney economic reason) as a reason to destroy their own country with immigration?

R: The “rub the right’s nose in diversity” is a classic line; I can well remember when that controversy broke. It’s also a terribly revealing statement. It demonstrates the degree to which hatred, resentment, and the quest for power lie just behind all politics. We shouldn’t believe neo-liberals and leftists when they talk about how immigration is going to help the poor, boost the economy, and save pensions. Even if this were true, this is never the real motivation. We should also remember to do the same to the Left when we are in power—multiplied by a million. We shouldn’t care about winning a friendly debate with the Left. We must utterly demoralize them to the point of despondency and suicide. Rub their noses in it, so to speak.

T: In the United Kingdom, National Action, a far right group, was proscribed (banned by the government) in December 2016 for “inciting hate”, after hailing the killing of Jo Cox MP by a right-wing extremist, and saying “1 down, 649 to go”, implying that all of our MPs should be killed. Is proscription for this OK? What’s your view on this situation?

R: I actually didn’t know the details of this proscription. Obviously that was a foolish thing to say. One should never directly threaten the state. It is sovereign: it has the power of the legal system on its side. That said, the proscription against National Action comes in a very long line of outright thought control. Let’s remember, *I’m* banned from the United Kingdom. I can’t even visit as a tourist. And this was done by none other than Theresa May, while she was the Interior Secretary. There’s an irony and sadness to the fact that my last name is “Spencer.” I am not welcome in the land of my ancestors. It seems like every week there’s news of a new thought control measure, each one more oppressive and hysterical than the last.

T: Let’s look at some questions our readers have submitted.

R: Alright.

T: @R1GHTWINGRISE asks “Do you feel there is strong leadership with the alt right or a lack of leadership, and what do you think is the best strategy for growth?”

R: Well, I do believe that my friends and colleagues and I are offering strong leadership. There’s not a vacuum, but there is room for more people. Remember, this is a growing movement. We can’t really imagine where we will be in 10 years, as 10 years ago, none of could imagine where we would be today. You could say that Alt-Right 1.0 existed throughout the 2000s; it was effectively a collection of one-man operations and website. Alt-Right 2.0 came about with Trump and all the new young people—the way that we burst onto the scene. Alt-Right 3.0 will be real, legitimate organizations. That is what I’m questing to build right now.

T: As a followup, do you think the alt-lite/new right types (Posobiec, Yiannopoulos, PJW, etc.) could have a part to play in this Alt-Right 3.0, or are they just useful idiots?

R: There was a chance that could happen. Back in the summer of 2016, it did seem like we were aligned, with the Alt-Lite as *our* useful idiots. I refrained from attacking them for this very reason. Behind the scenes, some of these figures told me, “Don’t be so public; leave that to us; you should be an intellectual.” I took that advice with a hefty dose of skepticism, to say the least. Now, an alliance with them seems totally impossible and undesirable. Posobiec is simply an imbecile. Cerno is a weirdo and newshound, who A-B-C-D…-tests his opinions; PJW is still from the Alex Jones world, Yiannopoulos is a gay activist at this point. They don’t benefit us in the slightest. We must do this on our own, with people who are strong and can be trusted. Those figures I mentioned are neither. The moment they get heat, they will cuck. We should never want such people in leadership. They are also just gross, botched personalities. Would you want to be the same room with any of those people? Cerno and Jeff Giesa have recently started a Super PAC dedicated to “American prosperity”; their first candidate was a Jew from Ohio. They’re retreating into the utter stupidity of the “conservative movement.” I would imagine that within three years, these figures will have jumped on a new wave. Good riddance.

T: @Quinctius_ asks: “What thinkers were most influential on your ideology and worldview?”

R: Nietzsche and Schmitt, and many other related to them.

T: Now for the most divisive question in our movement: are traps gay? Yes or no.

R: Lol. Yes, traps are gay.

T: So that just about wraps it up – do you have a message for our readers?

R: Become who we are.

T: Excellent – thank you for your time.

R: It’s been a pleasure.

Nationalist from the heartland of Wessex. Economically centrist and socially conservative. Anti-Zionist and anti-Islam.