I first met Richard Spencer at an event in October 2009. At the time he was executive editor at Taki's Magazine, a website hosting prominent authors somewhat to the right of the American paleoconservative movement. Spencer was impeccably attired and irradiated a smiling confidence that set him well apart from others; he was well connected and with the cheerful and vaguely insolent air of someone destined to go far (success demands a modicum of insolence, otherwise one is too accepting of the status quo). He was interested my writing for TakiMag and I was interested in widening my audience, so we agreed I would write an article about Black Metal—an obscure but culturally significant phenomenon. Two years later we would be co-editing his more radical website, Alternative Right. Now that Spencer has become formally involved with Washington Summit Publishers, home of Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen, John Glad, and other racial scientists, he makes an opportune subject for my running series of interviews with individuals involved in politically incorrect writing and publishing.

Your assistant editorship at The American Conservative is the first item in your official biography, but by the time you got the position you clearly knew you were fundamentally different from your coevals—otherwise, you would have chosen a safer, and a potentially more remunerative, career in mainstream journalism. When I met you in 2009 I encountered a man of 31, with intelligence, a nice suit, educated speech, and a Hollywood smile. And yet… you consort with the most hated heretics of our age. What happened to you? 

I guess I’ve always been like this. The desire to conform to society’s conventions and unwritten rules is natural, and, in many ways, healthy. Most normal people want to do something that’s looked upon as decent and respectable in the eyes of their peers; they want a life with a predictable cursus honorum. 

We’ve all experienced it—those admonishing, bewildered stares you get when you dare to broach the topic of, say, racial differences. You just don’t say that! What are you, crazy? (This despite the fact that so much of our “heretical” views are taken for granted by most humans around the world, and were accepted by most Westerners until around 50-75 years ago.)

My sense is that those who are willing to speak the unspeakable—and shun the natural desire to conform to the ways of the world—are either naïve and quasi-autistic or else arrogant jerks. The first type often lacks social skills, and much like someone who’s tone deaf, is simply unaware of society’s tacit rules, taboos, and shibboleths. This type follows logic, and his own instincts, to their endpoints; he might reach “far Right” or “extreme” conclusions, but he doesn’t necessarily start there. (There’s one particularly controversial writer and blogger who is genuinely shocked by the fact that many find his writings on IQ differences wicked and unacceptable. He doesn’t seem to have any idea of what he’s up against.)

The second type (whom I refer to as the arrogant jerk, only somewhat in jest) is aware of the social consequences of openly talking about forbidden subjects, but is willing and able to do so due to his powerful internal constitution—and maybe even a confidence that tomorrow belongs to him. 

That these psychological types make up our “movement,” if we’re to call it that, has ensured that too much of our time is spent in furious, internecine disputes.

At any rate, I think I’m a mixture of the types . . . probably more type 2 than type 1. Likely my mother is to blame, as she filled me with excessive confidence as a child. And ever since I was in high school, I’ve dedicated myself to disciplines that are out of the mainstream and not particularly remunerative. I directed and designed all sorts of productions of Shakespeare in college, culminating in an avant-garde Hamlet mashup that was almost like Noh drama at some points. Afterwards I interned with a number of major directors, including Robert Wilson for his production of Wagner’s Ring. . . in Zürich. I might say that my ultimate dream is to direct the Ring . . . , though, alas, it will likely be unfulfilled. To sum up, I’m a habitual bohemian.

A writer necessarily lives partly through what he reads. What were the key texts and authors that influenced or informed your worldview?

I’d rather not just give a list of authors who’ve influenced me, as it’d be long and I’d likely leave many important figures out. As I was coming into my own intellectually, when I was around 19-22 years old, Nietzsche had an enormous effect on me. I would also devour Shakespeare’s plays. His texts, which were something close to being a foreign language for a young person and have layers upon layers of irony and ambiguity, taught me the art of close reading. 

At AltRight, I’ve recently written about my idea for the modern canon; this piece could give readers a sense of the current material that I think is important. I’d mention that the efforts made by the Arktos publishing group to translate and edit the works of the so-called French New Right is extremely important. (Arktos is an advertiser at AltRight, but I’d be a fan even if it weren’t.)

Over the past four to five years, I’ve been studying Austrian economics rather seriously. I’m hardly a pure libertarian, but my readings have helped me think rationally about human action, and not just “economics” per se. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has been quite important in this regard. (Our side is certainly hampered by the fact that so many of us have rather mystical economic views . . . )

A consistent theme across the publications you have been involved with is the idea that modern society has gone badly wrong and requires political leadership with a fundamentally different orientation—different from the liberal orientation, certainly, but also different from the mainstream conservative orientation. If the problems of contemporary American society are as grave as is described, why do you think journalism is the best channel for you?

Obviously, the kind of people we need in leadership positions aren’t the kind of people who could get elected, in this or really any other democracy. It is, indeed, important for us to understand democratic politicians as a class—or as a type of human, really. Whatever the case, it’s a class that’s comprised, almost entirely, of cowards, kiss-ups, and amoral sociopaths. A genuine person like Ron Paul is the exception. I have met a couple of higher types who are part of the Vlaams Belang (the Flemish nationalist party), but even these men haven’t changed my mind on democracy and democratic politicians.

Tell us about your initial experiences at The American Conservative. What was it like when you first sat behind your desk on the morning of the first day? And how were things different on the afternoon of the day you left? What did you learn during this period?

Well, “the cubicle” was a new experience to me. While I was at Duke graduate school before then, I had essentially made my own schedule. And though I wouldn’t want to repeat it, it was actually refreshing at the time to take the metro to work everyday at 8:30 AM, operate in an office, and report to “the boss”—in this case, Kara Hopkins and Scott McConnell.  TAC was also necessary for me in that it taught me what it takes to bring a publication into fruition—I got experience commissioning articles, meeting deadlines, cutting down a 2500-word piece so it would fit in a 1600-word space, etc.  At TAC, I also learned how to work in a “guerrilla” operation and how to give the public the illusion that your organization boasts a full-time staff of 20 and an army of interns. Amazingly, four people (Scott, Kara, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and I) were able to put out two high-quality editions a month. Many other publications do less with more . . . TAC was a kind of boot camp for me. Every editor needs to go to boot camp.

I was also a newbie to Washington, DC. To be honest, I quickly began to loathe the city and its mind-numbing suburbs of beige high-rises. (Whenever I go back, I visit my friend Marcus Epstein in Alexandria, Virginia, one of the very few places in the area with character and charm.)

With Marcus Epstein in Alexandria, Virginia.

After The American Conservative you resurfaced at Taki’s Magazine, an online publication created by Taki Theodoracopulos, one of TAC’s founders. At Taki’s held the position of executive editor. What did this entail and how was working for Taki different from working at TAC? What were most enjoyable aspects of this job and the most frustrating ones?

From day one, Taki put enormous trust in me. This had something to do with the fact that Taki is not one to get involved with the nitty-gritty of a website himself: he’s off writing his columns, practicing judo, chasing tail, and the rest. But it also has something to do with the fact that Taki trusts his employees. That Taki would fund the venture and allow me, more or less, to do what I want, was quite an incredible opportunity.

Richard Spencer, with Taki Theodoracopoulos (behind) and Peter Brimelow (right), in Manhattan in 2009.

As I look back upon my experience, it’s clear that I got more radical as time went on. In 2008, when I first started, my expressed views and the pieces I commissioned were quite similar to the TAC line—and not really too different from those of movement conservatism. By 2009, I was much more willing to express heretical views on race and egalitarianism, as well as write more forthrightly on culture. I was also opening up new horizons: we did articles on Revilo Oliver, Black Metal, and the illusion of technological progress. We had exited the realm occupied by The Weekly Standard and Townhall.com.

Besides little things, there was ultimately nothing frustrating about the arrangement I had with Taki; it was a dream come true. One frustrating thing I did face was some colleagues’ breaking from me—and quasi-denouncing me—due to my “radical” turn. Note that I don’t mind people disagreeing with me; it’s the high-and-mighty tone they adopted that I found truly annoying. (And it probably did affect me emotionally. I guess everyone wants to be liked on some level.) Anyway, I noticed right away that those who broke with me over race issues and the like were, with a few exceptions, the ones who self-identified as “public Catholics” and/or laid claim to being atavistic, über-traditional moralists. It just so happened that these Medieval avatars hold views on race and other touchy subjects that adhere to every PC “equality” dictate laid down by post-MLK America. How convenient.

Towards the end of 2009, you decided to resign your editorship at Taki’s and begin a new venture. We have since seen Taki’s Magazine undergo a complete redesign as well as a shift in editorial emphasis. Are your departure and the abovementioned changes related? What led to your decision?

Yes. Taki is a man who resides in a couple of different worlds. Instinctually, Taki is a “paleoconservative” or “traditionalist” . . . or perhaps I should say “fascist” (I, of course, mean that as a compliment. I always have this image of him wearing a Wehrmacht helmet while skiing in Switzerland, as he related in one of his columns.) At the same time, he’s also connected with the fashionable New York scene (which is made up of people who are far cooler than I, that’s for sure.) And though in his 70s, he has the energy—and libido—of a 25-year-old. The “Taki legend” is definitely true. I remember in 2008 eating dinner with him at the Waverly Inn alongside a number of his old cronies and various pretty girls. It was definitely not your average night at the movies . . . I digress.

The point is that Taki is connected to this world—and he feels at home around these people. And Taki is probably the only person on Earth who can navigate both the John Randolph Club and the Waverly Inn! I remember a now-legendary 2008 Christmas Party at his apartment; it was quite a bash: John Derbyshire, Paul Gottfried, Peter Brimelow, Lawrence Latham, and Peter Schiff were present. In the early morning hours, after these guests of honor had left, my cronies and I were quite drunk and acting rather . . . right-wing (doing just about everything short of singing the Horst Wessel Lied!) I remember horrified looks on the faces on the hip young people who remained. My friends and I simply can’t get away with acting outlandish around the NYC set; Taki can. He’s one of a kind.

I actually wasn’t trying to found an institution. It’s strange to say, but I hope that AltRight always remains rather smallish. My vision is not for it to one day grow into something like National Review or The Spectator; I hope it will always stay “edgy” and remain a testing ground for new ideas and new writers. (It shouldn’t be just given over to the kids, of course, but you understand.) The business model of NR is suited to a different time, and, in many ways, TAC was foolish to follow it when it was founded in 2002.  I think our side is in a better position having a number of different small, flexible, efficient groups, then one big monolith. We need to work together in some ways, but as a constellation of various organizations: VDARE, the “Sailer-sphere,” AmRen, TOO, some “Austrian” bloggers, et al.—this is the “alternative Right.”

I’m also very interested in “micro-funding,” that is, not just looking for one big donor but getting tons of readers to give small donations via PayPal, something on the order of $5 apiece. I still believe in this scheme, but even getting people to donate that small amount is a challenge. The strategy I’m now adopting is to offer people something in return for their donations; things like gifts are good, but I’d also like to explore offering readers greater access to the site, as well as additional products like high-quality videos and books, etc. We can’t just rattle the tin cup every Christmas and plead poverty; we should run our movement like a business.

In terms of content, what have been your favourite articles in Alternative Right thus far? Where do you think new ground has been broken?

We’ve had over a thousand posts, and I honestly think that for at least three quarters of them, you could say, “You wouldn’t read that anywhere else.” People like Colin Liddell, Derek Turner, Andy Nowicki, James Kalb, and yourself are certainly doing things that no one else even attempts.

Introducting John Derbyshire at the H. L. Mencken Club Conference of 2010.

You have also recently talked about expanding Alternative Right. What are your plans for this venture? What do you hope to achieve in the next five years? 

Your coming on board, Alex, has been the most exciting new project I’ve launched. When we talked last with our programmer and designer, Austin Saucier, we also came up with a quite interesting way of organizing content around various cultural matters. There is also web TV, which I think is extremely important. I’m going to remain a bit elliptical about these matters, as I’ll be rolling out new initiatives soon. 

I try to keep busy. In many ways, Alex, your own entrepreneurial activities have been an inspiration! As I’m sure you agree, the heretical Right cannot simply be an avocation; it can’t just be something we do late night on the interwebs after we’ve earned our livings working for The Man. We need full-time activists, organizers, writers, and artists. I’m trying to make this possible.

The Left would like the apolitical man in the street to imagine that our winning the argument would mean a return to the bad old days: women would be summarily fired from their jobs and told to make babies; Blacks would be re-enslaved and lynched; Savitri Devi’s works would be standard university textbooks; people would be forced to carry bagfuls of gold coins to conduct their business transactions; television programming would consist of 24-hours solid of political speeches; court witnesses would swear on a copies of Mein Kampf; science would be abolished (except for eugenics) and society would be plunged into a dark age of brute force, ignorance, fear, and superstition. What does, in fact, a future where we have won the argument look like? 

Oh sorry . . . while I was reading your last question, I became lost in a rapturous fantasy. No, what you describe is terrible! I would never want to live in this fascistic, masculine, gold-standard nightmare world.

Seriously, I think one of your most important contributions is to inspire us to imagine a future—even one that’s “impossible” or utopian—and avoid the standard reactionary trap of staunchly defending the last revolution. 

Before I answer this question fully, let me quibble with your question a bit. One thing I’ve noticed about American conservatives is that they often fantasize about “winning the argument”—they think that, deep down, every American--maybe everyone on earth—is really a conservative, and if preached to the right way, he will embrace the current catechism of loving the Constitution, free markets, family values, color-blind Civil Rights, and the whole kit and caboodle. I don’t use these metaphors lightly; most conservatives imagine political activism as a form of religious conversion.

I don’t think this way. First off, I think we have enemies and foes who want to destroy us. We won’t be able to convert these people with the right cocktail of new data and argumentation. 

Beyond this, I believe the impulses that we label “Right” and “Left” are natural aspects of nature and society that will never go away. Right and Left aren’t just seating arrangements in the French revolutionary parliament; they express fundamental human tensions such as collectivism/individualism, authoritarianism/anarchy, innovation/traditionalism, etc. And much like Good and Evil, Right and Left, and the other values mentioned above, exist in the same human heart. They certainly do in mine.

One extremely important thing the alt Right (and AltRight) seek to accomplish is to shift society in a fundamental way; we’re much more interested in this than “winning” some particular Left/Right dispute over, say, immigration policy or the new START treaty.

I want Western society as a whole to move away from egalitarianism—which manifests itself most obviously in “multiculturalism” and “anti-racism”—and towards an acceptance of Western identity and natural hierarchies.

To understand what I’m saying, let’s turn things around. We should recognize that multiculturalism and egalitarianism aren’t simply particular “issues,” “policies,” or “party platforms”—they are fundamental groundings for political and social discourse. These concepts determine our horizons. Both the modern Left and Right argue within multiculturalism and egalitarianism. No one (at least no mainstream person) is really arguing for or against racial equality; they accept it as a given and simply quibble over how “equality” is best protected and implemented. American “conservatives” and Christian “traditionalists” aren’t offering alternatives to egalitarianism and multiculturalism, so much as their own versions of them. 

Let’s not focus on the obvious racial examples and look instead at the recent “gay marriage” debate. Superlawyer David Boyes, who’s been hired to make the case for this practice, asked a number of self-styled “conservatives” a series of questions, which included, 1) “Is marriage good for children?” (in an completely utilitarian sense) and—here’s the kicker—2) “Isn’t America really about equality?” The “conservatives,” of course, answered “Yes!” enthusiastically to both questions. Boyes then asked, “How then could you possibly oppose gay marriage?” They, of course, couldn’t rationally oppose gay marriage. And Q.E.D. for Mr. Boyes. When Left and Right operate under the same assumptions, they’ll usually reach the same conclusions. Indeed, those who actually do oppose the latest egalitarian advance can easily be deemed dangerous lunatics who should be locked away with Jared Loughner.

Put simply, we need to change the big stuff; the little things (for example, policy matters) will follow.

This recognition has also led me to conclude that trying to “work within the system,” or appeal to European-Americans using the language of FOX News and the GOP, is a bootless—not to mention a tasteless—strategy. 

To return to your provocative question, in my fantasyland, there would still be a Left and a Right—and granolas and libertarians and animal rights activists and Mormons, et al.—but they would operate within Western unity and natural hierarchy.

Some, no doubt, might counter that you can’t have a “non-egalitarian Left.” But I don’t agree with this at all. Jack London was a collectivist; HL Mencken, an anarchist; both were “leftists,” of sorts, and both rejected egalitarianism. And they both operated on a different planet than the whole spectrum of contemporary Leftists and Rightists, from Glenn Beck to Cornell West.

Finally, how would you like to be remembered in 100 years?

In bronze. Just kidding. But I do hope to appear in your next novel!