More Attacks from Richard Spencer

Two days ago, I asked Alternative Right's Richard Spencer if he'd be willing, in whatever format he preferred, to publicly debate me, but he refused, saying that he wanted nothing more to do with me. As his latest article demonstrates, that's objectively false.

I elected to write for David Frum because he's a man who hates orthodoxy. Unlike most editors out there, who are looking for underlings that fit a neat ideological package, he's willing to hear out -- and publish -- a range of ideas from both up-and-comers and established names. Canned talking points seldom appear on FrumForum. It's hardly a free-for-all, but one won't get such a diversity of opinions from, say, Michelle Malkin, or Newsmax.com.

So I have to confess that I find Richard Spencer's latest attack on me -- a reminder to Mr. Frum that I don't toe a neat ideological line -- to be rather odd. Below a two-year-old picture of me in a gender-bending outfit at a concert, he lists a slew of my sins: opposition to religion, admiration for Ayn Rand and tongue-in-cheek Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey, support for voluntary, non-racial eugenics -- and, most of all, my age, which is an endless obsession of his.

Damning stuff, no? And if he'd dug a little deeper, he could have found even zanier heterodoxy: I am also an anti-psychiatry activist, support the gold standard, and support the radical anti-school views of John Taylor Gatto.

In other words: I'm a pretty par-for-the-course domestic libertarian.

So what is a nice libertarian boy like me doing writing for a center-right guy like David Frum?

Besides the blood-oath I swore to the Zionist-Occupied Government, in which Mr. Frum once played a public role, I admire him for two key reasons. The first is his sharp intellect: he is ridiculously well-educated on virtually every issue relevant to public policy. But more importantly from an editorial standpoint, he is a strong opponent of ideological orthodoxy. The tenor of the pieces that I submit to him sometimes are a bit too hot or -- more frequently, alas -- too abstract and academic for the blog, but I never have to fear receiving the axe for insufficient ideological purity.

Oddly enough, Spencer's piece doesn't take any issue with what I had to say about him. He doesn't disavow Odinism or "native European religions," for instance; he merely says that he's an "interested novice," as any "child of the West" should be. Without anything to refute, he simply turns his guns on my age. (Psst: David Frum is much older than Richard Spencer.)

Two days ago, I asked Mr. Spencer if he'd be willing, in whatever format he preferred, to publicly debate me, but he refused, saying that he wanted nothing more to do with me. As his latest article demonstrates, that's objectively false -- but apparently he'd rather hide out with die volk than engage in a public, rapid-fire exchange of ideas. The commenters at the white nationalist site Occidental Dissent at least want to debate with me. Richard Spencer, as I wrote in my very first piece about him, remains an intellectual coward.