Open Letter to the Ace of Spades

2,484 words

Dear Ace,

I’ve been a big follower of yours for years. Through your profane wit, your probing and forceful reasoning, and your fierce independence, I think you’ve established a unique conservative voice on the internet. It’s gotten to the point that if either you or your co-bloggers don’t comment on something, nine times out of ten I don’t consider it newsworthy anyway. And very, very rarely do I disagree with you. You have been a big part of my conservative political thought throughout the years, and that is a gift I can never repay.

I can’t help but notice, however, how bitter and angry you’ve become in the past few years. Jaded might be a better word, given how many times you’ve written off the Republican Party in utter disgust. Whether you intended this to happen or not, you have become a leading voice of anti-establishment conservatives in the GOP.

Now, why has this happened?

Well, as you correctly point out, GOP elites in Washington DC are essentially Democrats. Maybe they’re pro-life.  Maybe they’re a little more hawkish and have a better understanding of economics than the Dems. But ultimately, their agenda on the most important issues of the day is not terribly different than that of their liberal counterparts, which is ultimately to expand government and open our borders. And what you find so galling about the GOP elites is that they take the common conservative voters for granted. They show contempt for the people who elect them. They seem to think that since they’re the only game in town, the common conservative voter has no choice but to dance to their tune.

You hate this. And I was right there along with you for many years, hating it as well and walking around feeling like I wanted to punch holes in walls. Then I discovered the Alt-Right, and the Alt-Right set me free.

I’m writing to urge you to come to the Dark Side, Ace. Declare allegiance, or at least sympathy, with us, please. It will ease your mind and set the gears of the universe working in greater harmony, I promise. Adopting an Alt-Right perspective mitigates the grating, cacophonous discord of today’s politics. Although people on the Alt-Right certainly share your contempt for the Left and for radical Islam, they tend not to share your heartache over the betrayal of the GOP voter by the GOP elite. Why? Because we’ve given up on the current system. We know it can’t work. Unlike you, we’ve lost hope that it can ever work. The only hope that remains is to one day replace it with a new system. And the only way to do that is to fundamentally alter our perspective on human affairs.

I think you know where this is going.

In order to align yourself with the Alt-Right, you would have to adopt a racial perspective. That is, unless a topic has absolutely nothing to do with race, you would view it through a racial lens. Not only that, but you would consider your own racial interests as a white man while doing so.

Of course, you have always stuck up for whites on your blog, especially when blacks and Hispanics discriminate against them. And that is much appreciated. But you seem to do so not because you are white and wish to express allegiance to other whites. Nor is it because whites have historically offered and continue to offer vital things to civilization and are therefore special. Rather, you seem to do it simply out of fairness. You seem to adhere to a meta-racial perspective that decries all racial discrimination, and then express anger and disappointment when nonwhites don’t live up to such high standards. It’s as if you would react the same way if it were blacks or Hispanics being discriminated against.

Such objectivity is admirable, but we on the Alt-Right know that it is ultimately misguided and self-defeating. Why? Because whites as a group are pretty much the only people capable of such objectivity. We are the only ones who racially self-abnegate to the point where we will adjudicate against our racial interest for the sake of fairness with other races. Our reluctance to deport illegal immigrants is a terrific example of this.

The reasons for this must be genetic. There must be something hardwired into our DNA that enable whites and only whites to attain such sublime levels of objectivity. This must be why science developed in Europe not once but twice: first in ancient Greece and later during the Renaissance. Science as we know it originated nowhere else.

This must also be why whites have made the most beautiful art and music known to man. This must also be why whites have created nations with the highest standards of living, the best functioning governments, and the most advanced technology. This must also be why whites have had the most successful militaries throughout history. This must also be why whites possess a higher average IQ than most other races with a wide enough standard deviation to produce a long line of geniuses and visionaries who have forged the modern world. Without us there would have been no modern world.

Once you adopt a racial perspective and accept the intellectual and moral inequality of the races, then black and Hispanic racism against whites makes perfect sense. Of course, these people will be racist against whites. They are incapable of the objectivity required to not be this way, just as most of them are incapable of scoring higher than 90 on an IQ test. Once you accept this, then your frustration will decrease since you will no longer want these people to ever become something they are not. They couldn’t change if they tried. Suddenly you have direct and easy answers for questions that were once quite convoluted and thorny.

In a book I recently reviewed, entitled The Devil’s Pleasure Palace, author Michael Walsh quotes Victor Davis Hanson’s labored take on the Ferguson riots. Sayeth Mr. Hanson:

Ferguson illustrated many of the problems of postmodern liberalism: the anti-empirical insistence that the facts of the shooting of Michael Brown did not matter much; critical legal theory, which ignored the time-honored role of a disinterested grand jury; the tolerance of illegality as some sort of acceptable protest against the system; and the liberal media’s hyping a crisis on the understanding that the ramifications of the violence were safely distant from their own schools, neighborhoods, and restaurants.

You see how Mr. Hanson stitches together a complicated explanation in order to avoid a simpler but unacceptable truth? Sure, many influential Leftists interpreted Ferguson in the way he describes, but Ferguson wouldn’t have been a problem to begin with if it weren’t populated with so many stupid, childlike blacks who lack impulse control. That’s the crux of the problem, ugly as it is. There ain’t no pretty way to say it. The nuanced reactions of our media elites to the temper tantrums of blacks is of secondary interest at best.

Now, while I never detect this kind of erudite gobbledygook coming from you, I still have to wonder: if forced to choose between complicated non-racial explanations of nonwhite misbehavior and simple racial ones, which would you choose?

My hunch is that you would plop with VDH, at least at this point and at least publicly. But I suspect you would do so not because you’re a true-believing, evidence denying, anti-racist like all the Leftists and liberals you continually lambaste on your blog. My guess is that you would do it because it would be the path of least resistance and because to do otherwise is a scary proposition. But I am hoping that someday the elegance of the racial perspective will one day sway you. I am hoping that the overwhelming evolutionary, genetic, historical, psychometric, and anecdotal data supporting the racial perspective will also sway you. (See below in the notes section for a list of sources backing up this position.)

Of course, adopting a racial perspective is its own can of worms. First, there’s the sense of guilt one might feel after issuing sweeping negative statements upon other races. It’s not pleasant, I know, especially at first. Second, there’s the blowback. If you were to suddenly have truck with the Alt-Right, expect to be labeled a racist. Expect death threats. Expect the SPLC and other civil rights organizations to smear you and impede your ability to make a living. Expect a good chunk of your readership to abandon you. Expect many of your advertisers and donors to run for cover. Expect some, if not all, of your co-bloggers to rebel and defect.

And this would just be the public response. I have no idea how such an announcement would impact you personally.

So, I understand that there may be good reasons not to sign up with the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right can be a pretty scary place. But here is where my argument comes full circle. As I pointed out before, one of the major themes of your blog these days is disgust with the GOP elites in Washington. You complain quite rightly that they have abandoned conservative principles and conservative voters. But why have they done this? They have done this because they too are afraid of being labeled racists. They too are afraid of death threats. They too are afraid of the SPLC. They too are afraid of being abandoned by voters and losing donors and colleagues. Thus they cave to the Democrat agenda.

In effect, you criticize the GOP elites for being afraid of the very things you yourself are afraid of.

So what does that make you? This is not a provocative question, Ace, because I love you and I wish you the very best, and I am not criticizing you for the decisions you’ve made with your life. You do what you want, baby. But I think, as an honest and perspicacious interpreter of current events, you owe yourself an answer at the very least. You see, when liberals complain about conservatives, the word “racist” usually pops up a lot. Why is that? Well, since liberals tend to be racists themselves (against whites, mostly), it takes one to know one. And they’re right, you know. We are racists. Everyone is a racist. But unlike leftists and nonwhites who simply want to tear down whitey and replace him and everything he’s built with poverty, crime, corruption, and really lousy forms of government, we on the Alt-Right wish to preserve Western Civilization and are the true inheritors of the conservative tradition.

I first learned about Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind years ago on your blog. It’s a great book, and I’ve read it very carefully. You know what one of its main themes is? The inherent inequality of man. In Kirk’s assessment of conservatism throughout the ages, inequality comes up a lot. Edmund Burke writes about it. So does John Adams, John Randolph, John Calhoun, James Fenimore Cooper, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Irving Babbitt. They all agree. Inequality is something that must be accepted and dealt with by conservatives, not altered. People are unequal, and there is nothing anyone can do about it other than devise political systems which cede the least amount of power to those individuals who are, due to intelligence or temperament, least able to wield it wisely. In fact, the three great bugbears of The Conservative Mind (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham, and Karl Marx) all believed the opposite. They believed that human beings either are equal or have the potential to be made equal. How? By government, of course. And the more unequal we are, the more government you need. Hence, today’s Leviathan state and stifling political correctness and vast social engineering schemes adhering to leftist, anti-white agendas.

This inequality initially applied only to whites because whites made up nearly 100% of the readership of the men Kirk wrote about, not to mention the body politic in their respective nations. Unfortunately, this is not the case today, but most conservatives still pretend it is. The main problem of today’s conservatism is that conservatives don’t have the guts to apply this idea of inherent inequality to anyone but whites. Putting down rednecks and crackers is fine, but calling someone a nigger or a spic isn’t. Former Klansman David Duke running for the Senate is condemned as a great evil, but a vile, anti-white racist like Al Sharpton gets to run for president and is a frequent guest in the White House without anybody saying boo. See? If conservativism as defined by Russell Kirk is going to survive the twenty-first century, conservatives are going to have to man up and accept that this inequality applies to the races as much as it applies to individuals within a race.

This is something I hope you will do as well, Ace.

Here’s a joke I just made up, but I would be shocked if liberals haven’t already been telling variations of it for decades: What’s the difference between a Republican and a Nazi Skinhead? Answer: A haircut.

So, if we’re going to do the time, we might as well do the crime. They’re going to hate us no matter what we do, leftist whites as well as nonwhites. Sure, they will tolerate us as long as we back down when it matters and don’t act in our own racial interests as they’ve been doing all along. But as soon as we push back on this racial business, they get violent. You know this is true. You’ve commented on their behavior at Donald Trump rallies before. And as their numbers swell, this violence will only get worse.

This is why I think the Alt-Right and similar race-realist movements represent the future. Whites can only be pushed so far. Once these foreigners — these Muslims, Hispanics, and blacks, mostly — achieve a 60 or 65 per cent majority in this country, they will start oppressing us and limiting our rights, just like they do to their own kind in their own countries. But here, it will all be very nasty and very racial. There will be nothing left for us to do but fight. I dearly hope that when that time comes, you will be with us.

Or, in the meantime, if I find someone with a different pseudonym haunting Alt-Right sites with crude, sidesplitting witticisms about “com-pooters” and Kaboom Cereal and dipping one’s family jewels into chocolate syrup, then I will be gratified to know that you already are.

Sincerely,
Spencer Quinn

Sources:

Evolutionary Evidence: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, 3^rd, J. Philippe Rushton, Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000.

Genetic Evidence: A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, Human History, Nicholas Wade, The Penguin Press, 2014.

Historical Evidence: War Before Civilization, Lawrence Keeley, Oxford University Press, 1996.

Psychometric Evidence: The Affirmative Action Hoax, Steven Farron, New Century Books, 2005.

Anecdotal Evidence: White Girl Bleed a Lot, Colin Flaherty, WND Books, 2013.