Christianity and the Alt-Right

Exploring the Relationship

Damon T. Berry

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000405781
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christianity

Christianity and the Alt-Right: Exploring the Relationship looks back at the 2016 presidential election and the support President Trump enjoyed among white Evangelicals. This cutting-edge volume offers insights into the role of race and racism in shaping both the Trump candidacy and presidency and the ways in which xenophobia, racism, and religion intersect within the Alt-Right and Evangelical cultures in the age of Trump.

This book aims to examine the specific role that Christianity plays within the Alt-Right itself. Of special concern is the development of what is called "pro-white Christianity" and an ethic of religious tolerance between members of the Alt-Right who are Pagan or atheist and those who are Christian, whilst also exploring the reaction from Christian communities to the phenomenon of the Alt-Right.

Looking at the larger relationship between American Christians, especially white Evangelicals, and the Alt-Right as well as the current American political context, the place of Christianity within the Alt-Right itself, and responses from Christian communities to the Alt-Right, this is a must-read for those interested in religion in America, religion and politics, evangelicalism, and religion and race.

1

Understanding religious diversity among the Alt-Right

DOI: 10.4324/9780429323690-2

Studying religion in the Alt-Right is difficult. There is no single paradigmatic Alt-Right view of religion, nor is there a coherent set of source materials for exploring Alt-Right religious discourse. Various perspectives on religion, ranging from atheism and agnosticism to multiple forms of Christianity and Paganism, are distributed throughout numerous social media sites, print materials, and online video posts. However, rather than this signifying that there is nothing noteworthy to say about religion among the Alt-Right, I argue that its amorphous character is the most important point for us to consider. Because of the lack of agreement on religious matters among those affiliated with it, the Alt-Right brand has suffered some fractures over religious differences despite some efforts to prevent such schisms. Furthermore, the diversity of opinions about religion as expressed by specific influencers among the Alt-Right became a mechanism for creating and policing discursive boundaries of belonging.

In one sense, the borders between who is genuinely Alt-Right or who is a “cuck,” a sexualized term of derision used to describe those whom Alt-Rightists consider too liberal or otherwise traitors to the authentic right, are always in play. This is particularly true for concerns about Christianity and so-called Christian “cucks.” Questions emerged, for example, about whether a Christian can be Alt-Right if they are perhaps a certain type of racially conscious or “pro-white” Christian. Part of this question about the compatibility of Christianity with the Alt-Right emerged from the relationship between the Alt-Right, as articulated by Spencer, Vox Day, and others, and older forms of white nationalism in America that were often hostile to Christianity. Moreover, individual Alt-Rightists strongly influenced by religious viewpoints found deeper faults with the brand and its more visible representatives. Carolyn Emerick, a Pagan, and Ayla Stewart, a Mormon, both of whom eventually abandoned the Alt-Right brand, were intensely critical of the Alt-Right in part because of what they saw as general childishness and the lack of a clear ethical system. However, they were also critical of the Alt-Right because they perceived the atheists and agnostics who have comprised the recognized face of the movement to have marginalized both Christian and Pagans associated with it.

Yet, amid such controversy concerning religion, Lana Lokteff, a self-described Pagan and host of Radio 3Fourteen, invited the hosts of “Good Morning White America” to discuss how pro-white Christians and Pagans might cooperate for the good of all white people. Echoing the sentiment from other 21st century white nationalists who saw religious tolerance as a way to better unify people in the political cause of creating a white ethnostate, some associated with the Alt-Right label tried to accommodate religious pluralism. Religious pluralism within the Alt-Right, then, as it was for white nationalism more broadly, is for those associated with the brand, a site of negotiation toward the broader political goal of establishing a white or European ethnostate (Berry 2017: 189–90).

Atheism, agnosticism, and parody religion

In the history of American white nationalism, beginning in the latter half of the twentieth century, the relationship between white nationalist ideology and Christianity was tense. For many of the most important founding thinkers in that movement, there was an entrenched hostility to Christianity. Revilo Oliver (1908–1994), a founding member of the John Birch Society and contributor to National Review, was one of the most formative ideologues in the creation of American white nationalism and was later in his life quite harsh in his criticism of Christianity. While he initially saw non-liberal Christianity as the religion of the West, he later changed his position and rejected all Christianity as a strategy designed by Jews to dull the racial survivalist instincts of the white people (Berry 2017: 35). Ben Klassen (1918–1993), founder of the racialist new religion Creativity, formerly known as Church of the Creator, and William Pierce (1933–2002), founder and leader of National Alliance, also saw Christianity as a threat to white racial survival on similar grounds (Berry 2017: 68; 88–89). Many white nationalist Pagans, too, agreed that Christianity was bad for white racial consciousness, and argued for a return or a reconstruction of the pre-Christian traditions of Europe as necessary for white people seeking to recapture a sense of racial identity, which was necessary for the creation of a white identity political movement and to eventually create a white homeland in North America (Berry 2017: 126).

For most of the history of white nationalism in the twentieth century, many of those associated with the movement were either hostile to Christianity or did not think it was adequate for forming an ideological basis for white racial activism. Such a position caused considerable friction with white nationalists who still held to Christian beliefs. Moreover, as white nationalists attempted to mainstream their ideas with American conservatives in the early 2000s, some among them became concerned that overtly anti-Christian stances would hinder efforts at creating political alliances with conservative white Americans (Berry 2017: 195–8). In an attempt to create a framework that would prevent fractures that would inhibit the movement’s political efforts at establishing a white homeland in North America, some white nationalists argued for an accommodating stance in favor of allowing religion to be a marginal matter in comparison to the larger political goal of the survival of the white race. Greg Johnson’s 2010 article titled “The Christian Question and White Nationalism” typifies this position. He argued that while it was accurate that Christianity was a problem for many white nationalists because of its moral teachings of universal brotherhood and because it gave particular significance to the Jewish people, it need not be a point of division among white people. Rather, he opted for religious tolerance in favor of a political vision of the movement that relegated religious issues to be a matter of personal preference (Berry 2017: 184–6).

This disposition toward accommodating religious differences with a focus on common concerns of white ethnonationalism has had some influence on those among the Alt-Right. Richard Spencer and others associated with the brand have often favored Nietzsche-inflected atheism, emphasizing meaning-making projects that draw from the European past with a sense of strategic bricolage. Yet, even as they prize what they understand to be rationality and pragmatism, they often express a certain romanticism for older European forms of Christianity and Paganism. In this context, discussions of Christianity often revolved around criticisms of what Alt-Rightists regard as liberalized or “cucked” forms of Christianity. For the most part, in similar ways to Oliver’s early critiques of liberal Christianity, modern Christians, even those who would be identified with the religious right in America, are regarded as liberal “cucks.” In the use of the Alt-Right meme Pepe the Frog, too, some engage in satirical critiques of “cucked” Christianity and the Alt-Right’s political opponents in a parody religion called Kekism. Though much of the purpose of the Kek or “Bishop Pepe” image was to foster insider humor, we will see that this satirical approach to religion was a means for some Alt-Rightists to deal with the serious concerns within the movement. We will also see that some who have left the Alt-Right label behind have done so in part because of the perceived lack of care with which some of its associates have treated religious issues.

When thinking about religion in the Alt-Right we have to consider how much of it expresses a ludic approach, owing in part to the fact that it exists primarily online. Even in interviews, trollish posturing continues as a mode of communication and rhetorical combat. For example, in an interview with Charles Barkley for his show on TNT Network (2017) titled American Race, Richard Spencer mixed serious discussions about inequality in nature with gleeful derision of liberal and Enlightenment values. When Barkley’s co-host, Atlanta-based civil rights attorney Gerald Griggs, said to Spencer that African Americans want “those three American values—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” Spencer responded by shifting in his seat, crinkling his nose and exclaiming, “Sounds very Enlightenment; kinda, I’m tempted to say, faggy.” Here, Spencer does not directly refute the humanistic appeal for racial equality with an argument against the Enlightenment or even racial equality. Rather, in sarcastic tones, the entire point is evaded with a gesture one might expect to find on an acerbic Twitter post. Yet, the ridicule of equality and other ideals expressed in the Enlightenment tradition reflects a serious position held by Spencer and other Alt-Rightists. In a sense, this demonstrates the quintessential Alt-Right approach—a mix of caustic attempts at humor with sincere endeavors to express and disseminate their illiberal ideology. As historian of religions Egil Asprem has noted, “The tone of irony and satire was central to the movement’s activities, but its very persistence, aggression, and focused cultivation of negative affect betrayed underlying moods and motivations that were anything but playful” (Asprem 2020: 23).

Spencer often blends sarcasm and serious discussion on the topic of religion as well. He perhaps was most clear about his position on religion, and concerning Christianity in particular, in an interview on YouTube with one of the social media influencers of the Alt-Right named Tim Gionet, also known as Baked Alaska (Garbage Heap 2018). The interview begins with Gionet explaining that he agrees with Spencer on most issues, but is troubled by Spencer’s previous statements that signaled hostility toward Christianity. Gionet identifies himself as a Christian and explains that he feels Christianity has done much for “white people,” Western civilization, and the United States, so he invites Spencer to clarify his views. Spencer explains in the interview that he is “not one of those dorm room, or high school level ‘oh, God is dead, man’,” type of people, but adds, “But that does not mean God is not dead.” He explains further that he is not a “proud atheist,” as he says one commentator described him, but is instead a “tragic atheist.” Spencer explains that he grew up in an Episcopalian home and a “culturally Christian” context, but states that Christianity has become “an aesthetic, ceremonial experience… a goofball, Walmart experience” that has been evacuated of any serious elements that make it a force for what he would view as positive force in society. Here, Spencer’s rejection of Christianity is tempered with a measure of disaffection and a sense of loss, and as we will see, a longing for something meaningful to emerge in Christianity’s place.

Gionet, reflecting on what he perceives as the lack of seriousness that some Christians express concerning their faith, agrees with Spencer that Christianity has been “cucked,” but argues, “not everyone who acts like that represents Christianity.” Gionet attempts to argue for a version of Christianity that does not obsess over what he regards as pointless details and yet takes itself seriously, but Spencer interrupts him. Spencer wanted to point out to Gionete that a kind of “Whole Foods” take-what-you-like Christianity is an expression of the problem. For Spencer, modern Christianity, unrooted in his view from what he understands as traditional European values, is so bankrupt precisely because of this open interpretation of what it can mean for each Christian. Christianity then proves itself to be incapable of providing discipline or direction for Europeans and simply reflects the values of the modern, decadent society in which it exists. Ultimately, Spencer’s criticism seems to be that it is ineffective for forming an active and resilient political or social identity.

Contrasted with this modern, decadent Christianity, the Christianity that draws most of Spencer’s praise is what he thinks of as traditional European Christianity as it was adapted for Europeans’ sensibilities in the Middle Ages, which he argues was “dramatically different from what Jesus actually believed.” However, he does not necessarily think a return to this Christian tradition is valuable. Though he respects specifically European Christianity of the past, he maintains that contemporary society has become largely post-Christian to the point that Christianity could not offer sufficient support for white nationalist aspirations any more than a revived Paganism could. He seems to be most concerned with pointing out that Christianity in European societies performed certain positive social functions through establishing traditions. However, after those traditions had been lost, in their place emerged a consumeristic, globalist Christianity that no longer reflects that tradition. This is the foundation for his claim to be a tragic atheist rather than a happy one—the religions of the past have proven unhelpful in the present and have thereby become obsolete; yet, without religion, there is nothing to unify European peoples. There seems to be now no center for their identity which might compel them to fight for their preservation.

Though Spencer does not advocate for a return to traditionalist Christianity or even Paganism, he argues in rather Durkheimian terms for the potential social and metapolitical, or “intangible,” power of religiosity to bind a community together and to act as a source of power for motivating social cohesion. The loss of faith by Europeans, he claims, is part of the broader loss of self-confidence as a people, stating in the interview, “I do not think we can have a renewed confidence in ourselves as white people without some sort of spiritual basis.” Religiosity is not merely a neurosis or simply an expression of the irrational for Spencer. Religion can be, if used properly, a way forward to creating a cohesive European identity that can overcome the destructive elements of “cucked” Christianity and the Enlightenment.

Speaking with Gionet, Spencer states that Nietzsche influenced his perspective on religion, but that he is not ready to simply “throw away” religion, even though he is very critical of forms of Christianity that he regards as “cucked.” In a podcast on radixjournal.com titled “Cucksplaning—Christianity is for Cucks,” presented with the editor of Radix, Hannibal Bateman, he develops this criticism further. Spencer and Bateman explain that Christianity in the modern world has become less influenced by European identity and has taken on a more globalist outlook. In the episode, most of the discussion of Christianity is developed from an extensive critique of an article about the work of the author Evelyn Waugh (1903–1966) written in 2017 by the senior editor of First Things website and columnist for the Catholic Herald website, Matthew Smidtz. Spencer and Bateman’s objections are mainly to how the article represents what they regard as the central problem for conservative Christianity, namely that it naively approaches the racialist content in what they regard as white identitarian forms of Christianity of previous generations. They explain that Christianity has been malleable, and that it had been shaped by Europeans to reflect their values and, in turn, shaped Europeans themselves. In the case of the modern world, however, Spencer and Bateman argue that Christianity has accommodated itself to a form of liberalism that poses as conservative Christianity. Much like earlier white nationalist leaders, they see this expression of Christianity as so wedded to the modern conservative movement that does not, in their view, address race, that it is antithetical to the racial-nationalist aspirations of the Alt-Right.

Spencer and Bateman’s critique focuses more sharply on how Schmitz claims in his review of Waugh’s Sword of Honor trilogy that “Waugh’s hero learns from a wise woman…[and] sees that Christianity is not a matter of blood, or of race, or of victory in this world. It requires us to accept defeat in this life so we might enjoy triumph in the next.” Spencer and Bateman find this claim both repulsive and emblematic of liberalism and even modern conservative Christianity. Of course, they believe Schmitz is misreading Waugh, but the larger point is in the question that Spencer asks Bateman near the end of the podcast. He asks, “Do you think Christianity is inherently for cucks?” Bateman refers to Christianity’s flexibility over centuries of its history and argues that it can be used to express several ideas. One expression of Christianity denies the world and abandons the fight to preserve the white race and its civilization, but another might be of use in a battle to preserve it, he argues. It would seem, for Bateman, that Christianity’s strength was the source of its eventual obsolescence.

We get a further insight into Spencer’s attitude toward religion in a podcast from 6 September 2016 with Spencer and Charles Lyons, Chief Administrative Officer of Arktos Media, which had been preserved in part on YouTube (Soft Nationalism 2017). The segment on YouTube seems in part to be an elaboration on what Spencer stated in his interview with Gionete, but with an added discussion of Kekism. Spencer reiterates the social value of religious ideas, especially in the context of cultural warfare. P...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Endorsements
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Understanding the Alt-Right
• 1. Understanding religious diversity among the Alt-Right
• 2. Understanding Alt-Right Christianities
• 3. Evangelical Protestants and the Alt-Right
• 4. Debating the “Alt-Right”
• Conclusion: After the hate, the pain
• Index