So, Roissy writes a post criticizing Canada and Canadians as “gay” – effete liberals letting themselves be race-replaced by Third Worlders.
Someone left a comment there:
RobertWe’re freer than you. And I like hitting foreign trim. Fuck nativism.
Which led to an angry response from some Chateau Heartiste commentators. How dare “Robert” take such a self-centered “muh dik” approach to societal decay?
Well, maybe he’s simply following the lead of Roissy (a self-admitted race-mixer, by the way), who once famously wrote:
damn, i’m torn. do i want a thriving society or easier access to sex? yeeeeah… i’ll take the latter and leave the self-sacrifice required of the former for the anti-poolside chumps
How exactly is that different, in its basic attitude, than the “foreign trim” comment that Roissy’s fan club is getting all worked up about? It’s not different at all.
Yes, I know, I’m being a “shit stirrer,” a “troublemaker,” and “no good comes at critiquing those on the Right.”
What about accountability? Why should Roissy and his “amen corner” constantly get away with outright hypocrisy and inconsistent messaging? Where’s the possibility of Der Movement improving itself if even the most outrageous hypocrisies are to be protected from a disinfecting light? How come someone like myself can be subjected to a withering criticism over the years, from various “movement” directions, but the likes of Roissy and the decades-of-failure “movement” leaders are to be put beyond the reach of critique?
Inquiring minds want to know.