Some very important points.
First, if Spencer speaks and we remain silent, people will assume that he is speaking for us.
But that exactly is why some of us “bitter shit-stirrers” critique the failure of Der Movement. If I am a WN, and yet stay silent about “movement” lies, fossilized sci/fi fantasy dogma, juvenile silliness, and endless failure, then the assumption will be I agree with it and Der Movement speaks for me. Tell me again why it is wrong when I do it.
Second, criticizing Spencer is not about changing his behavior. It is about social signaling: communicating our differences to the public we are trying to persuade. So obviously it cannot be confined solely to back channel whispers.
Exactly. Lots of people who could be pro-White activists are alienated by a “movement” that despises them. The alienated White ethnics need a voice. Those disgusted by Nutzi stupidity (and what Spencer did does NOT fit into that Nutzi category) need a voice. Those who shake their heads at the fact that Oliver talked about 50 years of “movement” failure nearly 50 years ago need a voice. Those who don’t buy into HBD or “March of the Titans” or “Who We Are” need a voice. Why be so threatened by one individual trying to be that voice?
Finally, it presupposes a false unity to the movement. Literally the only thing that unifies us is common goals (and with Spencer I am not even sure about that). But if our movement is inherently pluralistic, colonizing every niche in the cultural and political ecosystem, then the only way to establish and maintain our different approaches is to criticize one another.
Except when Sallis does it?
Of course it can go too far.
Defined how? Mocking ridicule goes too far? I don’t think so. Daring to critique “esteemed movement leaders?” No, because their “esteemedness” allows them to do far more damage than Spencer ever has. Being suspicious of single individuals who write posts and make podcasts (!!!) under different names – is that going too far as well?
And there are some people who spend all their time attacking movement people rather than our enemies.
Any look at my work over the years shows that does not apply to me.
But with healthy pluralism comes healthy dissent and debate.
Except when Sallis and the non-quota crew do it? That would seem to confirm many of my criticisms, no?
When I first met Spencer in 2008, he was dating an Asian woman (something now public because of an article in Mother Jones).
Why should Brimelow, Derbyshire, or Taylor have a problem with that?
The only foreign regime he strongly identifies with is Putin’s Russia, which is valiantly battling against “Nazis” in Ukraine. As long as I have known him, Spencer has been chummy with Jews like Paul Gottfried. NPI, like American Renaissance, has always played patty-cake with certain Right-wing Jews.
So, then, if we criticize Spencer about that, what about Amren?
Before Spencer came on board, NPI had published Edward Rubenstein, Byron Roth, and Michael Hart. But, unlike American Renaissance, they published Kevin MacDonald as well. Spencer has continued in that vein, publishing additional books by Roth and Hart, plus Richard Lynn’s The Chosen People…
Do we now admit the destructiveness of Lynn’s Judeophilia and Asia-worshipping HBD flimflam pseudoscience?
The reaction to “Hailgate” has become more of a problem than the incident itself. If I’m a “shit-stirrer” then other folks are thrashing around in a septic tank with a paddle. Yes, Spencer made a mistake, but all the breathless indignation over it falls flat after folks have for many years ignored far worse errors in judgment from Der Movement. The impression I am getting is that activists who have opposed Spencer for other reasons are now jumping all over this to discredit Yellow Fever Rich and his ideology. And the Left laughs watching the Right eat its own. What do you think is more destructive “shit-stirring” – Sallis, who is read by maybe half-a-dozen people per day, making jokes about “piano wire,” or big names in Der Movement, read by thousands per day, making an epic storm out of a trivial incident?
Spencer of course is fair game for reasonable criticism, as am I (and I’ve gotten more than my share over the years, reasonable as well as otherwise), as is Greg Johnson (who has also received criticism, some unfair, over the years), as are others. But that must also include Der Movement as a whole, its stupid dogmas, its “rock stars” and saintly heroes, and all the rest.
Problems for mainstreaming. Marine has moved the FN so far to the center that there is “minimal daylight) (if I may borrow that Silverian phrase) between her and the center-right. Thus, French voters may just go for the “safe” choice – unless Marine has to appeal to the Left, re: economics, which may include toning down the race/immigration rhetoric even more in order to hold onto those social welfare votes.
Defenders of mainstreaming will say: “Hey, she wouldn’t even be in contention without mainstreaming.” No, sorry, the whole purpose of compromising mainstreaming, according to its advocates, is to help the “Right” achieve power. “Being in contention” doesn’t cut it. Daddy Le Pen got himself into contention as well. So what’s the point?
For those well-informed “movement” commentators who have stated that Brimelow cucks because “he’s an old man who doesn’t have to raise children in today’s America,” you apparently missed the last hundred VDARE posts where he’s either bragging about his young wife and children or posting pictures of them (on a blog for which a child porn apologist writes). Der Movement marches on.
Question for Roissy: if “Caucasian” (in the broadest possible sense, of course) ethnic groups like lantern-jawed micks and swarthoid wops have their own “look,” then what such groups tend to have the noodle-armed, cuck, gayface look? And who has the weasel-faced FINRA look?