Category: accountability

Fisking Costello

Analyzing Costello.

I cannot disagree with Costello on some of this…but he makes some errors, dependent on his meaning.

They will see that some of the most visible members of our movement, our self-described “leaders” are, in some cases, entitled, college-educated children of affluence. Vain, grandiose, egomaniacal, and attention-hungry.

Meet the Alt Right!

They will see that some in the Alt Right have not yet emerged, or only recently emerged, from living in their parent’s basement.

Some?

They will see that many exist as members of our movement only in a virtual sense, as internet trolls who hit and run. Vying with each other to prove who is the most “edgy” and “hardcore,” while usually backing up this posturing with absolutely nothing tangible and real.

True, but who does different?

They will encounter “purity spirallers” who seem less concerned with the real plight of their race than with ferreting out who in the movement might be “gay” — or with speculating that everyone in the movement is gay, except them.

I’ve already written about how “gay baiting” in Der Movement is clearly politically motivated, since there are some long-time “movement activists” rumored to be gay but no one ever mentions those people. The “gay baiters” usually fall into particular factions of Der Movement and they will turn a blind eye to the gays in their own faction.  On the other hand, there are some who push normalization of homosexuality too far.

They will see many childless, unmarried men who have turned necessity into virtue by “going their own way.” 

What happens when married fathers get so disgusted with women that they MGTOW?

Or worse, cultivating the cynical, misogynistic game of the pickup artist.

I agree with criticism of the gamesters. However. Not because of “misogyny” – in many cases richly deserved.  No, it is because the gamesters are hypocritical, illogical, juvenile, amoral hedonistic nihilists who typically ape the worst aspects of Der Movement (the Alt Wrong, for example); Roissy’s ardor for Trump borders on homoerotic mania and is frankly embarrassing,

They will see that others have the luxury of responding to the plight of the white working class, and the perils that face our civilization, by casting runes, or brewing mead.

Mead and runes?  Isn’t that all part of Der Dogma?  No blasphemy, please!

And within that group they will encounter large numbers of folks defending dead, despised dictators that, rightly or wrongly, hundreds of thousands of mostly working class Americans sacrificed their lives in order to depose. Those Americans being their grandfathers and great grandfathers.

Yes, we shouldn’t obsess over Hitler, etc.  We shouldn’t lie about WWII either to satisfy “boomers.” And doesn’t Counter-Currents run pro-Hitler essays and celebrates Saint Adolf’s birthday with posts?

They will see high flown intellectual discussions, usually presupposing the equivalent of a doctoral degree, of authors they have never heard of, and have no time or energy to read after getting home at night from eight solid hours of labor.

That could be construed as a refutation of some of my work, but of course I’ve never asserted that the details of, say, EGI should be used as propaganda to the masses; instead core concepts can be converted into “us vs. them” language of kin and tribe, and used in that manner for political purposes (as my Political EGI posts make clear).

Of course, Costello’s argument here can be used against most of the content of Counter-Currents: isn’t it too intellectual for the proles?  Is your local plumber going to care about Evola and “Savitri Devi?”  But it isn’t meant for the proles, you say.  Very well…my own work is mostly aimed at “movement” activists anyway (or may be dumber than the proles, but that’s another story).

Perhaps worst of all they are going to see chaos and disunity: character assassination, betrayal, rumor-mongering, doxing, trolling, back-biting, gaslighting, etc. 

Can Counter-Currents stop running articles on Friberg already?

They will see, in short, that the movement we offer them is, arguably, no movement at all. In a real sense, it does not exist.

When I say that, I’m “crazy” and “bitter.”  When Costello says it, it’s A-OK. Remind me why my criticisms of Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action program is wrong.

In sum, the proles will see us as a lot of disaffected, spoiled, bratty, out-of-touch sacks of venom, who have created a little ghetto for ourselves replete with forums in which we may vent and posture without tangible results, and any real consequences. They will see that most of us have nothing in common with them, cannot understand their daily woes, and are entirely irrelevant to their lives.

Does that include posts in which the writer fantasizes about cooking breakfast for an aging mudshark?

And they are also perceptive enough to pick up on the dirty little secret of the Alt Right: namely, that many of us do not really love our race. That in fact we walk around most of the time consumed by hate for other white people, and that many of us have about as much contempt for the working class as your average liberal.

Many Whites – although not necessarily many working-class Whites – deserve to be hated.

The Alt Right has become nothing more than yet another “lifestyle choice” in the vast cornucopia of modern American lifestyles that coexist within the Great Beast, posing no fundamental threat to it. Despite our pretensions to the contrary, our dysfunction, disunity, and surfeit of bad character make us about as big a threat to the system as Wiccans. Who is the “leader” of the Wiccans? Or, who are the leaders? I don’t know, and I don’t care, and I don’t know anyone who knows because Wiccans don’t matter. I’m sure the Wiccan movement has been replete with struggles for power and internecine wars over doctrine and purity, but only Wiccans care about this. To the rest of the world they are simply irrelevant oddballs.

Again, how does any of that really differ from my own criticisms of Der Movement?  Obviously, it’s the messenger, not the message, folks.

So, forget any thoughts about riding the wave of the prole awakening and leading or guiding these folks. We are simply not worthy. Not now, anyway.

Can we become worthy? Here we can certainly be open to the possibility of becoming worthy to lead or guide, but let’s try to avoid falling into the trap of feeling superior to the proles. As a good corrective for our already swollen egos, let’s start by thinking in terms of becoming worthy of joining with them, in common cause. Now how do we do that?

Stop obsessing over a cartoon frog and screaming “Hail Kek?”

The other day a friend said something to me that was quite insightful. He said that a true movement might emerge if the internet were to be wiped away tomorrow. Now, this is not only unlikely but, most will say, undesirable since the internet can be (can be) such a useful tool. But consider it: if the internet ceased to exist the real movement would emerge from the great ocean of trolls and virtual friends. Why?

Because the real movement would consist in the people enterprising enough and committed enough to find some other ways to meet and keep in touch. The trolls and virtual friends would disappear overnight, because they were never really committed in the first place, or were “committed” for all the wrong reasons.

There would be fewer but better White Nationalists.

True enough.

Now, there are two important implications to be drawn out of this thought experiment: (1) The only really committed White Nationalists are those willing and able to form actual communities, as opposed to virtual communities; and (2) it follows from this that ultimately the movement is nothing without actual community, because actual communities are formed by, and attract, the most committed people, and a real movement is a movement of truly committed people. QED.

Fine, as far as it goes.

I submit that the most effective way to form ties with our awakening proles, and to facilitate their greater awakening is to come together with them in real communities.

In order to do this, we in what we already optimistically call “the movement” must overcome our own class snobbery and our tendency to only want to engage with others like ourselves. 

“…only want to engage with others like ourselves.”  In more ways than one, eh?

On more occasions than I can possibly remember my movement friends (virtual and otherwise) have asked, despairingly, “When are people going to wake up?” Well, now they are. But it’s not the sort of people who were always asking this question. Almost everyone I know in the movement has led a life of relative privilege and is college-educated, some with advanced degrees.

“…has led a life of relative privilege”  Speak for yourself.  You did say “almost” so I’ll give you credit for that.

But in the country as a whole, the vast majority of affluent, college educated people are sound asleep — indeed, many of them are monsters of entitlement, selfishness, and hedonism. It is the proles who are waking up — the people I’ve never even really learned to talk to. Honestly, I am just about as alienated from the proles as a limousine liberal. I too have never set foot in a factory (just like Karl Marx!).

Given that almost the entire American manufacturing sector has been outsourced to China, I doubt that many proles have set foot in a factory, either.  Is being a prole merely employment or is it to some degree culture, a lifestyle choice?  There are well-read blue collar folk, as well as the college-educated who “keep up with the Kardashians.”  It’s not so cut and dried.

The only manual labor I have ever done was whiting out errors on my college term papers, back in the old days when we were still using typewriters. My only prole friend — a high school dropout who actually has done manual labor — is really more of a prole wannabe: both his parents have master’s degrees, he’s a successful businessman, and in truth he is an intellectual with a long list of publications.

Serving breakfast to Ann Coulter – does that count as manual labor?

Many on the Alt Right profess to admire aspects of National Socialism, but very few really “get” what was arguably the central feature of that movement, and why it was so powerful at unifying the German people: true, deeply felt love of one’s own. A love that transcended class divisions, whether based on birth or wealth or education. Let us, in fact, borrow some pages from our enemies: love really is the answer; it’s just love of one’s own.

Dead dictators as role models?

And let us also celebrate diversity. The rich diversity of white people: the doctors and plumbers and stock brokers and waiters and professors and farmers and nurses and bricklayers and soldiers and programmers and Walmart greeters and actors and dentists and, yes, even lawyers.

OK, fine.  That should include people rightfully critical of Der Movement as well.  More to the point, does Costello also “celebrate” ethnic diversity among Whites?

And, to a great extent, we must also be tolerant of our people’s peculiarities, so long as they are committed to our cause. For example, it is priggish and dumb to want to run off someone genuinely committed to our cause because now and then in the evening they want to smoke a joint. Or because, through some cruel caprice of Mother Nature, they do something in private with other consenting adults that you wouldn’t do.

Er…what about the need for “good character” as explained below?  How does tolerance for character flaws square with Costello’s call for better men and women?  Inconsistency.

The only true movement is going to consist in loosely-connected, real communities that provide a safe space for white men and women and their families. For white people of all classes. These communities will provide opportunities for socializing and for protection. They will provide positive environments in which to raise children, safe spaces in which forbidden ideas can be expressed, and, at times, they will engage in advocacy and agitation.

This is necessary, but not sufficient.  That’s only one leg of the three. “Loosely-connected communities” are the gardens from which the real flowers of revolutionary activism will grow. The communities are not ends to themselves, as Costello seems to imply. “Loosely connected” of anything will not get the job done in the end.

Doing the hard work of building communities requires good character: dedication, dependability, honesty, genuineness, honor, and selflessness. Ultimately people will only follow and trust and respect those who exemplify these qualities.

Therefore the current “leadership” of the “movement” are out of the running here. Can Costello name any current (or past!) “movement” “leader” who has ever exhibited the full gamut of required character traits?

Aristotle teaches us in his Rhetoric that a necessary precondition of a man giving an effective speech — in other words, of persuading people — is that others must be convinced that he is of good character. Such men, and women, will draw others into a community. And so, the very first thing we must do to create a real movement, is to strive to become better men and women.

I’ve been promoting Codreanu’s Legion and the idea of the New Man since the early 2000s. Interest: none. Understanding: none.  Success: none.

We must disavow vanity, malice, gossip, trolling, and, above all, the suffocating pretensions of the ego. This real movement, if it is to emerge, is not a means to anyone’s ego-gratification. It demands that each of us place the good of the race above his own ego.

Please tell me – where in Der Movement such self-sacrificing idealists exist? Where is the niches where such people can develop and thrive?  Answer to both questions: nowhere. Thus, a New Movement is required.  QED.

There was a saying in Hitler’s Germany: “Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles” (you are nothing, your people is everything).

Quoting dem dere dead dictators?

How many do you know in our movement today who are truly living that saying? We must live it — we must live up to it — if we are to truly serve the cause we claim to be championing.

Living up to it: serving breakfast to Ann Coulter?

The goodwill and harmoniousness of communities built by and for individuals with such commitment will draw in others — persuading them that what that community stands for is positive and good. This point is absolutely crucial. The vast majority of people judge ideas not based on the arguments that are presented for them, but on the basis of the character of the people who espouse those ideas. In other words, they look at the “effect” those ideas have in a person’s life. This is especially true of those who have little formal education, and little time to peruse the intricacies of philosophical argument.

Good character, something which, like good judgement, the “movement” is in very short supply of.

In short, the key to building ties with the great number of awakening proles and the key to further radicalizing them is becoming something better than we are now — and coming together with them in real communities. Communities that, needless to say, are high-functioning, welcoming, and convivial, and that have mechanisms for weeding out individuals who are bad news. 

Bad news = 99.99999% of De Movement.

This is not just the key, of course, to building ties with proles, but with others as well. And my larger point, again, is that the only real movement is going to be based in such communities. As for the trolls, let them go their own way. And if men want to vie over who gets to crown himself King of the Trolls, that is fine. It keeps them busy and keeps them out of our way.

Ultimately, the only real “leaders” in this movement are the people who have the dedication, seriousness, and selflessness to build real communities. Such communities are the future of our movement, and the future of our race.

You know I’ve been advocating for community building ever since the early 2000s.  No one listened then and no one listens – to me – now.  Will they listen to the more acceptable messenger Costello? Who knows? But advocating to the masses is only one – the lowest – level or point or leg of The Movement Tripod.  Without building the other two legs will fail – you simply cannot build viable communities with the low quality human material of the “movement.”  Concomitant with community building must be building a New Movement, and to have the New Movement you need to have a sane and rational Elite, with fresh ideas and independent of “movement” dogma, to lead the way.  No one is interested in that because it is at cross purposes with individual agendas, factional interests, empire building – and of course the money-grubbing of “donations.”  One can expect Costello’s arguments to be met with “he’s right, you know” before all those folks go back to brewing mead and scribbling runes on Pepe cartoons.

In any case, at least Costello recognizes the deficiencies of Der Movement.

More Alt Right Madness

It continues.

I’m sort of oscillating between schadenfreude and disgust.

I’m not taking sides here – a pox on ALL their houses – but I do hope that Greg has learned his lesson with TRS, and will eschew lulzing jakasses from this point forward.

By the way, read the comments section of the AltRight.com piece.  With a few exceptions, it is like swimming through an open sewer.

When oh when is this Alt Right contagion going to burn itself out?  When even the Grand Lord Pepe turns against them, is the time nigh?

This is Serious

This all needs to change.

Thus, my recent supposition – made at the time with no knowledge of the details of these affairs whatsoever – that Morgan joining Counter-Currents is somehow fundamental to this feud has turned out to be correct.

I have no idea whether the accusations made in this post are true or false.  I have no idea whether the accusations made against Friberg are true or false. I have no definite idea whether O’Meara’s accusations against Spencer in the comments thread are true or false, but I believe the accusation that Spencer is a “CIA asset” is patently absurd.  Of course, I have no evidence that it’s not so.  I also have no evidence that Spencer isn’t really an alien from a planet circling a red supergiant star in the Andromeda galaxy.  Some things are more or less likely than others.  And read more through the comments section.  Besides the anti-Spencer “CIA plant” ranting, we also see rude and vulgar attacks against Greg Johnson (similar to the vile crap at Majority Rights), who is an excellent writer and nationalist theorist (albeit one who has soured on Sallis, but, hey, no one is perfect), other back-and-forth personal attacks, and the like.  All about personality; nothing about ideology.


Greg Johnson’s response.


I’ll give credit to Greg for this:


But the only way to “win” these sorts of public battles is not to get involved in the first place. And since I obviously failed at that, the second best option is to stop them before they escalate any further. So, for my part, it stops here.


I hope that’s correct.  But the Friberg-Spencer side have their arguments as well, and much of that focuses on Morgan.  Again, it seems to me as an outsider here that Morgan switching to Counter-Currents was an initiator of this sorry sequence of events.


Greg also writes:

And since criticism is inevitable, isn’t it better to get it from our friends now than from our enemies later?


Er…yes.  Exhibit one: Ted Sallis’ criticism of the “movement.”


And although I grant that there is definitely a place for barbs and mockery in driving home a well-argued point or skewering pretense and folly…


So, it’s not always “crazed bitterness?”

Apparently, there are no real consequences for wrongdoing in this movement. 


I’ve been saying that for years.  That’s what you get with a dysfunctional “movement” with affirmative action “leadership.”


A movement that seeks the renewal of white civilization should, at the very least, try to maintain a few minimum standards of civilized behavior. But the movement today resembles a post-apocalyptic wasteland in which warlords and their gangs fight for spoils.


Exactly.  And therefore isn’t vehement criticism of such a “movement” – including “barbs and mockery” – justified in “skewering” the “pretense and folly” of such a “movement?”


The original of this post was written before Greg Johnson’s response.  This version of my essay is not substantially different from this version (hardly different at all) – I still do not know who is right or wrong (both sides make plausible arguments but show minimal concrete evidence and I am not taking sides).  I am glad though I waited so I could link to Greg’s riposte. However, as you will see as I make my argument below, it really does not matter who is more in the right and more in the wrong here.  Someone here did wrong and the entire episode is a blight on the Alt Right and by extension the “movement” that the Alt Right has, unfortunately, become the predominant element in.  


For all these people’s criticisms and ignoring of that crazy shit-stirrer Ted Sallis, they are, by far – by an order of magnitude or more – “stirring the shit” more than I ever have.  And my “shit stirring” has always been about substantive issues – ideology or “movement” defectives and their unethical behavior. It’s not been a “movement catfight” of folks hurling accusations against each other.

And to me all these explanations seem incomplete.  Not that it matters for my final thesis of this post, but: what was the true origination of the Johnson-Spencer feud that seems to have predated this latest imbroglio? Why did Morgan leave Arktos for Counter-Currents? From an ideological standpoint, how does all of this background drama affect, for example, the (in my opinion unfortunate) embrace of narrow ethnonationalism by some of the people involved over the last few years?

Let us crudely divide the combatants in two camps.  First, we have the Spencer-Friberg-Jorjani-Arktos camp and then we have the Johnson-Morgan-O’Meara Counter-Currents camp.  Some very serious accusations and counter-accusations have been made in both directions.  As I’ve said, I have no idea where the truth lies here. I previously asserted on this blog that Spencer and Johnson should settle their differences for the good of racial nationalism; this obviously does not appear likely to occur.

What are the broad implications here?  Now, it is of course very possible that the storylines of both sides are mixtures of truth and falsehood.  Reality – particularly in these sorts of internal squabbles – is never so clear cut that one side is all pure moral goodness and the other side pure evil.  For example, imagine that the Counter-Currents side is mostly correct, but O’Meara’s accusation about Spencer is not true (which I believe it is not). Or maybe some of the Counter-Currents folks were bad-mouthing Friberg. On the other hand, if the Arktos side is essentially correct, it is still possible they are exaggerating and embellishing the “crimes” of the other side and taking things out of context.

However – and this is the key pint – it is HIGHLY improbable, to the point of impossibility, that each side’s storyline is an exactly equal distribution of truth and falsehood; exactly 50:50.  In fact, it’s far more likely that one side is completely right and the other completely wrong than it is for there to be an essentially equal distribution of mixed truth and falsehood. In other words, it is most likely that one side of this conflict is mostly telling the truth (even if some embellishments and misleading “spin” is thrown in) and is in the right, and the other side is mostly lying and is in the wrong.  Oh, I guess it is theoretically possible the whole thing started out as a misunderstanding – but don’t you think that rational and disinterested players would have realized this and settled the matter by now if that was really the case? The situation is only getting worse – suggesting there is “real meat” to some of the accusations and/or there are some strong (financial) interests at stake.

As I said I do not know which side is the one mostly right.  And maybe, just maybe, in the broad scheme of things, it does not really matter.

What does matter is this.  If my understanding is correct and one side here – whichever side it is – is essentially in the wrong, that means that one major component of the Alt Right, one major faction of Der Movement, is in fact guilty of (some of) the serious accusations made against it.  From my perspective it really doesn’t matter which side it is – since I’m opposed to the Alt Right in general and opposed to Der Movement as it currently exists as well.

But, let us agree – both sides cannot be essentially right and ethical at the same time. Someone has done (serious) wrong; someone has been engaging in unethical subterfuge at the expense of the good of racial nationalism as a whole.  And, truth be told, even the (relatively) “innocent” faction (whichever it is) is not handling the situation well, as both sides are escalating the feud – the Arktos side keeps on running anti-Counter Currents articles at AltRight.com, while O’Meara is accusing Spencer of being a CIA plant.  They keep on “airing dirty laundry.”  So, even the “innocent” side – whichever it is – is in fact behaving more destructively than the dreaded Sallis ever has, with my tongue-in-cheek mocking ridicule of “movement” stupidities (which as we see has been justified).  They claim they are “restraining themselves,” threatening they could “disclose even more.” That’s great.  It’s a public site, read by everyone and anyone; keep it up, it’s obviously doing us all a world of good.


And guess what?  I could “disclose” many things as well, but choose not to do so.  What would it achieve?

Yes, the Alt Right spurns Sallis, thinks Sallis is crazy, and ignores Sallis. That’s great; you know, at this point, with all of this going on, I’ll consider it a compliment.


Indeed, as Johnson writes:


All things considered, though, it is better to sacrifice personal friendships than to weaken the movement as a whole.

Yes, indeed.  See the last few years of EGI Notes.

I for one do not have any financial interests in activism, I earn zero money from it (it is actually an opportunity cost taking time away from other endeavors) and I’m a third party disinterested observer to this whole mess. Do not misunderstand: I do not begrudge overt full-time activists from earning a living from activism.  Obviously, they must do so and they should do so.  In fact, if we want high-quality full time activists we need a situation where at minimum they can have a comfortable middle class existence, etc. But this should not be achieved through vicious squabbling over financial resources, unethical behavior, and the like (I also do not like constant Alt Wrong panhandling so that kosher conservative “activists” earn exuberant six figure professional-scale salaries while funneling money into the pockets of “writers” who are race-mixing child porn apologists).  From what I can see this feud is NOT over ideology or any grand statements of principle. It’s about personality, it’s about claims to leadership, it’s about the resources (such as they are) of Arktos, and it’s about money.

If it was actually about ideology and principle, then it would be at least understandable, if regrettable. But it is not.

And, I must say – the “rank and file” “movement” “activists” are to blame for this fiasco as well.  It are they who enable the “leadership,” it are they who add fuel to the fire of the feuds, it are they who keep on propping up a failed “movement” instead of looking elsewhere to people offering an alternative.

Fact is – one year after its “breakthrough” the Alt Right is a feuding muddy mess.  Who was skeptical of the Alt Right?  Who has been skeptical of Der Movement and its leaders?  Was this the same “crazy” and “bitter” person who warned you all that Trump was a vulgar beta cuck buffoon?

That’s OK though.  Double down on the Alt Right, scream “Hail Kek!,” draw some more Pepe cartoons, and let the affirmative action train keep on rolling along.  Here’s a comment from someone who understands.  Excerpt:

I don’t identify as Alt-Right – after all it isn’t an organised movement and has no clear manifesto, it’s a free for all of undisciplined rabble. It’s perfectly possibly to be Right wing and not Alt-Right. I think you find that the majority of Right wing people would never associate with such a trashy bunch of people. Teenagers might enjoy memes, but I think you will find that the adults have all the money…

All the rest of you get the “leadership” you deserve.  And you obviously are deserving of what you have.  Enjoy.

And let me rewrite this Johnson comment:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Daniel Friberg would have never grown into the menace that he is today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against him. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like Friberg, Spencer, and Forney — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of the tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the chan nihilists and Left-wing press they so eagerly cultivate.


As:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Der Movement’s “leadership” would have never grown into the menace that they are today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against them. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like the “leadership” that’s failed us continuously for many decades — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of their tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the Game/HBD/Nutzi nihilists and anti-racist freaks they so eagerly cultivate as show opposition.


My advice to third party observers such as myself: be patient and wait until the Alt Right contagion, burns itself out.  This is, by the way, we need something like Codreanu’s Legion; we need the New Man, ethical and moral leadership. not something accurately described as a “freak show.”


Delenda est Alt Right.  This episode is a perfect reason why.

Putting Our Feed Down Indeed

More madness.

I don’t “have a dog in this fight.”  I really don’t know anything about Friberg, but I used to have a productive interaction with Johnson and Counter-Currents and I’ve repeatedly stated I think Spencer has great potential as a White nationalist leader.  No doubt both are displeased with my criticisms of the “movement,” particularly the Alt Right, but I say (or write) what’s on my mind.

Putting all that aside, this latest “movement” feud is pathetic and all-too-typical.  It’s the usual “he said, she said” type of back-and-forth sniping, contradictory statements, gossip, and feuding based on personality and squabbling over limited resources rather than principled disagreements over ideology.  It’d embarrassing, it makes the Left laugh at us, it’s airing “dirty laundry” for all to see, and it exemplifies all the reasons I have zero confidence in the way things are run in the “movement.”  

Who is right?  Who is wrong?  Who knows? Who cares?  The “movement” madness train rolls on, without end. All these guys make comments about my “insanity” and “bitterness” or whatever – that’s on my part mostly tongue-in-cheek ridicule of Nutzi stupidity.  On the other hand, this long-running Johnson-Spencer feud is not tongue-in-cheek, it’s all too real.

It reminds me of the types of infighting in business – “office politics” – or in academia – “departmental politics.”  When resources are limited, this nonsense starts.

What are the resources in play here?  One is leadership and status.  Well, it would be better to at least struggle for leadership based on some concrete ideological differences, rather than personality and ambition.  Yes, yes – there’s that Big Europe vs. Ethnonationalism bit, but I wonder (as do some commentators) how much of that is a cause of the clash and how much of it is actually an effect.  Leadership?  Leadership of what exactly?  And, guys, if you really want to exhibit real leadership, you’d settle your differences and present a more united front against the anti-White forces.

Then there’s money.  Well, how about focusing your ire at the Alt Wrong instead of at each other?  From what I’ve read, the “happy penguins” of VDARE and, also, Amren take the lion’s share of “movement” funding.  And each of you have legitimate beefs with the Alt Wrong (besides just ideological differences).  Spencer should remember that it wasn’t just Greg who critiqued him over “Hailgate” – Brimelow and Taylor couldn’t “throw him under the bus” fast enough.  And let’s not forget Brimelow musing out loud at VDARE about his cheering up a Jewish correspondent with the idea that Spencer is likely to “get shot.” Johnson should remember his comments about how disgusting it is that Derbyshire is getting support from “movement” sources – that’s the Alt Wrong that’s propping up Derbyshire, at the expense (literally) of actual pro-White activists.

Problem is that the Man on White Horse Syndrome affects the “movement” internally as well as externally, so we have “rock stars” and “dignified elders” that we are supposed to not criticize.  Well, that’s another “movement” dogma I reject.

Anyway, this whole thing is pathetic.

Get over yourselves, guys.  Please.

And for another self-satisfied navel-gazer, enter Jack Donovan.

“Wolves Nationalist,” Right.  Is that gray wolf, red wolf, or werewolf?  And then we see the usual fossilized “movement” dogma/ethnic fetishism in the comments section.

And then you wonder why I can’t take any of these fellows seriously?

Accountability, 10/28/16

It’s…Roissy.

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:

Robert
We’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.

For The Record, 9/21/16

The election approaches.

For the record, let us summarize the viewpoints of two factions associated with Der Movement, with respect to Trump.

HBD/race realist faction: Donald Trump is the last chance, the last hope, for White America.

Game/manosphere faction: Donald Trump is going to win in a landslide, no doubt whatsoever.

If Trump wins (albeit, I think, not in a landslide) then these folks are off the hook – temporarily that is, until President Trump starts wildly cucking.

However, if Trump loses…there will be accountability.

Count on it. 

Is Der Movement’s Winter of Discontent Coming?

Does the God Emperor have feet of clay?

I guess I was too quick in saying the beta cucking fraud Der Touchback was not going to pivot.  Read here, emphasis added:

AUSTIN, Texas, Aug 23 (Reuters) – U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump held out the possibility on Tuesday of a softening of his hardline position on illegal immigration, a move that could help move him to the political center but hurt him with his most ardent supporters.

In an immigration town hall event with Fox News anchor Sean Hannity, Trump was asked whether he would be willing to change U.S. law to accommodate those illegal immigrants who have been contributing to American society, obeyed laws and have children.

“There certainly can be a softening because we’re not looking to hurt people,” Trump replied, insisting there were some “great people” among the immigrant population.

It was the latest example of Trump appearing to waver on his long-held stance he would deport all illegal immigrants back to their home countries. His new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, told CNN on Sunday that Trump’s proposed “deportation force” for the 11 million people in the United States illegally was “to be determined.”
But a change in Trump’s position could prove to be dispiriting to some of his strongest supporters. Trump defeated 16 rivals for the Republican presidential nomination and one factor that helped him was being the most hardline candidate on immigration.

“Why would anyone be surprised that Trump has pivoted to becoming the ‘amnesty’ candidate?”


Now, Trump being who he is – a man defined by his supporters by his “alpha qualities” rather than his ideas – it is difficult to get a sense whether the God Emperor is reneging or not.  Those who have said that Trump is our last chance, our last hope, are now linking to articles asserting that Trump is “doubling down on deportations” despite the fact that the man’s own words suggest different.

We’ll see.  I’m not going to make any definitive comments on this today, because Trump himself, in a classic display of dishonest cuckiness, refuses to absolutely define his position. Very well.

But Der Movement needs to remember this.  The ONLY way for the quota queens to survive relatively unscathed from this election is for:

1. Trump NOT to renege on, and backpedal from, his original strong positions on immigration, AND

2. For Trump to be elected and then to proceed to act upon, the best he can, his original promises.

1+2 = Der Movement limping on in its current broken form and persons such as myself can criticize it on other things, but not this.

But if 1 and/or 2 do not come to pass, here’s a newsflash: a “movement” that has tied its credibility to Trump – with “leaders” and “activists” who swoon over Trump like the wop girl teenagers hysterically melting over Johnny Fontaine’s “olive oil voice and guinea charm “ in The Godfather Part I – this “movement” is going to be held accountable by me at least.

Do they think they can pull this stunt endlessly?  Tie themselves to the latest “man on white horse” savior, behave like love-struck schoolgirls, ignore all the warning signs, dangerously associate the credibility of racialism with some flawed public figure, and, then, when the inevitable happens and it all collapses around then, merrily skip away, making believe it all never happened?

No sir, not this time.  Even if I am the ONLY one calling them out on it (and I’m sure that will be the case), call them out I will – over and over and over again, without end, until the Nutzi followers wake up *which they probably never will do).

Until then, the next step is to wait and see what happens.  I’ll be REAL interested to see how the God Emperor reacts to this.

Stay tuned.  We’re in for a bumpy ride.