Category: affirmative action

Trump, Bannon, Der Movement, and Ted Sallis

Right again…and again…and again…

Long time readers of this blog know that I have been critical of Trump for a long time, labeling him during the campaign as a vulgar and ignorant buffoon, a beta race cuck, a fraud, and a person who very clearly showed signs that he really want to be President. This post from October 2016 sums it up (emphasis added):

But, no, just like Der Movement that adores him, Trump is an incompetent affirmative action case, with no restraint or long-term strategic thinking. Some leftist criticisms of Trump are correct: he is intellectually and temperamentally unfit to be President.  But, Clinton is far more unfit, and, anyway, I’m not going to vote for Trump because I think he would be a good President.  I support Trump solely to send a message, solely to unleash the dogs of chaos, solely to throw a monkey wrench into the creaking machinery of the multicultural consensus. What we need more of: misery, despair, hatred, anger, distrust, racial and cultural balkanization; these are all things growing as a result of Fat Don’s unapologetic politically incorrect civic nationalism coupled to SJW hysteria and Colored entitlement.  
Let’s be honest though: Trump the man is a disaster, easily the worst general campaign candidate in my lifetime.  I’ve never seen such a combination of joyful ignorance, in-your-face laziness, unpreparedness, delusion, inability to learn from mistakes, the hysterical lack of restraint one would expect from one of Trump’s Negro friends (or even worse: a swarthoid Afrowop) – what is this Trump?  He’s a goddamn embarrassment.
And if the Trump lovers think I am being too harsh on their hero, consider the following. When Trump eschewed doing a mock debate, we were assured that he was being adequately prepped by his advisers while riding the campaign plane, advisers who were imploring Trump not to let himself be baited and side-tracked by Clinton.  And look what happened. What an idiot.
I do wonder what those psychologists told Clinton on how to handle Trump. Maybe something like this: “This guy Trump deep down really does not want to be President, he doesn’t want the responsibility, and he doesn’t want to give up his lifestyle.  He went into it for his ego, because he was angry at Obama.  But he is inwardly rebelling against becoming President, which is why he is constantly sabotaging himself.  All you need to do is set him up to self-destruct and he’ll inevitably detonate in an explosion of unrestrained tweets.”
Despite all of this, Trump can still win: after all, Clinton is also a historically terrible candidate and there’s lots of anger out there in White America.  But, let’s “keep it real” – anyone who says that Trump is “the last chance of White America” is more of an idiot than is Trump himself.

Note that I was correct about the chaos that Trump would bring.  Just look at 2017.

Der Movement’s take on Trump was quite different.  To the quota queens, Trump was “the last chance for White America,” an alpha male hero, The God Emperor, an American Caesar and we are fearful he may actually stabilize the corrupt System since he’ll be so good, someone who will enact real pro-White demographic change, a master of 4-D chess, having Sessions as Attorney General alone is worth Trump’s victory (that before Trump started feuding with Sessions and the Trump fanboys suddenly decided Sessions was a “boomer cuck”), Bannon will really get things moving for us (before Bannon was fired and the Trump-Bannon feud heated up, solidifying the power of the Jarvanka Jewish Globalist faction in the Trump administration), In Trump We Trust…well, you get the picture.

Recently, there have been some interesting revelations, based on a new book, which has led to the anti-Bannonism of Trump [Note: Bannon is an idiot himself for making the comments he did.  Notice how the Left never acts like these juvenile, retarded “rightists”].

Based on my reading of Trump, I believe that most of the “revelations” that follows are true.  Let’s look at these and compare them to the views of Trump of Sallis vs. Der Movement.  In all cases, emphasis added.

Read this.

“I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist or alt-right or any of the things, the terms we could use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him,” Trump told reporters who questioned Bannon’s white nationalist following on November 26, 2016.

Gee, so much for the Alt Right having great influence in The God Emperor Administration.

In February, Bannon was dubbed “The Great Manipulator” and the “second most powerful man in the world” on the cover of Time magazine. Later that month, a campaign titled “postcards to President Bannon” was initiated, joking that the Breitbart native was the real head of state.
Two months later, Bannon was removed from the National Security Council.
“I am my own strategist,” Trump told the New York Post in April. He then told the Wall Street Journal that Bannon was just “a guy who works for me.”

Hey, I thought Bannon in power was a crowning achievement for the Trump Presidency.

After the white supremacist protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, Trump defended Bannon by saying: “I like Mr. Bannon. He is a friend of mine … He is a good man. He is not a racist. I can tell you that. He is a good person ... We’ll see what happens with Mr. Bannon.”

Note to Alt Right: According to Trump, being a “racist” and being a “good person” are completely incompatible, completely orthogonal.  Cuckadoodledoo!  All Hail the God Emperor!  Hail Kek!  Pepe!  Pepe!

Also read this.

According to Wolff, Trump didn’t want to become president. The ultimate goal of his bid for the White House was to become a “martyr” to Hillary Clinton and to become “the most famous man in the world.”
For those involved in his campaign, the goal was to lose by as small a margin as possible and then, after November, parlay their raised national profiles into bigger and better opportunities.
“His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared would be international celebrities,” Wolff wrote. “Steve Bannon would become the de facto head of the Tea Party movement. Kellyanne Conway would be a cable news star. Melania Trump, who had been assured by her husband that he wouldn’t become president, could return to inconspicuously lunching. Losing would work out for everybody. Losing was winning.”

Gee, that sounds familiar.  It’s almost as it some Far Right blogger actually suggested back in October 2016 that Trump really didn’t want to actually be elected President.  

With no desire to win the White House, Trump had little plan for how to proceed with his post-election transition. Ailes, a longtime friend and confidante, recommended former House Speaker John Boehner to serve as his chief of staff. To which Trump replied: “Who’s that?”

Ignorant as in Vulgar Ignorant Buffoon.

According to Wolff, even Trump’s daughter has mocked his hair privately to friends and associates:
“She often described the mechanics behind it to friends: an absolutely clean pate — a contained island after scalp-reduction ­surgery — surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the center and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray. The color, she would point out to comical effect, was from a product called Just for Men — the longer it was left on, the darker it got. Impatience resulted in Trump’s orange-blond hair color.”

Buffoon as in Vulgar Ignorant Buffoon.

And read this as well.

11. As a candidate, Trump had no interest in learning about the Constitution, which he knew very little about. “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment, before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head,” said Sam Nunberg, a former adviser to the Trump campaign.

Ignorant as in Vulgar Ignorant Buffoon.

16. Trump never reads. “He didn’t process information in any conventional sense. He didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semiliterate,” the book says. 

Ignorant as in Vulgar Ignorant Buffoon.

17. Trump would mention getting in bed with other women. “Trump liked to say that one of the things that made life worth living was getting your friends’ wives into bed,” the book claims.

Vulgar as in Vulgar Ignorant Buffoon.  I’m sure the Gamester-Roissy crowd thinks that this behavior is wonderfully “alpha” – to me, to the extent this is true, it shows that Trump is a moral turd, a despicable human being.

19. The president’s lifestyle followed many unusual routines. “If he was not having his 6:30 dinner with Steve Bannon, then, more to his liking, he was in bed by that time with a cheeseburger, watching his three screens and making phone calls,” the book says.

No comment.

Some may think that the well-balanced (not crazy and bitter) Ted is insufferable, but when you are right, you are right, and pointing out the track record of this blog vs. Der Movement is perfectly defensible when making points about the latter’s incompetence and undeserved support.

Meanwhile, all you “movement” rank-and-file continue to support all the “leaders” who are wrong time and again, idiots who once again fell for the “man on white horse syndrome.”  What we have in Der Movement is a form of reverse natural selection” you guys support the failed, the botched, the incompetent, while spurning those who have the good sense to understand things before they are obvious to the unwashed masses.

Advertisements

The State of Der Movement: 2017

2017: The Year of No Accountability
I will now review the State of Der Movement for the year 2017.  However, I am going to extend the analysis a bit beyond Jan. 1 2017 to include all events starting with the election of Donald Trump on Nov. 8, 2016.  The last two months of 2016 belong with 2017; together they form a seamless whole, as far as an integrated narrative goes.  After all, the last two months of 2016, including “Hailgate,” set the tone for “movement” ups and downs in 2017, so an artificial separation on 1/1/17 serves no purpose.
This analysis will be divided between (1) The American scene and (2) everywhere else.
1. American
There are many players on the American scene, but if we apply the Pareto principle here, and concentrate on the most important and influential figures, we have the triumvirate of Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, and Jared Taylor.
Spencer is the “public face” of the American “movement,” the main organizer, the most important social media presence, the biggest “bogeyman” for the Left/System, and, given his relatively youthful age, the leading contender as the successor to, say, David Duke as the Godfather of American Racialism.  Greg Johnson represents the intellectual element, the Grand Thinker of Der Movement, and represents “traditionalism” as well as being an American exponent of “ethnonationalism.” Jared Taylor plays the role of “elder statesman,” and also represents the more moderate, Jew-friendly, HBD/race realist-oriented precincts of the American scene.
There are other important figures as well, no doubt.  Kevin MacDonald is an important intellectual figure, more science- and academic-oriented than Johnson.  Duke is still around, as is Kevin Strom.  VDARE laughably considers itself part of the Alt Right. There are of course other “movement” figures of greater or less importance, some of whom have delusions of grandeur. But, still, the Pareto ratio works; we can get 80% of “movement” importance in the 20% represented by Spencer, Johnson, and Taylor.
Let’s briefly consider each in turn, before getting to America in general, before moving on to Sallis/EGI Notes and then to the rest of the world.
Spencer: Richard Spencer is well meaning, good on camera, reasonably articulate, and has leadership potential.  The basic problem here revolves around judgment (or the lack thereof) – judgment and maturity.  One hopes that as he enters his 40s, more maturity will lead to more gravitas and better judgment, and an understanding that Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism does not appeal to most people over age 30, and that the likes of Jorjani should never have been dealt with in the first place.  The “Alt Right’ brand has passed its expiration date, and realizing that will perhaps be the first test that Spencer has to pass to transition to a more serious and informed racialist leader. I’ll give Spencer credit for having good instincts in his initial reaction to Brexit and for being pan-European in his attitude.
 
Johnson: Greg Johnson is obviously intelligent, well-educated, and well read, and has produced good intellectual material for the “movement.”  No doubt about that.  Unfortunately, for some reason, over the time period considered here, Counter-Currents has taken a negative turn, with Johnson becoming ever more intolerant of criticism and displaying increasing irascible irritability.  Differences about ethnonationalism are one thing (however, the promotion of intra-European “ethnic cleansing” was indefensible) but the lack of accountability concerning the two infiltrations is something else entirely.  Everyone makes mistakes, sometimes bad ones, but to compound bad judgment with a lack of responsibility is disturbing. Coupled with bizarre turns, such as “fired donors” and expending political capital in defense of Lauren Southern (including laughable articles analyzing the onanistic habits of her viewers) and bringing back alcohol prohibition (I don’t drink myself, but, hey, I thought we were supposed to promote “West Coast White nationalism,” appealing to all sorts of people?), I have to say, objectively speaking, that if Counter-Currents doesn’t change direction back to how it was several years ago, the site will slowly, but inevitably, slip into Majority Rights-style irrelevance. True, they are still finding suckers to meet their panhandling goals, but I’m looking long-term.

One basic problem with Johnson is that he wrote an article stating that is OK to “punch right” when it is deserved, and he has done it himself (including asserting, in so many words, that your humble blog host is an embittered lunatic), but he has a “glass chin” when subjected to criticism.

He wrote (emphasis added):

…our resources are limited and our cause serious. We cannot, therefore, be held hostage to the most reckless and selfish among us, people who commit crimes or flout basic principles of operational security.

Operational security…you mean like having two infiltrators attending your “extremely vetted” meetings at the same time?  You mean inviting an infiltrator to give a speech at your meeting about…drum roll please…the dangers of anti-fascist infiltration?  You mean letting in infiltrators who come with the flimsiest of pretexts (“I’m Swedish!”  “I’m a move critic!”)?

Showing solidarity to such people rewards vice and penalizes virtue.

Oh yes, indeed.

Intelligence agencies regularly disavow spies who go rogue or allow themselves to be captured. We should take ourselves just as seriously and be equally ruthless with failure.

Yet when I called for accountability, Johnson banned me from commenting at his blog.

Second, in the battle of ideas, there is no sense in demanding that we present a united front, particularly on issues where there are real disagreements of principle.

Tell that to that Curwen fellow, who disagreed with Johnson about Lauren Southern and was essentially air-brushed off of Counter-Currents comments.  And when I disagree with “movement” dogma, I’m labeled “crazy” and “bitter.”

Taylor: Jared Taylor has, obviously, done good work over the years.  Like Johnson, he’s intelligent, well educated, and well read.  He’s articulate and good on camera.  Like Johnson, he’s run some of my work at his site.  But Amren has been doubling down on all the negatives it has been exhibiting ever since I stopped writing for them.  Thus, Taylor throws Spencer under the bus after Hailgate, because some Jews – huWhite Men of the West, we are told – might get offended, meanwhile White ethnics keep on getting bashed, the latest being Munro’s asinine hit-piece against Romanians (no “Men of the West” they).  If the “Alt Right” brand has passed its shelf life, then the tired “HBD/race-realist praise the Jews and worship the Orientals Alt Wrong” brand has long been giving off the odor of decay.  And as for the “gateway hypothesis” – that Amren is the moderate entry point for people to enter the “movement” after which they become more radicalized – I’ll say it again: there is no empirical evidence to support that hypothesis.  It is all conjecture, hypothesis, anecdotal “evidence” – it sounds reasonable so people assume it is true.  Arguing that there is no evidence that it is not true does not impress: it is part of Western logic and Western law that it is the party making the assertion who needs to provide the evidence.  If people assert that Amren is of value because it is a gateway, then actually show quantitative data to back it up.  Otherwise, all I see is a site that tells us that Jews are “huWhite Men of the West,” that asserts that Orientals are high-IQ supermen, and that White ethnics are cringing, low-IQ subhuman (and non-Western!) mongrels.  More of a cul-de-sac rather than any sort of legitimate gateway.  Don’t believe me? Read not only the Munro article but many of the comments to it, seething with contemptuous racial disdain for Romanians and other Eastern Europeans (with the occasional shot at Italians, what would any self-respecting Amren comments thread be without that?).

Summary: Please note, as I’ve said in the past (and ignored by the hysterical), that any criticisms of leading activists is business, not personal. I’m sufficiently self-aware to understand that I am (including IRL) a cold and unfriendly person by nature; my interest is in ideas, not people. I, quite frankly, could care less about any “movement personality” at the level of them as individual people, my concerns are on their ideas, actions, effects on racial nationalism, and what they do and do not represent.  Even when I comment on qualities such as personal character, loyalty, moral fiber. etc. that is also business and not personal, since such comments are made solely looking through the lens of evaluating the person’s fitness for “movement” leadership.  This point must be stressed because there are people – mostly Type I activists (and perhaps some individuals discussed above) – who really are concerned with “movement” gossip and with personalities as personalities.

If any of the abovementioned individuals were to correct what I see as deficiencies, I would be among the first to praise them for it.  I don’t see much of a probability of that occurring in 2018; and I believe only Spencer is young enough, and mentally flexible enough, to change course, eventually.

Der Movement (America) in general: Wasted opportunities galore in 2017.  Trump’s election, the rise of right-wing populism, and the vast increase in sociopolitical chaos and racial balkanization left in its wake endless opportunity that was squandered in feuding, stupid antics, Charlottesville Ragnarok, infiltrations, panhandling Tin Cup White nationalism, and zero accountability.  Trump’s cucking exposed the “movement’s” obsessive “man on white horse syndrome” fetishism once again, and the year is ending with the absolute stupidity of feuding over stupid female YouTube celebrities, and Munro’s vicious attack against Romanians – the people who gave us Corneliu Codreanu and Ion Mota (as opposed to those huWhite Jews giving us Sigmund Freud and Noel Ignatiev).
Sallis: I made one large error – I dismissed the possibility of a Trump victory, naively believing the mainstream media and its polling.  I’ve admitted being wrong about this before; I will do so again.  This was a significant error of judgment on my part.  I was also a bit too optimistic about the meaning of Brexit; Spencer’s initial reaction was more on the mark.  On the other hand, I have been right about virtually everything else: that Trump is a vulgar, ignorant buffoon who will betray the “movement’s” “man on white horse syndrome” fantasies through continued cucking; the unwillingness of the “movement” and its leaders to admit being wrong about Trump (or anything else for that matter – no accountability); the costs of affirmative action and ethic fetish, culminating in the Hermansson humiliation; that the “movement’s” unscientific obsession with “racial purity” and its misinterpretation of genetic tests will lead to System mocking of how “you are not pure so racial nationalism is illegitimate” – 2017 being the year in which activists were roundly ridiculed by the System for getting “impure” 23andme results; that White ethnics would support a Presidential candidate deemed “racist” (as opposed to Bush/Romney/McCain overt cucks); and the fact that a Trump victory – his betrayals notwithstanding – would “trigger” the Left and promote chaos and balkanization.
As far as achieving objectives, with respect to political objectives, my efforts have been a complete and unmitigated failure. Der Movement continues to be dominated by Type I fascists, Nutzis, ethnic fetishists, and morons.  The proposed New Movement fundamentals outlined at Western Destiny are ignored. My influence on the general direction of the “movement” is, currently, non-existent.  Those are objective facts that cannot be evaded.  Nor do I currently have any bright ideas or strategies to alter this situation in 2018.  Being right most of the time (an objective, verifiable fact, not rampant egoism) doesn’t accomplish much if no one pays attention.  That’s stark reality. If the irascibility of this blog is cause or effect (or, possibly, both) of that reality is a determination I’ll leave up to the reader.
On the positive side, I’ve produced some material that at least I myself think has some value, and I finally did do at least a preliminary quantitation of genetic structure using the DifferInt program.  Last December, I introduced the Moralpath concept, which I believe has significant explanatory power and is a novel insight into human psychology.  And I’ve combined on the blog a mix of political commentary, some science and technics articles, ruminations of culture and civilization, analysis of EGI in the practical world, as well as the typical criticisms of Der Movement.  Even if few people know or care, I’m reasonably satisfied with the memes produced here.
2. Everywhere else.
There was some good news from Austria – “the first Far-Right government since WWII” – although they are hardly “Far-Right” by my standards. Well, it’s better than nothing. The news from Germany was worse than nothing: Merkel back in power. Yes, some gains for Alterative for Germany, but in the context of the “refuge” crisis (alien invasion of Germany and the rest of Europe in response to Merkel’s genocidal invitation) the response of the electorate was pathetic and disgusting.  In the UK, Brexit played out as the pan-Europeanists more or less predicted: Polish plumbers bad, “Commonwealth” Desis and Jamaicans good.  Pathetic once again.
However, the biggest news from Europe was the utter failure of mainstreaming, particularly in France and the Netherlands.  This was a spectacular refutation of the mainstreaming meme (not that defenders of mainstreaming, in any of their online guises, had the character to come out and admit they were wrong – once again: 2017, the Year of Zero Accountability). There is no empirical evidence supporting mainstreaming, similar to the lack of data supporting the “gateway” scenario.  Mainstreaming seems eminently reasonable; the problem is it does not work in real life.  Instead, we see Orban’s continued success with farstreaming, a moderate rightist moving toward the extremes and becoming ever more popular. Mainstreaming fails for many reasons, not the least of which it allows the mainstream Right to shift slightly and overlap many of your positions and hence make themselves into more electable and palatable versions of yourself; while on the other hand, you disillusion your hardcore supporters and you still cannot appeal to that fraction of the electorate who are, and will always remain, unalterably opposed to you.
In summary, given the challenges Europe faces, the response from the Right and the White electorate has been pitiful.  And the elites are doubling down on their treason, saying that the demographic displacement of Europeans from their homelands is “inevitable” and needs to be “properly managed.”  How did such people get into power?  Ultimately, if you go back far enough (that is, even those traitors appointed by other elites are the fault of the voters, because the ones who appointed them were themselves voted into office) it’s because Europeans voted them in, and won’t vote out, and won’t vote nationalists in. There’s some resistance from Eastern Europe, but unless those nations have the gumption to leave the EU – and do so for racial nationalist and not civic nationalist (Brexit) reasons – then they are just playing cards on the deck of the Titanic. Either leave the EU or seize the EU for nationalists, but the latter cannot be done without a nationalist resurgence in Western Europe.
Outside of Europe (and the USA)?  Australia?  New Zealand?  Canada?  Nothing positive to speak of.
The milksop White race continues to be the historical embodiment of cuckiness. The descent into darkness continues.

Conquest of a Movement

More of the same.

As part of a paen to Nordicist Madison Grant on a typical Alt Right blog, we read some fascinating comments.  For example:

Grant was uniting Dutch, Huguenot, Irish, British, Scandinavian, and to a lesser extent, German…

What happened to “ethnonationalism?”  It dissipates upon crossing the Atlantic?

Ditch the Irish and emphasize German more than Huguenot, and that’s a good encapsulation of Der Movement’s affirmative action program (or at least who can attend an Alt Right meeting sans all the “extreme vetting”).

Grant’s biographer tells an anecdote that when Italians claimed that non-Nordic Italians were capable of great things, Grant and his colleague Henry Fairfield Osborn declared that Christopher Columbus da Vinci, Galileo, Raphael, Donatello, Botticelli, Petrarch, and Dante were Nordic. Poles Kosciusko and Pulaski were Nordic too.

Oh, yes, of course they were. Each and every one!  If it were possible to do genetic testing on those individuals, they’d overlap perfectly with Dolph Lundgren (or Patrik Hermansson).  Julius Evola was too!  And Michelangelo!  And, quite obviously, the fair-complexioned, Celto-Germanic, finely chiseled features of Benito Mussolini reflect a pure Nordic ancestry!

One needs to separate Grant’s concerns about changing American demographics – concerns that were certainly legitimate – from assertions that virtually any Southern or Eastern European that accomplished anything of value was “Nordic.”  Even if the all the aforementioned individuals were “Nordic” (which they were not), that would still leave a large number of important Wop/Polack, etc. historical figures who were “Mediterranean” and “Alpine.”  Racial and ethnic preservation does not require that every important historical figure belonged to your favorite racial type.

Madison Grant’s writings are surprisingly sympathetic to Northern Italians, who he claimed were Alpines with much Nordic blood.

Like Il Duce!  Of course, contra the solipsist fantasies of Muscleman Mangan, Northern Italians were a distinct minority among Italian emigration to the USA, said emigration being something one would presume be of interest to Grant and his followers.

Unless a Pole or Italian’s skull was measured by calipers by an expert, they could plausibly claim to be of Nordic heritage.

Since both “Nordics” and “Mediterraneans” are equally “dolichocephalic” I fail to see how the Der Movement Caliper Test would be of any use here for the Wops.  The Polacks maybe – but, really, are even long-headed Italians and Poles really considered akin to Swedes?  Would they get free access to all those (strictly secret!) Alt Right meetings, for example?  Would a greasy swarthoid Wop or gook-eyed Polack be considered “Nordic” even if they passed this caliper test?

Madison Grant’s theories of three races of Europe have been altered by science because new discoveries related to DNA. The data related to race is now organized in a different way, but not too different from Grant. The following article describes three “races” in Europe…

Another outright “movement” lie, hoping that people won’t actually read the article, which contains statements like this:

Two years ago, Reich’s group uncovered genetic evidence that most present-day Europeans are a mixture of groups related to southern Europeans, Near Easterners, and a third group most closely related to Native Americans. “That was a crazy observation, but it’s very strong statistically,” Reich says. “We argued that this is because of the contribution of an ancient north Eurasian population some of whose members contributed to the peopling of the Americas more than 15,000 years ago, and others of which later migrated to Europe.”

That’s “not too different” from Grant?  Are you mad?  Or just another typical fundamentally dishonest Der Movement apparatchik?  This does not mean we need to agree with the interpretations of Reich (or of the article itself, and whether or not the article actually accurately describes Reich’s findings) – that’s not the point.  The point is that the article’s conclusions do not support the contention of the Counter-Currents post.  It’s as ludicrous as AltRight.com fetishists pointing at recent Ancient Egyptian DNA evidence – showing a Near Eastern genetic background with a Negro minority admixture – and stating that those findings “prove Arthur Kemp right” – when Kemp instead promotes the idea of Ancient Egypt as a “Nordic desert empire.”  Der Movement is literally the dictionary definition of the phrase “fundamentally dishonest.”

…Grant was a scientist – not a pseudoscientist. He was conducting research experiments that were repeatable, and they adhered to the scientific method.

Please explain this. What’s repeatable?  What “research experiments” were being conducted?  Hint: discussing historical events or expressing opinions about the relative merits of ethnies – even if those opinions turn out to be absolutely correct – is not “conducting repeatable research experiments.”  More evidence that the Alt Right knows absolute zero about scientific research, what it actually is, and how it is “conducted.”  What do you expect from a “movement” that confuses solipsism with reality?  

For those who believe the “whites and Asians” as allies meme, I offer this quote from our wise past elders. The Asians haven’t necessary bought into “whites and Asians” are allies idea. I even believe that the “higher” IQ of Asians is also largely a myth.

But we should all still embrace Derbyshire, HBD, and the Alt Wrong.

While David Hackett Fischer treats the Quaker and German/Pennsylvania Dutch settlers with great reverence, Madison Grant writes about them quite coldly. Grant argues that the Germans of the American Midlands were Alpines whose clannish ways made them an impediment to national unity. Grant could have extensively covered the extensive Irish (but Nordic) pathologies manifest throughout the 19th century, but we see here how current events can cloud the minds of the most scientific and unsentimental of white advocates. Madison Grant lived at a time when his Patrician Class collogues were strangely in favor of American intervention in World War I against Germany. As a result, he exaggerates Midwestern German differences.

First, what is a “collogue” as a noun rather than as a verb?  Second, all this talk of the Irish as “Nordic” would come as a surprise to Grant’s associate Stoddard who, as I recall, made a big deal about alleged “Mediterranean” elements in the Irish population.  Third, and most important, note that when Der Movement has to deal with Grant being “cold” to Germans (blasphemy!) excuses need to be made.  “Current events” clouded the mind of this “scientific” activist.  Can’t we then say the same about other issues: the large influx of Southern and Eastern European immigrants “clouded” Grant’s mind and led him to “exaggerate” White ethnic differences.  What’s good for the Kraut goose should be good for the Wop/Polack gander, no?

Der Movement, at least its American branch, hasn’t generated a genuinely new idea since WWII apart from those of Yockey, and Der Movement (including Yockey worshippers and peddlers of cheap kitsch like “Yockey commemorative plates” – something an elitist like Yockey would no doubt despise) essentially dismisses and rejects Yockey’s chief idea.  I don’t know: probably Yockey would be more interested about whether someone agreed with his Imperium idea rather than whether they were hawking plates with his likeness on them.  How about a Francis Parker Yockey Commemorative Tin Cup?  More appropriate, I think.

And what would well-educated patricians like Grant and Stoddard think of the Alt Right, clowns yelling about “Pepe” and “Kek” and milling around in the streets like rejects from a cosplay convention?  Tell me again about how superior “White nationalism 2.0” is compared to “White nationalism 1.0.”  Seems much the same to me, except version 2.0 has better street activism, worse “optics,” and more shameless panhandling.

A Tacit Admission That Sallis Is Right

Quota queens on parade.

I recently commented on how Der Movement’s sick embrace of the evil and anti-WN Derbyshire can be at least partially explained by the “movement’s” strict and fervent practice of affirmative action.

…it does not explain the fervor with which Derbyshire been embraced, and the alacrity by which Sallis has been, in contrast, blacklisted.  Thus, second, I must invoke the “movement’s” affirmative action program.  Derbyshire – even with his Chinese family connections – is “one of the boys” so years of extreme anti-WN activism is breezily dismissed…

I didn’t think I would be proven right (again) so soon, but Der Movement never disappoints.  Thus, an activist now describes, on an Alt Right blog, meeting Derbyshire at a conference, and why it was such a big thrill; excerpts, emphasis added:

As a hopeless Anglophile, meeting John Derbyshire was a high point for me…With a glass of red wine in tow, he was most cordial and gentlemanly, a fountain of learned insight and witticisms…On the Anglophile theme, I was able to touch base with Peter Brimelow…

That’s the viciously anti-WN “latrine flies” Derbyshire and the panhandler Brimelow, who is one of several individuals primarily responsible for foisting Derbyshire on the rest of us.  But, but, but….they’re English….

Do I ever get tired of being right?  In a word: NO.

Fisking the Duped

Clueless quota queen.

The MSM has been in SHOCK! HORROR! mode over the news that one Patrik Hermansson, purporting to be graduate student Erik Hellberg (as if anyone could tell the difference!)…

The “movement” obviously could not.

…infiltrated and—arguably illegally and unethically—surreptitiously recorded a number of right wing organizations (he fashionably says “Alt Right” although they mostly predate the term) in Europe and the U.S. e.g. Undercover With the Alt-Right, by Jesse Singal, New York Times, September 19, 2017.

Counter-Currents‘ Editor-in-Chief Greg Johnson, a victim, has a characteristically sensible discussion here.

If by “characteristically sensible” you mean minimizing the outrageous incompetence of “leaders” letting an infiltrator joyride through the “movement” for a year, sitting with “leaders” to “vet” genuine activists, and giving “keynote addresses” about “anti-fascist infiltrators” (I still can’t get over that one), and then hysterically “banning” people who call for accountability, yes indeed, very sensible.

The bottom line: Hermansson/ Hellberg’s “revelations,” although written up in hyperventilating British tabloid style on Hope Not Hate, the Cultural Marxist Enforcer website that sponsored him, contain no evidence or even allegations of any illegal behavior, let alone any conspiracy to commit violence.

That’s not the point is it, you mendacious handout artist?  The point is that a nobody, an infiltrator with a flimsy cover story, was able to worm his way into the highest levels of “movement” discourse and decision making, simply because (1) he’s a Swedish Nord, and (2) he’s an effeminate homosexual. What happens in the future, when an infiltrator is sitting at the highest “movement” councils in a time of crisis?  Or this: how do we know that there  isn’t another infiltrator like Hermansson already there?

All Hermansson/ Hellberg seems to have, at most,  is Politically Incorrect talk—from people already associated with Politically Incorrect websites!

No, all he has is exposing a bunch of clowns with their red rubber noses and makeup on.

He claims “sometimes being a mole in the far right was dangerous….” But he (and his rewrite man, who tried very hard) provide absolutely no support for this.

Big deal. The Hope Not Hate donors, who reportedly supported him for a year, must be very disappointed.

No, they are getting a big laugh over it all, I’m sure.  But in the last analysis, they could have done us all a big favor by exposing the affirmative action racket in the “movement” for what it is.  I say “could have” because I know the mental weaklings among the “movement “rank-and-file don’t have it in them to abandon failed “leadership.”

VDARE.com and I make a number of minor appearances on Hope Not Hate (here and here), but it’s just Search Engine Smear stuff.

Which is mildly interesting, because Hermansson/ Hellberg did contact me and Lydia and I met with him for coffee in Cipriani Dolci above New York’s Grand Central Station. 

And the other shoe drops.  Quota queen Brimelow fell for the same scam as his affirmative action colleagues.

(Note to Hope Not Hate bookkeeper: I paid!)

In other words: VDARE donors likely ultimately paid for it.

I guess I agree with Greg Johnson’s summary: “A bit socially awkward, a bit inarticulate, a bit effeminate, but not so outside the norm for academic types that I felt suspicious.” (Hope Not Hate says proudly that Hermansson/ Hellberg is a “gay, anti-racist activist”).

Two important points. First, the more I hear about Hermansson’s “effeminacy,” the more I think that Andrew Joyce is correct in his criticisms of gays in the “movement.”  If the Far Right was less tolerant of homosexuals, then Hermansson’s behavior would have been a more obvious red flag (alternatively, Hope Not Hate would just have had to dig up an attractive young blonde women to do the job, recording conversations while fending off groping and dodging marriage proposals).  Second, if Hermansson was so awkward and inarticulate, how did he end up being invited by Johnson to address a private Counter-Currents meeting?  How did he end up with the London Forum “leaders,” helping with meeting vetting?  Don’t these guys understand that the more they mock Hermansson as part of their “spin,” the worse they make themselves look for trusting Hermansson and elevating him?  Are these guys really that clueless?  So lacking in self-awareness?  Apparently so.

But I must also say that Hermansson/ Hellberg never said he was anything other than a graduate student, frankly asked if he could record me (Lydia got bored and left)…

That’s surprising. I would have expected she would have a high threshold for boredom.

…and never evinced anything other than academic interest in the movement.

Maybe that’s why his rewrite man couldn’t figure out how to smear us.

No need.  You smear yourselves, first by incompetence, and then by your pathetic “spin” to try and cover up the incompetence.

So why did Hermansson/ Hellberg (and/or his rewrite man) not realize they were undercutting the Left/ MSM Narrative? Because these Leftists are idiots. 

If they are idiots, then what about the Rightists so easily fooled for a year?

They live in an intellectual bubble and they believe their own propaganda.

Is Brimelow talking about “movement” activists here?  Or just deluded VDARE donors?

At least, the Hope Not Hate rewrite man does. But after we met, Hermansson/ Hellberg (email him) replied to my polite note:

Thank you yourself! It was really great talking to you.

Since I left I’ve actually looked into applying for universities in the US so I’m right now looking at Georgetown in DC and possibly NY as well. It’s my supervisor who pushed me to look into a phd or a research position.

Hey, Pete: did you – or any of the “characteristically sensible” members of the “good old boys network” – ever bother to check “Hellberg’s” academic bonafides?  Maybe contact his “supervisor” directly to say what a fine job he’s been doing (by supervisor I mean the alleged academic supervisor, not Hope Not Hope staff). You know, as part of the “extreme vetting” and all.  The Alt Right could have done that after drinking mead, reciting poems in Old Norse, and blowing on a Viking horn (and on anything else for that matter).

My intuition: Hermansson/ Hellberg actually is a graduate student. He really does hope to study in the U.S. (Note to VDARE.com readers: watch out!).

My intuition: Brimelow/Mophead actually is a panhandling, empty suit, quota queen.  He really does hope to continue to exploit readers to contribute to keep Happy Penguins LLC’s coffers full, so he can continue living that fine blue state lifestyle.

He’s just ripping off Hope Not Hate as well as the AltRight.

Are we talking about Hermansson here, or the editor of an “immigration restrictionist” website?

All joking inside, this is a serious matter.  What we likely have is a coordinated effort by an Alt Right-Alt Wrong alliance of affirmative action hacks to minimize the travesty that took place, distract their supporters from utter incompetence, and to get back to “business as usual” as quickly as possible, ensuring a steady stream of donation money.

Frankly, it’s more disgusting than comical.  And our EGI goes down the toilet due to failed leadership.  So much for adaptive fitness.

Advice For the Young Activist

Navigating the madhouse.

What advice would I give a (real, not infiltrator) newcomer, particularly a young one, to the “movement?”  Since most, albeit of course not all, such newcomers would be expected to be relatively young, and since younger, less experienced, individuals would be more likely to be vulnerable to errors of judgment, I entitle this piece: “Advice For the Young Activist,” although it applies to all people who find themselves in The Movement Madhouse.

Based on plenty of experience (most of it negative), I would start off with the following.

Be careful of who you deal with, who you have confidence in, who you trust.  In more than 20 years involved with racial activism, I can honestly say that there have been only two people I’ve known in the “movement” that I have had complete confidence in, who I would consider 100% trustworthy.  One of these is someone I’ve known for nearly 20 years, the other is someone I worked with very closely for several years before he passed away. That’s it.  Two in 20+ years, of the dozens and dozens (if you can online commentators, hundreds) of people I’ve encountered.  If we relax the criteria and ask how many people in the “movement” I have reasonably solid confidence in, people I’d be willing to invite over for dinner, interact with personally – maybe half-a-dozen total (including the two already discussed).  The point: be very careful who you associate who you trust.  You will meet some of the best people you will ever know in the “movement,” but also some of the worst, and the latter will outnumber the former.  A dissident movement will by its very nature tend to attract marginal personalities, and that has been amplified by freakish dogma, lack of quality control, and piss-poor leadership.” Combine that with outright trolls infiltrators, and agent provocateurs, as well as the weak-minded who join for dubious reasons and then leave – without being able to keep their mouths shut about it – and you have a recipe for disaster unless you are very careful. Then one hears rumors of “homosexual grooming of young boys” at “Alt Right pool parties” – I have no idea if that is true or not, but young men should exercise caution.  The same applies to young women entering the “movement” who may be the center of attention from the sex-starved heterosexual activist contingent.

Don’t fall in with personality cults.  Note to the “movement”: there are no “rock stars” – or there should not be any; no one is infallible; and although there are some important personages who have done real solid work, which should be respected and appreciated, no one is above criticism.  The idea that we should, on the one hand, critique “the personality cults of Jewish intellectual movements” while, on the other hand, mimic the same type of personality cult among racial activism, is outright hypocrisy and demonstrates a stunning lack of self-awareness.  If you read or hear “rock star” in reference to anyone, if you see, read, or hear anything that tells you that criticism of certain people is forbidden, then run as fast as you can.  That’s a cult, not a genuine movement.

Think for yourself, don’t mindlessly swallow fossilized “movement” dogma. The same admonitions against cultism applies to dogma that is above criticism.  We all know the official dogma: Nordicism, ethnic fetishism, Ostara-like “racial history,” HBD, etc. If there is something you are not allowed to criticize, then that’s a cult, not a real political movement.

Be wary of real-life public meetings and rallies, know very well what you are getting into and be prepared.  There are a number of dangers here.  First, even in the absence of leftist opponents, you will likely be exposed to some “sincere” unsavory characters.  Second, the leftist problem exists and comes in two flavors.  There’s the “infiltrator” flavor and then there’s the overt “in your face” flavor, the latter of which runs the spectrum of merely loud protests, and the taking of pictures and filming, to actual physical assault. Most likely, your personal self-defense will be your own responsibility, and don’t expect any real security to weed out infiltrators or to even to prevent someone sticking a cell phone camera in your face.  Weigh the costs and benefits of such meetings, look at your own personal situation carefully, understand the implications and consequences, and go from there.  If you do attend meetings at which there is no confidence of security (most of them), you at least would want to consider investing in some “technics” to obfuscate identity if you do have that cell phone camera in your face.  It goes without saying that unless you want to play a leadership role – and you know you would be accepted as such based on your merits (see below on “affirmative action”) – then do protect your pseudonymity.

Take care of yourself first.  When you travel by plane, you are told than in case of emergency, you put your own oxygen mask on first and then you help the person next to you.  The same principle applies here.  If you and your life are a mess, you’ll be little help to anyone, including “the White race.”  Education, career, financial security, family, health – all come first, racial activism comes second.  That’s not “selfish individualism”  – is it just good sense and putting yourself in the position of being the best you can be, which will be of benefit to everyone around you.  Be wary of the siren song: “I don’t know why people bother going to college or saving for retirement – don’t they know that the System is going to completely collapse in five years?”  They’ve been saying that same nonsense for more than 50 years now.  Ignore them.  Essentially what they are saying is: “Don’t take care of yourself – take care of ME instead.”  They want your time, your effort, and, above all else, they want your MONEY.  Don’t fall for it.  In many cases, calls for “selfless altruism” are actually self-interested appeals for the altruist to sacrifice himself for those doing the calling.

Don’t buy into the “Armageddon” rhetoric that “the collapse of the System and the revolution” is just around the corner, within five years it’ll all collapse.  As noted above, they’ve been saying that for more than 50 years

Don’t waste time with online comments threads flamewars.  That speaks for itself.  That’s all a waste of time, unproductive, revolving around personalities and not issues, and this time sink will get you more involved with activist freaks than you would ever want.

Don’t have unrealistic expectations and then get “burnt out” when you don’t see victory right around the corner. I’m not necessarily echoing Spengler’s “Optimism is cowardice,” but you must be realistic.  This is a long-haul endeavor, anyone who promises quick fixes ad immediate gratification is either delusional or a charlatan.

Be persistent but know when to change strategy and tactics when a “dead end” won’t budge.  Don’t be a fossil.  Be flexible.

Don’t throw good money after bad. Many “movement” outlets have their hands out; they are very good at pan-handling.  You may feel like: “I’ve already invested so much into these people, I can’t give up now.”  No, it’s a sunk cost, accept it and move on.  This applies to the investment of time and effort as much as the investment of money. Avoid the “denial of sunk cost” trap – which you are afraid to “break” with a failed group, etc. because of the perception that you’ve sunk too much into it to leave it now.  You will just sink deeper and deeper into failure.  Accept sunk costs and move on.

If some individual/group/organization is unable to clearly define who their “ingroup” is, who they are for, run as quickly as you can.  In particular, if you are in any way unsure whether you yourself are “in” why would you waste any investment of time and resources if a group of mendacious liars or indecisive dithering idiots?  You have the right to invest in your own genetic interests.  You are not there to be the extended phenotype of someone else, defending their genetic interests at the cost of your own.  Demand transparency and reciprocity regarding interests, and if you don’t get it, take your business elsewhere.  Don’t fall for the “we’ll sort all this out after the revolution.”  No, sort it out NOW.  And if you find some individual or group trying to renegotiate the ingroup after the fact, suggesting that maybe you don’t belong after all, AFTER you’ve already invested your time, effort, and money with them, then they are utterly devoid of character, and you need to leave them ASAP, regardless of what they “decide” about ingroups.  Deciding on the ingroup is the FIRST thing – the DEFINING thing any group must do.  The definition of a group is meaningless without a clear “in/out” and if the “in/out” is going to be redefined midstream, then the definition of the group is also meaningless.  Don’t waste your time with meaningless groups….or with meaningless individuals.

Don’t waste time with “man on white horse” syndromes, magical thinking about quick fixes, and that mainstream leaders are “secretly on our side.” They’re not.

Don’t be afraid to call out “movement” “leaders” when such fail time and time again. They’ll get hysterical, “ban” you from their sites, call you names (the pot calling the kettle black), they’ll do anything to protect their money stream.  After all, we can’t let the rubes know how they are getting fleeced now, can we?  As a corollary don’t buy into, or yourself promote, the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action policy. If any “movement” precinct declares that groups A-M are part of their ingroup, and groups N-Z are not, well and good, but then leadership of that precinct should be able to come from any qualified person derived from that ingroup (A-M).  Any “movement” group that has a caste system within their ingroup – run.  They are being disingenuous; they really want an ingroup narrower than they outwardly proclaim, and are just fishing for more money sources and other forms of support.  Again, don’t be someone else’s extended phenotype.

If I think of any more advice, a follow-up to this post will be produced in the future.

As Much Comedy As Tragedy

Exposing the “spin” of the Alt Fail account.

Reading what the Alt Fail writes about the Hermansson infiltration, the following minimizing spin emerges: “Somehow – who knows how! – the fellow evaded Steadman’s extreme vetting.  Well, he attended a few meetings here and there, and he talked with a couple of people, but, you know, he was so inconsequential that no one remembers him, and, like, you know, no harm no foul.  Move on, move on, there’s nothing to see here.”  However, Hermansson tells a quite different story; his story, backed up as it is with voluminous (and very believable) details, and videos, seems to be closer to the truth than is the official (and sanitized) “movement” version.  Let’s read excerpts (emphasis added) from Hermansson’s account (I’m not linking to the execrable site from whence this came, you can find it yourself if you are so inclined):

At any normal dinner the prospect of forcibly removing all non-whites would be greeted with shock, but repatriation was a relatively uncontroversial topic around this table.

The rest of the night I talked with Brits, Swedes, Lithuanians and Americans. Some of these were super-stars within the movement, such as the never-before-photographed American alt-right figure, Greg Johnson.

Above the sound of clinking glasses men in rented tuxedos discussed eugenics, the coming “race war” and the supposedly ongoing genocide of white people. Smugly they congratulated themselves on managing to keep the dinner a secret, away from the prying eyes of anti-fascists. Little did they know, I was secretly filming the whole thing.

Becoming part of the London Forum, the UK’s most important far-right ‘think-tank’, was not as difficult as its reputation would suggest. I got my foot in the door by claiming to be a disillusioned Swede curious about the alt-right movement in the UK. I said I came to London inspired by Brexit and to get away from the “cultural Marxism” (a favourite phrase for conspiracy-minded, far-right activists) of Swedish universities.

Jez Turner, leader of the London Forum and one of the best known far-right activists on the UK scene, quickly invited me to meet up. Later, as paranoia about a mole increased, new members began to be thoroughly vetted and were required to provide letters of recommendation from trusted members.

Luckily for me, Scandinavian heritage and culture is fetishised by some within the UK far right, meaning interest in my Swedish background overcame most suspicion. At formal dinners, for instance, we sometimes opened by drinking from a ceremonial Viking horn, then raising it to the ceiling in a prayer to the mythological Norse god Odin.

One figure from the London Forum showed a particular interest in me as soon as I arrived. Despite being in his mid-fifties, Stead Steadman, a man of diminutive stature, was always dressed in a khaki shirt, khaki shorts and black walking boots; he looked like a cross between a boy scout and a member of the Hitler Youth. Little did I know at the time but this man was to be central to the whole project. Once close to him he opened doors to some of the most influential far-right figures in the world.

Once the trust was built Steadman began openly discussing the London Forum, people they planned to invite and who he liked and disliked within the movement. The information I gathered helped HOPE not hate map the London Forum network and the movements of key activists with precision. We learned of international conferences in Lithuania, Italy and Sweden being attended by British extremists.

It even got to the stage where I was asked to sit in on the vetting meetings for new London Forum members. Steadman, Turner and I would meet applicants who wanted to attend meetings and question them on their background, politics and commitment to the cause. Soon there was almost nothing happening in the London Forum that I and HOPE not hate did not know.

On the face of it the meetings are comical. A man in a long, white, curly baroque wig introduces two to three speakers per night covering topics such as gun laws, religion and the lack of freedom of speech, interspersed with poetry performed in Old Norse or Anglo-Saxon English.

Also active in London are tiny Odinist groups, often with a healthy smattering of nazi adherents. One sunny afternoon a group of us gathered in the Barbican Centre, an iconic brutalist housing complex replete with green areas, for a ‘moot’.

Steadman, in his typical khaki shorts, lifted a horn to the sky and began to pray to the Nordic gods before taking a gulp of mead. Then he placed a Viking horn to his lips and blew, but instead of a bellowing blast echoing out a stuttered honk spluttered from his lips.

Sometimes being a mole in the far right was dangerous, nerve racking or scary but at other times it was surreal, ridiculous and frankly comical.

Gregory Lauder-Frost

He doesn’t hold back and I can feel little drips of his saliva hitting my face as he speaks. He describes his colleague Brooks as a “common bloke” and how Daniel Friberg, founder of Arktos and a leading alt-right figure, is “not a big thinker”. Neither does Lauder-Frost like Richard Spencer. He tells me that Spencer, who has spoken at the TBG, is “naive” and “doesn’t understand Europe”.

By the time I leave the pub it is clear that an important split is emerging within the alt-right movement between some of the biggest players.

If you want to get to the very heart of the alt-right, all roads lead to America. While Europe has produced its fair share of prominent alt-right activists and big names from America regularly visit, it was clear that if I was to better understand the alt-right movement, the emerging split and generally to get closer to the big names, I would have to head across the Atlantic.

During Greg Johnson’s short visit to London I had got to know him well. In addition to the Bowden dinner and the conference the following day I had spent an afternoon at his hotel alongside Steadman. With Johnson being at the very heart of the emerging split in the alt-right, it was decided I should start the American part of my infiltration with him.

Johnson admired the London Forum so much that he replicated the concept in New York and Seattle with closed conferences of hard-core activists addressed by leading speakers from the far right. Recent events had been attended by big names, such as the internationally recognised antisemite and editor of The Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald, as well as the UK’s most well-known alt-right vlogger Colin Robertson (aka Millennial Woes).

One sunny Saturday in June, I joined the list of speakers at one of these forums in Seattle. I had intended to attend as a guest but one week before the event Johnson contacted me and asked me to give the opening address, removing any doubt in my mind that I was now accepted as part of this movement.

With delicious irony I opened the event by talking about the danger of anti-fascist infiltration.

After the Seattle Forum I head to New York. The split between Counter-Currents Publishing and AltRight Corporation (the result of the Arktos row mentioned earlier) had got especially nasty.

Having spent a few days at the heart of Counter-Currents, I decided I had to go get the other side of the story.

“We had connections in the Trump administration, we were going to do things!”

I manage to convince Jason Reza Jorjani, co-founder of AltRight Corporation and editor of Arktos Media, to meet for a drink. I’m sitting across from him in an Irish pub in the shadow of the Empire State Building. The first thing he said was: “You’re not in touch with Greg [Johnson], are you?”

I assure him I’m not, knowing he would leave if he ever found out I had spent the last month getting to know people on the other side of the split, some of whom had recently accused Jorjani of being a CIA agent. “It’s like the SA and the SS,” Jorjani said. “A Night of the Long Knives is coming though.”

Jorjani talks for hours, displaying a remarkable arrogance coupled with a tiring self-pity. He’s a remarkably extreme character, much more so than his public persona. He sees the world one day being run by a single strong leader and predicts it won’t be long before bank notes are adorned with images of Hitler.

I ask about AltRight Corporation and its aims and objectives and he explains how it is a “government in waiting”. But then, out of nowhere, as though it was no big deal, he says: “We had connections in the Trump administration, we were going to do things!”

I lean forward, praying that the camera I have hidden in one of my shirt buttons captured what he had just said. I can hardly believe it. 

I thought the Keystone Cops stupidities of the real world meetings from the 1990s were bad, but whatever we Old Right types experienced back then is nothing compared to the tragicomedy of today.  Twenty years ago, maybe the utter incompetence of “meeting security” allowed an infiltrator into a public (never private!) meeting, where the infiltrator took notes, and/or wrote down license plate numbers outside after the meeting. Today, the infiltrators get all cozy with leaders and with actual decision making, and then infiltrators actually lecture genuine activists about “the dangers of leftist infiltrators.”  The infiltrator sits with leaders discussing how to “vet” genuine activists! 

 

And the other side of the Alt Right feud is not much better.  At AltRight.com, we read the following from a blogger there talking about Charlottesville:

We forced the President of the United States to weigh in on our side…

Yeah…if you didn’t notice, Alt Righter, he denounced you, and then signed a declaration, in writing, not only denouncing you but pledging to use all of the resources of the US government against you.

Delusional much?