Category: Alt-Wrong

A Mendacious Middle Easterner

Another Hart attack.

Read this nonsense.

By this I am not suggesting that Jews are naturally unpatriotic because they are not Christians. The theological differences between religious Jews and religious Christians are minor compared with the differences between believers and non-believers, and orthodox Jews tend to be politically conservative. There are also many who are not religious but who still love and honor the United States, but this is not necessarily true of many atheists and agnostics.

 
Wow! A Jew states that he doesn’t believe that Jews are “naturally unpatriotic!”  Who would have ever guessed?  I mean, why let several thousand years of anti-nationalist, anti-patriotic, anti-majoritarian, and otherwise subversive Jewish behavior, in every land they have ever dwelt (nay, festered) in, including the United States of America, convince you otherwise?  Why let the Jews’ advocacy of anti-White and anti-American causes, their leadership of the “Civil Rights Movement” which ruined America, their leadership in overturning our demographics through the 1965 immigration act and through migrant cheerleading, their constant hostility to any manifestation of White identity whatsoever, their Israel-first identity and foreign policy preferences – why let any of that make you think otherwise?
 
Then he makes a moronic comment about “theological differences” as if that matters, or should we say maybe it does matter since both Jews and many “religious Christians” are in favor of open borders and the demographic eclipse of Europeans worldwide.  
 
Next we are told that “orthodox Jews tend to be politically conservative.”
 
OK.  First, most Jews are not orthodox.  Second, the wonderfully conservative orthodox Jews supported Clinton over Trump by a comfortable margin, albeit a bit less than their less religions co-ethnics. Third, even “conservative orthodox Jews” will in general hardly be reliable allies for any sort of Far Right White identity movement.  Fourth, those “conservative orthodox Jews” sure don’t have a problem exploiting America’s social welfare system, even to the point of being accused of welfare fraud.
 
Then Hart completes his outrageous screed by stating that “many” – we have to presume he is still talking about Jews here – who are not religious (Hart?) “still love and honor the United States” – but the real problem, you see, are all those “atheists and agnostics.”
 
So, according to the fantasy world of Hart, Jews – including secular Jews – are well-known for their upstanding patriotism and love for America, orthodox Jews are rock-solid conservatives wearing MAGA yarmulkes, while the real problem are all those (goyisch) “atheists and agnostics.”
 
What a despicable mendacious blot on humanity is this Hart.  But what about those who give him a forum?
 
Note to Richard Spencer: I agree with all you now say about the Alt Lite (and I was indeed saying it months before you), but what about really taking out the heavy memetic artillery and tackling the Alt Wrong?  You know, the guys who threw you under the bus because Hailgate offended all those HuWhite Jews of the West, and the guys who sniggered with their Jewish correspondents about the possibility of you getting shot.
 
They are the real problem on the Right, not the Alt Lite milksops.

Something Good About the Alt Right vs. Alt Nuts

Boots on the ground vs. self-absorbed egoism.

First, the good news.


Kinetic beauty.

The Alt Right can get “boots on the ground” and they stand up to leftist thugs (Alt Right god in action).  They should be praised for that.  If they can attract youth with their juvenile jackassery, fine too, But the problem occurs when they have delusions of grandeur – if they would just stick to being the youth wing of racial nationalism (while toning down the jackassery to a level just enough to attract youth and no more), fine.  But they are not “the movement” regardless of their fantasies (see Alt Nuts below).

Further, while Identity Europa may identify (no pun intended) as ‘Alt Right” there is a difference between a more serious group like them and the online lulzing jackasses (and Presidential jackasses).


Also, how much of the limited Alt Right success has been due to their own efforts, and how much has been circumstance (Trump, etc.)?


Another good thing is the stated intention of the Alt Right to ditch the Alt Lite. Can they do the same for the Alt Wrong?


The Alt Wrong is once again promoting the ultra-Aryan Haalstat Nord Hart – who after all, has consistently demonstrated being a non-bitter and loyal supporter of Amren and, indeed, the “movement” without the slightest disruption or controversy.  Those HuWhite Men of the West are always the most conciliatory, discreet, and well-spoken of convention guests!


Now for the latest Alt Nuts episode.


For and by young White men.

Yes, nothing wrong with that, but:


DO NOT PRETEND TO SPEAK FOR THE ENTIRE RACIAL NATIONALIST “MOVEMENT,” THANK YOU VERY MUCH!


Stick with your juvenile millennial jackassery and stop the pretensions of memetic hegemony.  We older White men have our own agenda, which, believe it or not, doesn’t include obsessing over a cartoon frog or screaming about “Kek.”

For every step forward, the Alt Right takes two steps back, mostly due to their navel-gazing obtuseness and lack of measure.  Get over yourselves please…and quickly.

Hunter-Gatherers Again

It’s dem dere hunter gatherers!

More of the same.


The main part of my talk traces to evolutionary roots in the hunter-gatherer culture that is especially prominent in northern Europe.

Yes, sir!  Unfortunately suicidal pathological altruism seems especially prominent in Italy as well.

Must be all those Celto-Germanic Nordic Northern Italians!  Salvini looks like Dolph Lundgren’s younger brother!  Of course it’s the Salvini types who are the ones most in opposition to the invaders…

And the “movement” wheel just goes on turning, turning, turning….

In all seriousness, look at this chart (and note where it was posted!).

On the individualism-collectivism scale, Italy is in the same range as Sweden, and is more individualistic than the hunter-gatherer-enriched nations of Germany, Austria, Estonia, Poland, and Finland – never mind Russia!.  If we want to look outside Europe, then Northeast Asians, who are, so we are told, descended from Asian hunter-gatherers, are sky-high on the collectivist side.

To put it mildly, looking at that chart one cannot see any clear correlation between hunter-gatherer ancestry and individualism.

That is one major problem I have with Der Movement, particularly its Alt Wrong HBD faction. They are so emotionally invested in their theories (hello, Richard Lynn!) that they are not willing or able to deal with contrary data. The whole Popperian scientific method is foreign to them; instead, they are highly Kuhnian indeed.  They have their paradigm, and they’ll continue making up ad hoc explanations for poor data fits until the whole intellectual edifice collapses.

Isn’t it better to refine – or change – the paradigm before that happens?  Isn’t it better not to wait for anti-White leftists to point out the obvious flaws?  Isn’t it better to first listen to rightists who repeatedly warn you that there are serious flaws in your paradigm?  If you have scientifically valid explanations, then give them?  Just repeating the same things over and over again does not address the issues at hand.

Alt Right and Silk Road News: Madness and More Shoe Dropping

Complete madness.

Well, well, well… ignoring the typical juvenile jackassery, the key point is the declaration that the Alt Lite is the enemy and must be opposed…and “obliterated.”  Well, I can’t argue with Spencer there (*), but I do wonder whether he includes the VDARE/Amren crowd on his “Alt Lite enemies list.”

Hmmm…who was it who was denouncing the Alt Lite months ago and telling the Alt Right that the “big tent” was a mistake?  Who was it who termed “Alt Wrong” to describe the HBD-enriched Alt Lite faction?  You know who it was the person who has been right over and over and over again.  The dreaded “crazy” and “bitter” Ted Sallis.

My judgment is literally months ahead of the so-called “movement” “leadership.”  Who should you trust, dear reader?  The person who is consistently right and who can foretell these “movement” outcomes long in advance, or the folks who belatedly realize the obvious many months after?

My current long-term prediction (which may be wishful thinking I know) is that this whole Alt Right scene won’t last as it is.  The feuding will continue, current allies will have falling outs, unsavory details will be revealed (more than what has already occurred), people will tire of juvenile jackassery and social media memes as a substitute for actual ideological content, and some of the more mature Alt Righters will shift their focus elsewhere. Unfortunately, this will take some time to unfold, likely years – with possible “ups” and “successes” in the interval to boost Alt Right egos past their already overinflated points – and the ultimate damage to racial nationalism will be considerable.  By putting most of its eggs in the Alt Right basket, Der Movement is going to see most of those eggs do a “Humpty Dumpty” – perhaps later than sooner, but eventually.

Any intelligent person should, of course, find all of this quite tiresome. All this back and forth over who invited or didn’t invite or disinvited who sounds like Mean Girls high school birthday party drama.

Indeed.

And the best case alternative explanation for Wåg’s article that a defender of Friberg could give — indeed I think the only alternative which accords with the rest of the facts as we now unequivocally know them — is that someone close enough to Friberg to have caught wind of his original lies about Greg’s role in the Scandza Forum’s invitations—very quickly after they were made—must have been the source. As far as I can tell, this is literally the only other possibility—and yet, no one has come forward, or been suggested as the possible source by Friberg himself.

So which is more likely: that Friberg lied regarding the Scandza Forum in attempt at a Machiavellian political maneuver and engaged in other forms of sabotage against its organizers (as has been confirmed by Filmersson), and then also leaked his version of events to Wåg, someone we know he had at least a degree of contact with…

The Alt Right is complete madness.

More Kumiko, emphasis in original:

Regarding forced repatriation of Asian people because we disagree with you on stuff, there is one card that Asians have in the deck to prevent that. The upper class. The richest Asians will buy off your legislature in order to avert that possibility. I’m the only person who is willing to tell you it in such straight language!

This is incredible.  The Silker shoes (black boots?) are dropping on an everyday basis.  The Whites on MR are absolute race traitors if they do not denounce all of this and apologize to the racial nationalist community for their piss-poor judgment and yellow fever fetishism for allowing this creature to run rampant there. This childish Asiatrix doesn’t even keep track of her own inconsistencies.  First she asserts that the Far-Right wants authoritarian police states, then she threatens that rich Asians will buy off our “legislatures” to prevent repatriation.  Oh…a Far-Right authoritarian police state is going to have “legislatures” with political hacks getting paid off by diseased aliens.  Sure, makes sense.  Also amusing is the idea that the reason for repatriation is that “we disagree…on stuff.”  NO, IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE A COMPLETE GENETIC AND CULTURAL ALIEN.

And once again, Ted Sallis is right: Silk Road White nationalism is enforced Asian imperialism and Asian colonization of White lands (and White nationalist blogs); you are not allowed to get rid of Asians, don’t you know, they’re here to stay!  The “majority” in Majority Rights is obviously the majority of China, Japan, Korea, all of East Asia – indeed all of Asia as a whole.  Asians uber alles!

Told you so.

And MR are not the only ones at fault.  Other people, who know better, gave this creature a forum, and applauded her juvenile scribbling, because her comments were useful ammunition against Spencer’s “Big Europe” ideas.  

Two words to describe Der Movement: bad judgment.

Roissy claims that “women are anti-civilizational.”  I agree. But, perhaps, then we shouldn’t promote a lifestyle that asserts that men need to ever-so-carefully calibrate their every thought, word, and action to appeal to the hypergamous instincts of ditzy females?


The incredible stupid bastard and homoerotic Trump fanboy Roissy somehow believes that a “Congressional Picnic” is more important than Der Touchback giving de facto amnesty to “Dreamers.”   The “game” faction of the Alt Right is probably the most childishly moronic part of it – and that’s really saying something.

*Actually, that’s about what I think about the Alt Right itself.

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?

Who Has Been Right?

Who’s been mostly right?

Let’s get one thing out of the way: Der Movement was right about Trump’s chances of winning and I was wrong.  Now that we got that one aberrant item out of the way, let’s get to the “meat” of the issue.

Der Movement invested an enormous amount of intellectual and moral capital in Donald Trump the man, labeled “the last chance of White America” aka the “God Emperor” who is going to save us from demographic displacement. Someone else – who might that be? – clearly asserted that Trump is a vulgar, ignorant buffoon, a pro-Jewish and pro-Negro cuck, who is not worthy of the breathless onanistic support of racial activists.  Unlike Der Movement and its slavish hero worship and Man on White Horse Syndrome obsessions, I made a clear distinction between Trump the man – a disaster – and Trump the campaign, Trump the movement, Trump the right-wing populist.  I made clear that the only real reason to support Touchback Trump was the perception – not reality, but perception – that Trump is a “racist fascist” thus inducing racial chaos and balkanization in America.

The outcome?  Trump has been constantly cucking, betraying his base, but, because of leftist hysteria and perceptions, political violence and chaos has skyrocketed.  Sallis right, Der Movement wrong.

I also made the point that Trump’s supporters were more important than Trump himself – and, yes, we see Trump’s supporters battling leftist thugs in the streets while Trump himself wimps out on a constant basis.  Sallis correct once again.

I have been warning about Silk Road White nationalism and the trend of Asians pimping out their women to pathetic beta activists in order to further Asian racial agendas.  Lo and behold we have Chinese “maidens” and Japanese “shady ladies” infiltrating and subverting White nationalist blogs. Surprise!

[We can ask how these “shady ladies” find the time to not only run their own Asian supremacist blog, but also leave long and rambling posts in the AltRightosphere.  Do they have a (White) sugar daddy supporting them? Spoiled rich kid living off daddy’s money? Or, perhaps, just like the Russian government is said to pay Internet trolls, China does the same?]

I warned against the Alt Lite/Alt Wrong, and was very sharp toward the Alt Right because of the Alt Right’s “big tent” embrace of the aforementioned elements. Then we saw the Alt Lite/Alt Wrong throw Spencer under the bus, re: Hailgate and chuckle with the Jewish friends, giving consolation to Jews that “Spencer is likely to get shot.”  Absolutely disgusting – Brimelow and Derbyshire leading the list of speakers.  Do you need any more indication on why the Alt Wrong is wrong?

Back online in the very early 2000s, I was critical of the clownshow of the National Alliance even before Pierce died, and we see the utter collapse of the organization since then.

I was sharply critical of Marine Le Pen and mainstreaming and we saw Le Pen go down to a catastrophic loss, and mainstreaming also lost in The Netherlands, Austria, and Australia. Der Movement, on the other hand, exhibited delusions about Le Pen and are still pontificating about “how well” Le Pen actually did, even after her shocking “blow out loss.” Sallis right, Der Movement wrong.

This is a question of judgement.  Who, dear reader, do you trust? Should you trust? Will you trust?