Category: Codreanu

Common Sense Video

Good and bad points.

I have a mixed opinion of this video, which I urge all readers to watch. I have no problem at all with the first half, which is much in accord with things I have written here recently – that activists have to take care of themselves first and get their own life in order.  I would suggest that CSC study up on the Romanian Legionary movement, the concept of “the New Man,” as well as the “nest” system of small local activist groups of the larger organization. Codreanu realized that systems and slogans and intricate platforms of programs are all a house of cards without high quality men to back it all up. First, the New Man, and then the programs and propaganda. Der Movement reverses that – it thinks you can reach to heaven standing on a pile of shit.

The second half of the video was a bit more problematical.  In theory, I have no problem with his concrete suggestion about group formation, although even these “implicit” groups have to worry about infiltrators, and, of course, when they become explicit, this will be a serious problem.  I think he is in error thanking Greg Johnson, who essentially replied only to protect his own self-interests, not to be helpful. Telling young White men to join trash groups like IE/AIM, with their piss-poor security, abysmal leadership, and ethnic fetishism is also a mistake.  I view CSC as a sincere fellow who may be naïve about the realities of Der Movement.  Young activists are better off trying just to form their own groups, or waiting for something of quality, then investing themselves in the Disqus Warriors.

But, let’s give CSC credit. He answered Johnson.  He have ideas other than just “buy books from me and send me “D’Nations.”  

Some background about this person is here; he describes his journey to activism.

He seems like a good man, a sincere activist. I expect with time he’ll learn what Der Movement is really about. CSC is against toxic people, drugs, porno, and video games.  So, that essentially eliminates 95% of Der Movement and 100% of the Alt Right.

What this fellow doesn’t quite grasp is that if he believes – as he does – that our situation today is dire, and we are losing big, then isn’t the “movement” and its utter failure in large part responsible?  Der Movement didn’t begin with the Alt Right.  I never heard of this fellow before, since he apparently was involved more with conservatives, libertarians, etc.  On the other hand, I’ve been involved with hardcore Nutzism since the mid-90s.

And, my friend, by the mid-90s, the “movement” had been around for many decades.

For example, listen to this.  So much winning!  How did we reach this point?  And maybe Amren should have been talking about the ethnic motivations behind the ADL all along, and not about how terrible those hora-dancing Romanians are. I didn’t see any Romanian-American organizations at that hearing bashing White interests. I did see rat-faced Levantines though, Middle Easterners aplenty.

By the way, Paul, this has to be chalked up as a fail. It was painfully bad, the most boring and clumsy podcast I’ve ever listened to. No offense, but that’s the truth. You’re not ready to fly solo just yet.

Advertisements

Blackpill Friday

Der Friday.

Gee, even the Alt Lite is abandoning Antifa Don Trump.  Soon, all he’ll have left is Roissy’s fervid onanism… and all those Big Macs to eat.

Spencer is being rather Sallis-like in his latest tweets, with comments about Trump, the Alt Right, and the “let’s be run out of a LA bar by a bunch whose combined bench press is 10 lbs.” Proud Boys.

The absolutely despicable Brimelow continues to use his children as props for his money-making website.  And it seems that Sallis is the only one willing to call him out on it.  What an honorable “movement” indeed!  If you can learn anything from Codreanu and the Legionary movement, it is the importance of character, the need for “New Men” as more important than new memes or new programs or new dogmas. Until racial activism has quality people rather than money-grubbing grifters, it is not going anywhere productive.  But then, Codreanu was just some hora-dancing Romanian, and not a superior product like Brimelow, so move along, move along, there’s nothing to see here.

The System waves its hands around.

Dr. Myers and a colleague later found that presenting the data differently could produce a much less anxious reaction. In work published this spring, they found that the negative effects that came from reading about a white decline were largely erased when the same people read about how the white category was in fact getting bigger by absorbing multiracial young people through intermarriage.

Rewritten for analogical clarity:

Dr. Myers and a colleague later found that presenting the data differently could produce a much less anxious reaction. In work published this spring, they found that the negative effects that came from reading about a decline in the amount of white paint required to paint a house were largely erased when the same painters read about how the amount of available white paint was in fact getting bigger by absorbing black paint thrown into the white paint container by vandals.

After all, you increase the amount of something by destroying it.  Makes sense.  Don’t forget, paint color is purely socially constructed, and a home owner wanting their house painted white wouldn’t mind at all if it turns out to be gray instead. 

At this point, only Roissy finds this childish behavior amusing.

“This country is so much stronger now than it was when I took office that you wouldn’t believe it,” Trump continued. “I mean, you see it, but so much stronger that people can’t even believe it. When I see foreign leaders they say, ‘We cannot believe the difference in strength between the United States now and the United States two years ago.’ Made a lot of progress.”

I’m never going to let Der Movement forget that when they were spontaneously ejaculating over their “last chance for White America God Emperor” I was labeling him a vulgar ignorant buffoon and a race cuck fraud, and stated that the ONLY reason to vote for him is that the deranged public perception of Trump as a “racist fascist bigot” was wonderfully inflaming racial tensions.

Now, someone was right and someone was wrong.  As always.

As always.

Hora vs. Oktoberfest

The betrayal of the Legionary movement by Saint Adolf

Read this. Emphasis added:

In the same book are found innumerable passages which demonstrate German complicity in ousting the Legionary Movement in addition to the premeditation of the coup d’état. Germany found it easier to get along with General Antonescu than with the indomitable Legionary Movement. Thus, in the course of a visit with Hitler, in the midst of a discussion on the modem revolution, General Antonescu made the following remark:

“And what do you do with the fanatics, for it would be difficult to make a renovating movement without them?”

“You have to get rid of them,” replied Hitler without hesitation, and he smilingly threw the General a look of complicity. 

Hitler ended his exposition with these sentences:

The man who allows himself to be dispossessed of his command — and he stared at the General with insistence — proves that he does not know how to use a machine gun. A 20th century dictator cannot be overthrown. If he falls, it is because he committed suicide…

Back in Bucharest, Antonescu maintained absolute silence about the matters discussed during the fifteen minutes he spent alone with Hitler. The conversation which had taken place in the presence of witnesses gave the impression that he had gotten satisfaction as far as his conflict with the Legionary Movement was concerned…

January 22, 1941: Dawn of this day finds the military forces and the Legionnaires face to face. The military attacks buildings occupied by Legionnaires, the latter defend themselves. The clashes between the two belligerents seem more like a siege, in which the besieged are those who are accused of fomenting the rebellion and who defend themselves with whatever weapons they can find. It is a strange “rebellion” in which the supposed rebels choose not to attack and to avoid any conflict with the forces that besiege them.

There appears to be a kind of stabilization of positions and expectations of the two sides. In certain regions there is even collaboration between the army and the Legionnaires. Some local incidents have taken place in Bucharest, Braila and Prahova where several Legionnaires but no military fell. The most serious problem for General Antonescu arises on January 22, 1941, because of the attitude of the peasant masses. By the hundreds of thousands they begin to penetrate into the cities to help the besieged Legionnaires.

In the meantime, negotiations take place during the day between the German representative, Neubacher and Horia Sima for the cessation of hostilities. Result: The Legionary Movement agrees to stop all resistance. General Antonescu pledges not to take any action against the Legionary Movement or its militants. However, parallel to those negotiations, General Antonescu increases his intrigues, his accusations against the Legionnaires and his military offers to Hitler. All of those accusations only completed the series of calumnies made in Berlin against the Legion and worsened the Legionary position in Hitler’s eyes. Under those circumstances, nothing could be more natural than the order received during the night of January 22-23 by the German troops stationed in Romania to “… put themselves at the disposition of General Antonescu to crush the Legionary rebellion.”

Therefore, it was the Germans who determined the fate of General Antonescu’s coup d’état.

January 23, 1941: The troops being unable to rout the Legionnaires from the official buildings they occupy, General Antonescu gives the order to employ artillery against them. At the same time, the troops in the Capital receive orders to fire into the crowd of passers-by who are automatically considered as partisans of the Legionary Movement. Several hundred who had nothing to do with politics or the Legionary Movement were killed. These were premeditated actions which were to be charged to the Legionary Movement and presented to the Germans as undisciplined and unconscionable actions on the part of the Legionnaires.

And yet, at dawn, Horia Sima had ordered that the resistance cease and that the buildings be evacuated. It should be pointed out that in many cases, the public buildings occupied by the Legionnaires were first turned over to the German army, which then turned them over to Romanian military authorities so that all possibility of conflict would be entirely avoided.

The pact accepted by Horia Sima and General Antonescu before the German diplomat was categorical: total liberty for Legionnaires. Nonetheless, that pact was not respected by the General, nor even considered by the Germans. A few hours after the Legionnaires’ capitulation, General Antonescu gave the order for repression. The enactment of that repression’ registered several hundred killed and tens of thousands arrested. The Legionary Movement entered a new phase of persecution.

April 9, 1941: Horia Sima, leader of the Legionary Movement, arrives in Berlin as an ordinary refugee.

April 18, 1941: The Legionary refugees in Germany are informed that they will be confined from then on to compulsory quarters in certain areas (Rostock, Berkenbruck, etc.) as a result of agreements between the German and Romanian governments.

Absolutely disgusting.  Meanwhile today, Europe as a whole is betrayed by Mama Merkel, while the sweaty fetishists have the nerve to run hit pieces against the Romanian people in places like Amren. I’ll take the Romanians any day.

Political Socialism

Different from economic.

I am a Political Socialist, which is completely different from an Economic Socialist.  The latter is what most people consider “socialist” – that is, nationalization of all industries, full distribution of wealth, opposition to a market economy (in favor of a command economy), all on the “happy road” to communism – and with implications of leftist views on race, culture, and society.  Political Socialism is more associated with the Far Right – Spengler, Yockey, the National Socialism of Hitlerism, the National Christian Socialism of Codreanu, the corporatism of Italian Fascism, etc.  Political Socialism is the organizing of society for the good of the nation and people, it puts the good of the whole above that of the individual, it is more on the collectivist spectrum than are the hyper-individualist “Western” societies of today, it wishes to bring all social and economic classes of a people into accord and ease divisions between them.  Above all, Political Socialism asserts that the purpose of the Economy is to serve the interests of Nation and People, as opposed to Political Capitalism that believes that all – including National and People – must serve the interests of the Economy.

Thus, Political Socialism is compatible with supply and demand, a mixed “capitalist” economy, a free market – although not free to the extent of laissez faire, and all the rest.  However, the nation state is the ultimate arbiter based on the good of the people; the economy is not the ultimate arbiter; when national-racial-cultural issues demand economic concessions than that is what happens, and not the opposite.  In Political Socialism the Economy is the servant of Nation and People, not vice versa. Political Socialism does oppose great differences in wealth in the population, as that erodes the organic solidarity of Nation and People, and, certainly for those wealthy who betray Nation and People, things will not go well for them in a Political Socialist state.  They can expect their assets seized, and they, if not executed, would serve as manual laborers somewhere, in the most meek and modest circumstances possible.  They will no longer be Master; the era of Economic Man will come to an end.  Needless to say though, class warfare as promoted by Economic Socialists also, to an equal extent to Unrestrained Capitalism, erodes the organic solidarity required of any great people, and so those who promote that Marxist creed will find things not going well for them either.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

A few examples of the spectrum of the “movement” and reactions to it.

First, the Good:

Codreanu speech.

Analysis of the Legionary movement.

Nice head gear on the groom.

Now, the Bad: the newest VDARE HBDer, the execrable fanboy Welton (emphasis added):

So, clearly, intelligence is the simplest explanation for most empirical evidence pf pathology.

Yes, and it is the simplest explanation for spelling errors as well.

Northeast Asians and Jews—even though they’re just as likely to be victims of racism…

Poor Asians and Jews tormented as they are by nasty racists in America.  Innocent, pure as freshly laid snow, these high-IQ supermen can save themselves from exposure to knuckle-dragging Euro-brutes by going back to Asia and Israel (in Asia as well, by the way), respectively.

…—do not display the same behavior patterns because they have high intelligence, meaning they do quite the opposite of what races with low intelligence do.

Never, never forget the fundamental basis of HBD: Jews and Asians have a high, high-IQ, and are your natural masters and betters.  All kneel before the Altar of Asia, and prostrate yourself before the Holy Yarmulke.

This model explains all the evidence. 

All, all, all!   And if, you know, reality contradicts HBD, we’ll just wave our hands around and try to explain away reality.

So it is amazing—considering that three of Benner’s five co-authors are Northeast Asians: Yishan Chen, Yijie Wang and Yen-Pi Cheng—that nobody thought of it.

Not so “amazing” when you consider that your Holy Orientals HATE White people, and will eagerly grasp on to, and promote, any theory that blames Whitey for Black and Hispanic deficiencies.  The Rising Tide of Color needs “high-IQ” leadership, and Jews and Asians are always ready and willing to oblige!

The issue of “depression” can be explained by the way that low IQ indirectly predicts depression, due to the fact that low IQ leads you into poverty, unemployment, relationship and friendship breakdown, drug abuse, alcoholism, poor health and thus general misery.

Sure!  Of course, HBD also tells us that Negroes have higher self-esteem, and lower suicide rates, than do Whites.  Don’t expect any consistency from HBDers – it’s a religious faith, a political movement, all dedicated to enslaving Whites to Jews and Asians.

By contrast, Northeast Asians are prone to depression for mainly genetic reasons and in spite of their tendency, in Western countries, to achieve high socioeconomic status. Evolved to extremely harsh yet predictable ecologies, their ancestors could only survive in tightly bonded groups. This meant that you had to be able to get on with everybody, or you’d be cast out into the cold to die. This selected in favor of strong social anxiety, which is adaptive because it means that you are concerned about the future. However, this can become overwhelming, leading to depression and suicide.

Can we ever imagine a more perfect example of a “just so” story?  Paging Rudyard Kipling!

Finally, the Ugly.

Look how communists and anarchists have degraded the beautiful Mota-Marin memorial, and consider modern official Spanish attitudes toward it. How about moving it to Romania?  You know, to all those deficient non-Westerners (according to the HBDers) dancing the hora (long may it turn)?

Race-mixers in Der Movement.

Another unbalanced Type I quota queen.

Diversity is a strength:

Behold the God Emperor

MAGA: Make Africans Great Again

The Strategic Objective

Nietzsche’s child rather than lion (or camel) – a constructive thesis.

Let’s first consider two points that form the foundation of the thesis of this post.

Point 1. A primary objective of terrorism and guerrilla warfare is to provoke repressive measures from the government, which will negatively affect the population, alienating and radicalizing that population, and turning them against the government.

This is generally true, and as I recall was favorably mentioned by Pierce in The Turner Diaries.

Note that while this statement derives from historical examples of political violence, it can also apply to memetic “terrorism” and “warfare” as well.  Thus, discussion of Point 1 does not in any way imply advocacy of actual physical terrorism or guerrilla warfare (which are, by the way, primarily performed by the political Left), but instead illustrates the point – the historically demonstrated fact – that provoking a government to repress its people typically generates hatred of the people toward that government, to the benefit of the adversaries of that government.

Point 2. Revolutions typically do not take place during the time of the greatest repression, but rather occur when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

This point (previously mentioned at this blog) is also generally true.  Note that the System either consciously or unconsciously recognizes this to be so, since its reaction to Trumpism and the brief rise of the Alt Right has been to viciously double down on the repression and on its anti-White narrative. They have absolutely rejected the path of concessions and reconciliation.

Obviously, Points 1 and 2 are not fully compatible with each other, which allows a prudent strategy of provocation to present to the System a dilemma manifested by a choice between two unpleasant, and ultimately destructive, alternatives.

If the System responds to Far Right provocations with increasing repression – and it is fundamentally important that the repression must be distributed among at least a sizable fraction of the White population and not just tightly targeted to the Far Right – then it will alienate and radicalize that portion of the population (Whites) on which the System’s own effective function, and its overall long-term viability, depends.  The System will lose moral authority as it props itself up by using the same terror it purports to fight.  

With the loss of moral authority comes more resistance, and while Revolution per se may not occur during this period of great repression, the loss of moral authority, and the cycle of repression, hatred, resistance, and more repression cannot go on forever. Eventually a breaking point will be reached in which the System can no longer be tenable while repressing and attacking the very population necessary for ensuring the System’s efficient maintenance; the System will either break down and collapse under the weight of what is essentially a runaway, and ultimately fatal, autoimmune reaction (i.e., attacking its own body after being exposed to an antigen), or it will be forced to attempt to salvage the situation by making concessions, leading us to Point 2. 

On the other hand, if the System wants to avoid the scenario of Point 1, sensing that if it pushes Whites too far and too fast it will eventually lose everything, or if tries repression and it fails, and it starts making concessions (relaxing the repression, Point 2), then the System loses moral authority by looking weak, tacitly admitting that its Far Right adversary has legitimacy, and admitting that White interests and White opposition to the System are at least partially valid.  This will lead to a “snowball” effect as increasing concessions lead to increasing legitimacy for White demands and thus further concessions, undermining the System’s whole raison d’etre of anti-Whiteness.  

As long as the Far Right is prudent enough to keep up the pressure, keep up the demands, keep up the provocations, keep up the memetic war, keep on “heightening the contradictions,” then the loss of moral authority for the System will become irreversible and lead to the loss of political, economic, and social authority as well.  Keep in mind that Coloreds, with their sense of entitlement and hatred of Whites, will see any concessions to White interests as a betrayal by the System (which they see, all grievance rhetoric aside, as THEIR System), further weakening the System’s moral authority, and making the System have to choose between placating sets of incompatible tribal interests. The endpoint is collapse, perhaps from different mechanisms as the collapse of Point 1, but collapse nevertheless.

The System would try to solve this dilemma by doing what it is doing now – attempting to specifically target repression to a relatively small subset of Whites, including the Far Right itself, while slowing down White dispossession enough so as to “boil the frog slowly.”  More recently, with the hysterical reaction to Trumpism, this strategy is starting to fray, and repression is more and more leaking out to the general White population.  In a very real sense, that general repression has always been with us – forced integration, affirmative action, racial double standards, mass immigration, political correctness, social pricing, hate crimes laws, hate speech laws in Europe, etc. – but it is becoming more obvious now.  This demonstrates the validity of this post’s general thesis – if something as mild as Trumpism, and as inept as the Alt Right, could provoke the System as much as it has, and “dropped the mask” to the general White population, what would a serious and strategic strategy of (memetic) Far Right provocation achieve?  Thus, any movement would need to create conditions so that backlash against it would affect Whites outside of that movement, so as to put “in play” the various processes outlined in this post. For example, serious and authentic community activism and political engagement would create ties between the Far Right and the broader White population, so that repression targeted at the former would be necessity negatively affect the latter.  Of course, we need intelligent, disciplined, and rational Type II activists to plan these strategies; Type I activists have demonstrated, time and again, their inability to effectively manage (or even attempt) these approaches.

Before we conclude with an outline of things to do, let us briefly consider: how could an alternative System – for example, a racial nationalist System – avoid being placed in the sort of dilemma outlined here?  Simple: by representing the interests of the people, by supporting majority rights rather than that of minorities, by making Whites into authentic stakeholders in the System and its well-being.  Whites have long since stopped being authentic stakeholders in the current System, in any real sense, long ago.

What to do? The following have been discussed at this blog in detail previously, but briefly we can summarize:

1. Build a legionary cadre.  No defectives, no Alt Right lulzers, no obsessives and fetishists, no zombies mindlessly parroting “movement” dogma, but hardcore, “vanguardist” political soldiers, truly vetted (extremely!) and put through years of long apprenticeship, a genuine movement akin to that of Codreanu, a pan-European Brotherhood that will form the core of the undermining of the old System and the creation of a new one.  And guess what?  This is not talked about in “interviews” with the media, it is not recruited online in sniggering “forums,” it is instead done privately and prudently, slowly, carefully, and with forethought.  Obviously, the existence of such an organization would not be a secret, just as the existence of the CIA, MI6, KGB, and GRU were not secrets, but the inner workings of the group, by analogy to those others, would of course be hidden from the public.  

2. Community activism.  Real community activism is done, not talked about.  It is done as much as possible “under the radar.”  You do not broadcast it to mocking media operatives, you don’t go through the motions for the sake of a quick blog post, this is not something done overnight.  True community activism is for the long-term, it is a work of years, it is done to help the community, not with an attitude of expecting an immediate compensation – the idea of compensation should not come into it at all. Of course, community activism by its nature cannot be kept secret; the point is that such activism is its own publicity – in other words, it becomes known because it occurs and it is effective, it is its own advertisement, it doesn’t become known because activists spend more time talking to the media than they do actually helping people.

3. Metapolitics and infrastructure. Metapolitics has been discussed endlessly by the Far Right, and so there is no need to repeat all of that here. Such activity is essential, as long as it is fresh, creative, and open-minded, and not merely the regurgitation of fossilized “movement” dogma.  We need real infrastructure to carry out our objectives, approaches to defeat social pricing, funding that goes beyond tin cup panhandling but actual involves earning money through some sort of productivity, service, and/or representation, we need lawyers (and not to drive them out of the “movement”), we need businessmen, doctors, academics, plumbers, mechanics, schoolteachers, politicians, we need a recreated and actualized society. By the way, metapolitics should include Salter’s democratic multiculturalism, which overlaps with both community activism and electoral politics.

4. Electoral politics. This has three purposes.  First, education, propaganda, and recruitment.  Second, provocation, heightening the contradictions, undermining the System, promoting chaos and balkanization.  Third, if elected, these people can not only leverage their office for the preceding two purposes, but also to protect the movement as much as possible,

5. Rallies, etc. – false-flag and genuine. False-flag rallies are meant as a distraction, to focus attention of adversaries to the open and superficial “cosplay actors on the street” as opposed to the more serious work going on elsewhere.  It would still need to be credible, to be viewed as a genuine threat and so worthy of attention, and also so as not to repulse Whites interested in joining the cause.  Later on, with the success of the other objectives 1-4 above, rallies and mass meetings, of a highly professional nature (even more so that the false-flag ones), can occur for all the positives such events can genuinely provide to a real and growing firmly established movement.

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.