Category: commenting

Comments on Comments: It’s Der Alt Right

When the comments section is better than the original article.

Comments and my riposte.

This is a sad truth we need to face. I cannot recall any revolutionary movement of any consequence, no matter how radical and underground, that did not have the backing of moneyed people.

Yes, it is a shame that wealthy Whites don’t cough up money.  But you know, there IS money in the “movement” and it is wasted.

Correct insofar as the Alt Right needs a supporting infrastructure:

* Info ops

* Self defense

* Legal defense

* Cultural-social activities

* Building fronts with allied groups

* Fundraising (especially, as money drives everything else!)

I’ve been saying this for years.  Although I do think the “movement” is doing OK with respect to the tin cup panhandling (“fundraising”).  It’s everything else that they have trouble with.

I’ve often wondered where are the older, mature and more balanced leaders of the Alt-Right? 

Don’t you know the Millennials have disdain for such people?  And some of these older people don’t pass the Quota Test of Der Movement’s ultra, ultra official affirmative action policy.

There are a few that I’m aware of (e.g., Jared Taylor and others), but I’m not so sure they would identify as Alt-Righters. 

You would be more sure if you had bothered to do a little research.  Here is Taylor describing himself as a “long-standing member of the Alt Right.”  Although, certainly, after Heilgate, the enthusiasm for the Alt Right brand in certain quarters took a precipitous drop.  We wouldn’t want to offend a certain high, high-IQ Levantine tribe now, would we?

They’re also not as perceptive on the ‘Jewish Question’ as many of us would like.

But they are marvelously perceptive on the ‘Hora-Romanian’ question, never mind the dreaded ‘dumb Afrowop question.’

The Left is very good at building such infrastructure, and this pays off in their successful street actions.

The Left, which supports affirmative action in the broader society, practices meritocracy in its leadership.  The Far Right, which opposes affirmative action in the broader society, practices the most ruthless ethnic quota system in its leadership.  And so the Left “is very good at building infrastructure.”  And the Far Right most definitely is not.  Surprise!

(1) In terms of leaders, we need men, not women. Race-conscious White women have their place in our movement (mostly in the realm of support), but they should not be the leaders in it. Any movement that has women as the core of its leadership will not generally attract and inspire men. We need strong, masculine men whom other men will look up to, who will model their ways and conduct before other men who have the potential to serve as future leaders.

Agreed.  No yeastbuckets.

(2) We need men who are older and decidedly more mature than the likes of Richard Spencer and others. This is not meant as an attack on Spencer, but it’s hard to deny that his immaturity has shown through on several occasions with him at the helm. Much of this, I believe, is due to his age and lack of maturity at times. The mistakes of our movement would likely not have occurred as frequently had we started with older, wiser and more seasoned men. Regardless of what has been done in the past, this is something we should at least work toward.

If Spencer wants to challenge his ban from Europe, probably that needs to be done through the courts, rather than trying to sneak in and having Poland’s “right, right, right-wing government”  (it’s all “Visegrad” you know, and all so “based!”) telling him to leave. That’s the maturity problem I guess, similar to what happened several years ago with the Budapest conference (another example of the “based” Visegrad group, I suppose) that was the ostensible impetus for the Spencer-Johnson feud.  Unable to challenge it in court?  Then don’t go.  You’re banned.  Yes, I know, not good.  But maybe if all the Beavis-and-Butthead/cosplay Charlottesville, etc. antics never happened, then things would be different.

(3) We need men who are married (and who have stable marriages especially!) and who have children. This is the ideal, and I recognize that it’s not always possible. Men who are leaders in their home, and who are not ruled by women. I know this will not go over well, but it seems to me that far too many of those on our side are young, unmarried men. A good many are against marriage altogether, and are not particularly keen about having children either. I believe this is the wrong attitude. It is healthy and natural for us to want to marry and procreate, and in this way we will increase our racial numbers and secure a future for our posterity. Condemning the institution of marriage and remaining childless will not be good for our people in the long run. Yes, I know a whole lot of American women are disgusting and rabidly feminist, but there are still some good White women out there. Where there is a will, there is way.

In general, agreed. But we need to solve the social pricing problem if you want more stable family men involved.  That goes back to infrastructure and the lack thereof, which is a failure of leadership.

(4) We need men who are moral and circumspect in life. This means they don’t say one thing and live completely opposite to it. They have consistency in both word and deed. They don’t have to be perfect (none of us are!), but only that their lives are not marked by deviancy, gross immorality, drunkenness, dishonesty, unethical business practices, nor the kind that would turn off the very people we want to reach with our message.

This would seem to eliminate a large fraction of activists, a majority of the leaders, and something like two-thirds of the Type Is.  And the madness of “White nationalists” with yellow fever fetishism is completely absurd.

(5) We need men who fully abstain from mind-altering drugs, marijuana and alcohol. Yes, I know there are some folks who can handle their alcohol and drink moderately, but my message is primarily directed to those who think they can be effective leaders while still consuming products that threaten their mental clarity and decisions. At this stage in our fight against White genocide, we ought to be the most mentally clear, careful and strategic thinkers out there. But this will not likely happen if we are alcoholics or addicted to marijuana. This is not the time to ‘party,’ but to be sober and wise.

The fact something like this has to be written tells you how pathetic Der Movement really us.  But then, again, given that some Alt Right “leaders” and their stepandfetchits make alcohol-enriched half-drunken Beavis-and-Butthead podcasts, this advice is all too necessary.

More:

Spencer has belatedly come to certain conclusions that I’ve been advising for many months – that is, to step back, make a strategic retreat, and build some sturdy infrastructures before stepping back into the public fray.  Now, I don’t believe it will be done right, and have no confidence for success, but at least he has minimally realized the necessity.

Another long Counter-Currents essay that boils down to…Richard Spencer: bad.

Hey, no attacks against Tommy Robinson too?  They’re slacking off over there!

The elements of National Socialism (NS) selected for emphasis by the enemy—military expansionism, Nordicist racial supremacism, sub-Nietzschean megalomania, genocide—were mostly conditional to 1930s Germany, the idiosyncrasies of Hitler, and the fighting of the Second World War. These negative phenomena may have been strongly represented in NS, but they are not the “essence” of the Right…

Really?  I thought these, at least the Nordicism, was at the core of at least the American “movement.”

Advertisements

In Der News, 6/9/18

Der news.

Sunic foreword to Bolton’s Yockey book.

That’s the foreword to the book itself; insofar as I know, currently, I am the only one who has written an independent review of this important work.  That speaks volumes about the pathetic, low-rent “movement.”

Getting back to Sunic’s foreword, I’d like to say that Tom is one of the finest people involved in nationalist activism.  I don’t agree with everything he’s ever written of course, but people can disagree on issues but still think highly of each other, respect fine work, and note their essential decency as human beings.  Indeed, I sometimes disagree with Salter on some issues (as recently chronicled in posts here), but I cannot think of anyone whose work I respect more.  As I’ve said a number of times before – Salter deserves a Nobel Prize for his work on ethnic genetic interests; in a fair world, one not dominated by anti-White leftist politics, that Prize would be awarded.

By the way, Sunic probably doesn’t remember it, but he and I had a pleasant phone conversation many (15+) years ago.  A good man.

More evidence (if you needed any) that Sallis is right once again: the Danish left is farstreaming right.  Evidence to support mainstreaming: zero.  Evidence to support farstreaming: Trump, Orban, Denmark, etc.

Best Amren comment, in response to this article:

Jason Lewis • 10 hours ago
Right after they tell you that population numbers are concerning they’ll tell you that there aren’t enough babies being born in Western countries requiring a endless flood of immigrants.

Der Movement in the News, 5/9/16

Two items.

A. The Occidental Observer has not only jumped the shark, the shark has jumped itself. TOO now features the scribbling of demented mestizo Nordicist Chechar, the poster boy for “movement” insanity.  TOO – stick a fork in it, it’s done  That’s where following HBD gets you.

B. A two step action plan for commentators like Ulf, Walter, and Leon here.

Step 1: Read Poe’s short story The Purloined Letter, and ponder the major point Poe makes in that work.

Step 2: Listen to the podcast again.

Good luck with that.

On Commenting

Commenting not good.
As I have made clear over the years, I am opposed to blog comments.  I find it ironic that a “movement” that is typically (and justifiably) skeptical of democracy and of mass/quantity, and which believes in hierarchy and the importance of elite quality, is so tolerant of the idea that the imbecilic ramblings of any idiot with an Internet connection is the equal of the carefully considered writing of a main blog post.

Of course, there are some positives about allowing commenting.  Every once in a while, a comment is interesting and useful.  Commenting can create a sense of community (although community is more properly built in real-life, rather than online), and can project a sense of “power,” in that it shows that the blog has built up a cohort of followers.  Further, sometimes the rare thoughtful commentator can be recruited to be a blogger themselves.

But the negatives outweigh these putative positives.  The majority of comments tend to be of poor quality, and drag down the tone of the blog and taint the original post with the whiff of typical “movement” stupidity and freakishness.  At best, the comments will be mediocre rambling; at worst, they will be factually incorrect, illogical, destructive to the memes promoted by the post and by the blog, incitement to “flame wars,” or, at an extreme, ripe for trolling or even the more serious problem of Sunstein-style “cognitive infiltration.”  It is a rare event that a comments thread elevates the discussion of the original post; it is a very common event that the comments thread degrades the post, and may “turn off” potential readers and recruits.

Moderation is an option, but that has costs: quality moderation is time-consuming, it opens the moderator up to accusations of bias (e.g., only allowing comments supportive of one point of view), and a skilled and determined troll/infiltrator can do a lot of damage to the blog and its objectives before the moderator “wises up” to what is going on. I’ve seen all of this play out before: unmoderated commenting is a disaster that ruins the blog through a form of “Gresham’s Law” – the bad commentators drive out the good; moderated commenting is a bit better, but it’s very difficult to maintain the proper control, particularly when confronted with those skilled at disruption.

One particularly asinine argument I have heard is: “Well, if people don’t like the comments, they don’t have to read them, they can just ignore them and stop complaining.”  Certainly, any individual can ignore the comments.  But they will still be there – and our target audience will be reading them; after all, the purpose for having the comments is for them to be read, isn’t it?  When destructive comments go unanswered they attain a degree of legitimacy.  It is obvious that they cannot be left ignored (and certainly not by the person who wrote the original post!) because uncorrected error may eventually be accepted as truth.  Therefore, ignoring comments is obviously not a stable option, and one can question the intellectual seriousness of anyone who asserts otherwise.

On balance, therefore, I see commenting as a net negative.  Possibly, with very strict moderation this could be overcome, if the moderator is able to effectively deal with the potential problems of moderation listed above.  But, even so, if time is limited, and moderation is not feasible, better to have no comments than the type of sewer flow that characterizes unmoderated commenting on some blogs.

One other possible solution is to have multiple blogs – a “sandbox blog” for the nitwits, nutcases, and trolls to comment on, unmoderated, to their heart’s content, and a serious blog with no comments (or very strictly moderated) at which the important matters are discussed. Trying to mix important discussion with unmoderated commenting will lead to the “behavioral sink” taking the blog down the drain.  It’s a terrible mistake.