Category: defund the movement

SLC News: More December 2017

Several items.

There’s an old saying that when one’s opponents make errors, you should just sit back and let them do it, and I have actually been holding back on commenting on some things recently, for that very reason.  However, when things occur that are absolutely ludicrous, the cost/benefit ratio moves in the direction of shining a light on it.  Included in this in the remarkable decision of Counter-Currents to expend its political capital in Der Movement defending the likes of Lauren Southern.  We’ve reached new heights of “jumping Moby Dick” with this:

It is possible that this will be the dumbest piece of writing in the history of Counter-Currents. That’s not my fault. The subject matter is dumb, and it will be hard to rise above it. I’ll do my best, and because the subject matter is dumb, I’ll be brief.

Among the recent charges against Lauren Southern is the claim that she is a sex worker who poses in revealing clothing in order to encourage men to masturbate to her pictures. She makes money thereby, so she is in essence a pornstar, even though she doesn’t perform sex acts on camera. Her pictures are so sexually powerful that many men are compelled to masturbate. These beta-orbiters just can’t help themselves, and Lauren acquires money from the cyber-fapping that she encourages.

That may be good for page hits I suppose, but the damage it does to the intellectual credibility of that blog is stupendous.  It’s analogous to Majority Rights being discredited by allowing J Richards to post porno pictures of women with smiley faces cover their nipples.

That Der Movement has been actually reduced to debating the onanistic habits of those who waste their time watching YouTube videos of useless females is, frankly, astounding.  Not surprising to me, but, from an objective standpoint, still astounding.

Look at this (apparently now deleted) exchange (emphasis added):

Joseph CurwenPosted December 21, 2017 at 4:57 am | Permalink

I think we should focus on securing the existence of our people and a future for white children instead of writing essays of 1.200 words defending someone who isn’t one of us and is actively against White Nationalism. 

Greg JohnsonPosted December 21, 2017 at 11:38 am | Permalink

Prove to me that you have done one concrete thing to help the white cause, beyond posting comments on the web.

Joseph CurwenPosted December 21, 2017 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

1. In cooperation with another Comrade, translating and publishing a considerable number of texts of H. Covington, whose works were totally unknown in the Spanish speaking world. Here is the blog (now more or less inactive due to personal reasons):
2. Translating (and publishing the next year) “Nietzsche His Life and Works” from Anthony M. Ludovici. The publishing house (Editorial Solar) is the same that published “Mein Kampf”, “The Protocols” and other important works in the Spanish speaking world.
3. Right now, I’m working in the translation of Nesta Webster’s “The Secret of the Zodiac”, to be published in the same publishing house.

Greg JohnsonPosted December 21, 2017 at 2:48 pm | Permalink 

Good work. Don’t waste any more time commenting here.

Johnson’s behavior is becoming increasingly erratic. The complete intolerance to any criticism is simply not normal, and not reflective of his behavior, say, five years ago.  

The last I looked, that exchange has now been deleted from the thread!  Instead, half the current comments are from Asians and lickspittle Asia-worshipers.  Remember this?  Do you still doubt that post’s accurate observation of your fearless leaders, who, in their almost pathological lack of self-awareness, are suffering from the same outgroup altruism and ingroup altruistic punishment that they decry in others?

Read the Curwen-Johnson exchange, consider it has been deleted, and carefully consider the consequences of a “movement leadership” that favors cunning Orientals and race-mixing mudsharks over genuine, sincere activists.  Consider the monumental hubris of people who cannot take the slightest hint of criticism and who state that they “fire” donors who have the temerity to ask that their donations be used for certain projects. 

A major difference between EGI Notes and Counter-Currents is this.  95% of the over-the-top rhetoric here is (as I’ve stated many times for the obtuse) for effect; I’m intentionally ridiculing the “movement” clownshow that I’m completely exasperated with after putting up with more than twenty years of nonsense (the other 5% is genuine outrage against the likes of Deasy and Munro).  Johnson, on the other hand, I believe is 100% serious when he bans people simply for having the temerity to disagree with him on something, when he talks about “firing donors,” and when he expends political capital defending low rent slutty airheads whose “hundreds of thousands” of followers likely mostly are what Weev says they are.  If it all were all really a joke, I would say “well done,” you’ve outdone anything I’ve ever played out.  But it’s not a joke.  It’s actually serious.

Chinese Nationalist Maiden writes:

Of course, I know that I have to be immune to criticism myself since people will try to alienate me from the White survival movement merely because I am (a) an Asian and (b) a woman. These accusations sound nonsensical to me. Being an Asian woman is irrelevant to me for believing that White survival is right. I support Whites on principle and I am disgusted with the tasteless liberal-democratic leftist and Marxist-Leninist hatred of White people. Denying Whites the right to live is just beyond disgusting and I cannot live in good conscience with myself if I did not support White survival.

The problem is when non-Whites promote their own racial interests while pretending to be part of the “pro-White cause.”  This disgusting and dishonest “Chinese Nationalist Maiden” is one of the worst.  Can she tell us precisely: in what country do you live?  After all, if you are so much in favor of White survival, you wouldn’t be living in any (majority) White nation now, are you?  Of course – of course! – you live in, say, Taiwan or Singapore, right?  Right?

Silver, of all people, has been mostly talking good sense on the comments thread of the anti-Romanian Amren piece.  Now, catch this reply to Silver from the author of that piece:

Silver: ‘Politically, something being true is not, of itself, reason enough to say it. Decisions about what to say have to be weighed against their likely impact on political objectives.’

Anti-Romanian Ingrate: This sounds a bit like the sort of thing you hear from the left: ‘We shouldn’t talk about race because it’s likely to have bad social consequences.’ One of the virtues of the right is that it acknowledges the existence of objective truth and allows more or less free exploration in the attempt to get at it. It’s in the spirit of the West to do so.

Excuse me, you anti-Romanian outrageous, filthy hypocrite, but if “One of the virtues of the right is that it acknowledges the existence of objective truth and allows more or less free exploration in the attempt to get at it. It’s in the spirit of the West to do so” then I ask:


Newsflash: Selective “honesty” is just another form of dishonesty.  Hypocrites.

Of related interest, this exchange:

Zaida  LHathaway • 15 hours agoBefore communism it was even worse in Eastern Europe: Slavs are incapable of producing anything of cultural value. Visit Poland or Romania and see the mess with your own eyes, as I’ve seen.

Independent Thinker  Zaida • 10 hours ago“Slavs are incapable of producing anything of cultural value.”
Complete hogwash. Let’s see: The periodic table of elements – Mendeleev, discovery of the atmosphere of Venus, the Law of Mass conservation, demonstrating the organic origin of peat, soil, coal petroleum, etc, plus many other things — Lomonosov, Quantum electronics work leading to the development of the laser and maser (and Nobel Prize) — Basov, Laser and Maser development (also same Nobel Prize) — Prokhorov, involved in the invention of the radio — Popov, work in low temperature physics leading to Nobel Prize — Pyotr Kapista, Development of Soviet nuclear weapons — Kurchatov, founder of field surgery — Pirogov, Stability theory of a dynamical system — Lyapunov, Timoshenko Beam Theory — Timoshenko, work in radioactivity, radium, and polonium — Marie Curie (recipient of two Nobel Prizes), inventor of the polarographic method, father of the electroanalytical method, and recipient of the Nobel Prize in 1959 for his discovery and development of the polarographic methods of analysis — Heyrovsky, inventor of Yablochkov Candle and Transformer — Yablochkov, Kolmogorov, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Rimsky-Korsakov, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Gogol, Chekov, Repin, Aivazovsky, Vastnetsov, Polenov, … too many to mention..

I will now give you the most important comment in the entire blog history of EGI NotesThe biggest impediment to the success of pro-White activism is Der Movement, Inc. itself.


Behold the Female, 12/12/17

Who are the real bastards (and bitches)?

Over at Counter-Currents, Greg Johnson goes railing against all the “bastards” in the “movement” (including me I suppose); the latest firestorm set off in defense of a pair of ditzy female airheads that any man of sense, any rational and serious activist, wouldn’t spend one nanosecond of their time thinking about (and that goes for all the Type I Nutzis attacking the vagina-holes to begin with) (*).

Putting the XX chromosome flotsam and jetsam (redundancy?) aside, what about Johnson’s main arguments in his tirade?  I mean, yes, I agree with the general sentiment.  But Counter-Currents is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  What with the endless feuding with Richard Spencer, and then the thin-skinned hysterical reaction against your humble blogger here for insisting on “movement” accountability, isn’t it possible that some people view Counter-Currents in the same manner that Counter-Currents views all the other “bastards” out there?  Remember the biblical passage about motes and beams, and all that.

I think a lot of these attacks are simply motivated by financial jealousy. 

Oh, yes, indeed, I agree: many of the “movement” feuds and infighting are motivated by financial jealousy.  I can certainly think of famous “movement” feuds of like character, some fairly recent.  But that’s only among the panhandlers, the tin cuppers.  Some of us are not asking for any money.  

Lauren can spend her earnings on any frilly, silly, frivolous thing she wants. It is a mistake to allow donors to think that they own a piece of you and can attach strings to their gifts. I have fired donors who have tried to do that.

It is hard for me to express my level of utter disgust with this quote.  The arrogance is breathtaking.  Gimme dat money – but don’t tell me how to spend it!   God forbid that donors “attach strings” to their money like, you know, having it spent on activities related to – gasp! – actual racial nationalism. No, damgummint, if Lauren wants to spend donations on “frilly things” (the mind boggles) she has that right!  Other folks want to spend donor money on opera tickets or dog food, hey, who are you to say nay to that?  

Really, now, this is just too much.  “Fired donors?”  Some people in the “movement” have balls the size of Jupiter and Saturn, that’s for sure; I haven’t seen such purified chutzpah since the last gelfite fish convention.

And you suckers still give money to these people who are basically metaphorically giving you the middle finger with one hand while they grab your cash with the other.  You should only hope you get “donor fired.”  Then you can spend your own money on your own (hopefully non-frivolous) things.  After all, it’s your money.  You earned it.  Spend it wisely.

And yet another XX heroine writes:

First of all, it seems really suspicious that the He-Man Woman-haters Club has suddenly come out in full force, often hiding behind fake names and new accounts. These are not people who stick their necks out for our cause. They are spending huge amounts of time online trying to drive women away from our movement. Are these men really nationalists? I don’t think so. Many of them are probably infiltrators.

I hate being vulgar and Alt Right-like, but in this one special case, I’ll make an exception, channel my inner Beavis-and-Butthead, and reply thus: go fuck yourself, you dumb cunt.  I’ve been involved in racial nationalism when many of these “ladies of the movement” were infants or toddlers; I was involved in “meatspace” IRL analog activism back when these budding Joan-of-Arcs were wearing diapers, I sacrificed career advancement because of all the time and effort spent in producing “movement” content (including material for Counter-Currents, by the way), I went to meet the Great Sage on the Mountaintop when these female soldiers of glory were sucking their thumbs (back then, only their thumbs) pining away for Santa Claus (and not for their latest Colored boyfriend), but, hey, if I dare criticize any of these sacrosanct ladies then I’m an infiltrator.  Well, yes, I know that Counter-Currents has vast experience with infiltrators, but maybe, just maybe, all you heroes are wrong this time?

No, let’s go off “white knighting” for active mudsharks, giggling retards, pontificating “Chinese maidens,” smug “beauties” with a room temperature IQ, and whiners who assert that any criticism is from“infiltrators.”


And for those of you who think my own (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) tirade is “excessive” I’ll simply point out that if Counter-Currents didn’t ban me from commenting, I could have made more mature and restrained ripostes at the actual blog post in question.  Being unable to do so, it would seem that the comic tirade here is a good way of attracting attention to my views on the matter. Granted, women can have a place in the “movement.”  The types of people Johnson defends we could do without, however.  There’s a big difference.  And the panhandling arrogance just grates on me. 

*Aren’t I wasting time thinking about them?  Only to answer Johnson’s post. I hardly know who any of these women are other than perhaps engaging with their content briefly out of curiosity before turning if off after I couldn’t take any more of the superficially silly stupidity.

Why Don’t Wealthy Whites Support Racial Nationalism?

The tin cups are empty.

Let us assume for the moment that the “movement’ deserves to be funded.  Or, more generally, let’s consider the funding of racial nationalism as a conceptual entity, independent of Der Movement, Inc.  We can ask a question.  Why aren’t there extremely wealthy Whites willing to bankroll White racial nationalism?

The question is valid because we can assume that no such bankrolling exists, not at the level that the question implies.  Indeed, if such existed today, various “movement” precincts wouldn’t have to be spending so much time with their tin cup panhandling, they wouldn’t be so concerned with deplatforming, etc.  So, assuming that they aren’t running a cunning con job or are being very adept at hiding secret funding (and it’s unlikely the types who can’t prevent their meetings from being continuously infiltrated by pitifully transparent “anti” activists would have such cunning and discipline), we can assume that no such funding exists.  Very well.  Why?

What is it about wealthy Whites that make them unconcerned about their people’s interests, or unwilling to give even if they were so concerned?

The latter part of the question can be tackled first.  One could speculate that the pro-White wealthy are being misled into contributing to more mainstream conservatism or to civic nationalism.  But that’s not what I’m talking about here – to use an Alt Right phrase that I usually try to avoid, let’s assume the wealthy White in question is “red-pilled.”  They know the score – that White nationalism is the way to go. So, what is it?  Simple fear of being discovered?  One would think that the wealthy would have their ways of discretely funneling money; on the other hand, if racial nationalists were suddenly flush with cash, the System would leave no stone unturned to find out where the funds came from.  So, fear of being labeled a “wealthy Nazi” or a “rich racist” or a “millionaire/billionaire fascist” would inhibit giving.  But still that really can’t explain the total lack of such people.  One would expect at least a few wealthy individuals very committed to the cause, and perhaps old enough and/or ornery enough that they wouldn’t care what people think, that these people would shell out the shekels.

Is it because they don’t see anything worth contributing to?  If so, I really wouldn’t blame them, but I doubt that is it either.  Even if major American WN “leaders” are thought insufficient, there’s a lot of ideological (and other) diversity among racial nationalists, even with all of the smaller groupuscules like EGI Notes.  Then there are in Europe some genuine nationalist activity that could be seen as worth support by their well-off countrymen. There are things to support if one was willing to do so.

So, let’s shift the focus.  Instead of asking why the pro-White wealthy don’t give, we can ask – why there aren’t pro-White very wealthy individuals to begin with?

Is there a psychometric explanation?  That the type of people well suited to generate/accumulate great wealth are the type to be unconcerned with racial interests?  Are these hyper-individualists?  Individualists with universal altruistic tendencies (hello, Bill Gates).  The purely selfish?  Dark triad psychopaths?  Remember Bardeche saying all the fascists he knew were poor; is there a connection?  Are Moralpaths bad at making money?  Are racial nationalists – even those with a scientific bent – insufficiently materialistic to gravitate to money-making schemes?  Are the wealthy wrapped up in their own little bubbles?  Are they so insulated from the racial problems that most Whites face that they are unaware of those problems, or wouldn’t care if they were so involved?  A la the theories of Sailer, do they see themselves as elite “Good Whites” at war with the crude, low brow “Bad White” “bigots and racists?”  Do they see the world as White-White competition?  Is it that all the Whites they deal with in their bubble are wealthy and powerful, so they are so stupidly shallow that they don’t even recognize that a racial crisis even exists?  Do they just want to “enjoy life and “sit poolside” and so do not care if “after me, the deluge?”  Is their conception of self–interest only financial, so that racial and cultural interests mean nothing?  Do they only care about protecting their wealth and status, and eschew the chaos that racial nationalism would bring (racists are not good for stock prices, I suppose)?  Do they have non-Whites as business partners – the opposite problem of them only knowing wealthy Whites – they see, on a regular basis, intelligent and successful non-Whites and see nothing wrong with that.  It’s not that the wealthy are all drawn to libertarianism; there are leftist wealthy Whites – indeed, wealthy Whites come in all political flavors except the Far Right (I think it more likely, ironically enough, to find Far Left wealthy Whites than Far Right).  Is there such a dichotomy between Economic Man and Raciocultural Man that the former and latter never meet?  But what about people who become wealthy through invention or writing, etc?  These may be more scientific or artistic types, not necessarily hedge fund manager types, and yet even the inventors and artists are unconcerned with race.  Why is it that racial nationalism can’t “hit the lottery” in the form of having someone (even a lottery winner!) who is both wealthy and deeply concerned about White interests?

Should we try and proselytize to the White wealthy?  Should we try and get racial nationalists to generate wealth?  Both?  Some alternative approach?

Fund Activism Not Kabuki

Stylized Kabuki dance = Der Movement.

As readers of this blog now, I am in general opposed to funding the “movement,” for reasons that have been explained here in detail; of course, I make exceptions for targeted projects of value, such as legal defense funds. 

But, if I were to contribute money to some movement (no scare quotes) group, individual, or general project (as opposed to a specific targeted one), what attributes would it have?

1. Share my ideology. Why should I support someone promoting views I don’t agree with?  Why should I compromise on core principles?  Let the idiot mainstreamers do that.

2. Have solid strategy and tactics. You need a sound plan and the discipline to carry it through.  That is plain enough.  You also need seriousness and, above all, competence.  There is no point funding juvenile jackassery, cosplay rallies, or meetings “vetted” so “well” that multiple infiltrators are present, and the infiltrators are the honored speakers and help decide who can or cannot attend.  That’s clearly ludicrous.

3. Have sound character.  Without moral integrity, without a sound character, eventual long term failure is guaranteed, even with the right ideology, strategy, and tactics.

What concerns me is that what passes for “activism” is not actually meant to achieve the ostensible goals professed by the “activists,” but rather is a form of Kabuki, a stylized drama dance between the Far Right and the System, wasting the time, energy, and money of sincere and authentic activists on a cul-de-sac sideshow.  

Far-Rightists put on a show for their supporters, partly to raise money, partly for hobbyism, partly because the “activists” have confused means and ends, and have as their objective merely going through the motions of activism without a plan to achieve goals; indeed, without even really having the intention of achieving the goals, or perhaps secretly lacking the belief that it is in any way possible.  On the other side, the System – particularly the “watchdog” groups with their own fundraising imperatives and their own fantasies of “fighting hate and fascism” – inflate the importance of the Far Right, so as to mobilize “progressive” supporters (gimme dat money!).  Of the two sides, the Far Right is more deluded, or perhaps more mendacious; after all, the System can afford to indulge in this sideshow, as they are winning, they are, at the same time, actualizing their ideology into reality and getting things done.  Indeed, the sideshow serves two purposes for elements of the System: not only does it mobilize supporters for financial gain and psychologically satisfying moral posturing, but it also tricks sincere racial nationalists that there is actually a serious conflict going on in which they need to be invested (in more ways than one – gimme day money!).  So, instead of engaging in REAL activism, deluded racial nationalists become mesmerized by the Kabuki dance, which gives the System the time it needs to irreversibly achieve its own agenda.

And elements of the Far Right are complicit in this, and in so doing are traitors to the cause and to their people.

Brimelow Jumps the Shark


Read this (and try not to vomit).

The Steinle case and its outcome is an absolute tragedy (and something that can be addressed here in future posts).  But, what can you say about despicable low lives who exploit this tragedy, and the justified rage over the verdict, to raise money for their own well-documented purposes?

And of course, Brimelow finishes off with his usual exploitation of his own children as a money-raising stratagem.  

This is just completely beneath contempt.  It’s worse than that: is there something, some phrase, which can express even more disgust than being beneath contempt?  How low will this individual go in his tin cup panhandling?  Mr. Brimelow, have you no shame?

Really, at some point in the future, I think I’ll start panhandling at EGI Notes as well.  Not that I want readers’ money, but to: (1) ridicule Tin Cup Activism, and (2) attempt to divert as much money away from the likes of VDARE as possible.  Even if it is only one penny, it’ll be worth it.

A Long Term Solution For the Meeting Problem

Do it yourself.

I was reading about this.

And the same has happened, or will happen, to others on the Far Right.  What to do?  Short-term options include small scale informal meetings that piggyback on the meetings of others (e.g., using a mainstream conservative conference or even some non-political event to have activists meet up; this assumes that if “movement” leaders use their real names in registering there will no problem, and also assumes that something productive can be achieved via this awkward arrangement), suing the Feds to force them to fulfill their hosting obligations, or somehow finding a private venue that won’t reject Far Rightists.  It’s also interesting how private businesses can be forced to bake cakes for gay couples, but businesses and even the Federal government (with its obligations in this arena) have the right to stifle free assembly by denying use of facilities for political reasons.

The only long-term solution I can see is for the Far Right to purchase (or build) their own meeting hall facility (or facilities).

The characteristics required:

1. Large enough and well equipped enough to handle Amren-sized meetings or even larger.

2. Should NOT be out in the middle of nowhere.  It should be within relatively easy access of a major airport and nearby various hotel facilities.


3. Obviously it would need 24/7 security, trained personnel, cameras and other electronic security, and, of course, there needs to be solid property insurance.  The security aspect is going to be perhaps the major practical hurdle, but what other options are there?  You either hold no meetings, hold meetings hosted by others and these others have the obligation for security (I doubt hotels or government facilities would accept Far Rightists providing the security in the hotel property or Federal facility), or do it yourself on your own property.  If you want meetings, then it comes down to outsourcing or insourcing.  If no one wants to accept your patronage, then the choices conflate down to one: do it yourself.

4. The property would need to be protected legally as well as physically, to protect against lawsuits designed to strip the property from you as “payment for damages.”  The Far Right needs a cadre of legal help, including people versed in property law and the protection of assets from liability.

5. The facilities should be made available to anyone in “this thing of ours” who wants to use it, regardless of “movement” feuding (e.g., if Spencer’s people own the property, they should let, e.g., Johnson rent it out if desired), for a reasonable fee.  This could be both national as well as international users.  Fees charged could help defray the cost of the facilities. The facilities could also serve other purposes, such as being a headquarters, storage facility, and temporary living space for activists in need, etc.

And, no, I do NOT want to hear “there’s no money for this.”  There is.  Stop wasting money on happy penguins living the good life in blue state suburbs, stop funding “Radio Derb,” stop funding the rest of the Alt Wrong and their pro-Jewish and pro-Asian HBD, and stop funding other tin cup panhandling nonsense.

Even if it requires different factions of the Far Right to overcome their differences and pool resources, it would be worth it.  Eventually, more than one facility could be actualized (maybe one East Coast and one West Coast, for example), but there needs to be at least one.

If this is considered another “crazy” and “low information moralizing” Sallis idea, then please come up with something better.  At least I’m making suggestions that have a degree of plausibility (assuming even the smallest amount of “movement” competence, selflessness, and discipline).

If any “movement” leaders read this blog, they should consider the suggestion.  I assume they’ve already thought about it, perhaps dismissing it because of the financial and security issues.  My answer is that the money is there if properly directed and utilized, a properly run facility can bring in a cash flow, and security is a necessary part of holding meetings: either you do it or trust others to do it for you.  What’s your alternatives?

The Alt Righters believe they can still use public buildings in DC.  I hope that is the case, but I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket.   Then I heard that Spencer wants to own his own meeting place.  Having written this essay several days ago, after I first read about the meeting problem, I was gratified to hear that he’s thinking along similar lines. It’s basic common sense, after all.  And as I’ve suggested the money is there, it just needs to be redirected away from parasites and grifters and into productive pursuits and projects. Lack of financing?  Face facts: you are in competition with the parasites and grifters.  There’s limited niche space and if you can’t face those facts, you’ll be outcompeted financially.

And, no, this post is not incompatible with my previous (and continued) calls to “defund the movement.”  I’ve made clear that while Der Movement, Inc., and all its associated stupidities, should be defunded (to clear the way for a New Movement), and, certainly, particularly stupid and useless precincts of the “movement” should be defunded, I’ve also supported targeted funding of important projects that would benefit racial nationalism as a whole, such as a “legal defense fund” to help build a cadre of pro-White lawyers.  Here, in this post, I suggest a solution to the “meeting problem,” a solution that can be of broad benefit for activists worldwide (as one criterion is that the meeting hall needs to be broadly accessible to activists who wish to use it).  This solution – or some other alternative that is equally capable of solving the problem – is worthy of financial support.  Activists should use the “power of the purse” to steer the “movement” in the proper direction: defund incompetence; fund competence.

Alt Right: Embracing Evil

It’s the Alt Wrong.

Let’s see:

Is involved in an inter-racial marriage, and supports miscegenation.

Is a despicable HBDer who worships at the feet of Jews and Asians.

An idiot who ignores the demographic facts on the ground and states that there is no existential threat to Whites.

A multiculturalist who supports a multi-racial “stew” society.

A lickspittle philosemite.

Who wants to associate with an Alt Right that includes execrable trash like Derbyshire?  Now, I’m sure that Alt Right defenders will state that the Alt Right cannot control who does or does not identify with this “movement.”  However, the faction had no problem disavowing the Alt Lite, so why can’t they do the same to Derbyshire and the rest of the Alt Wrong?  Is it because they agree with the Alt Wrong? With all the hate toward “boomers” coming from Alt Right Millennials, why do they grovel to a decrepit race-mixing boomer like Derbyshire?  And before I was “banned” from Counter-Currents, that site censored my criticism of Derbyshire’s comments about child porn – criticism that was nothing more than just citing Derbyshire’s own words on that subject!  So it is disingenuous of the Alt Right to just shrug and say that they have no control over Derbyshire and his identification with the Alt Right.

We can contrast all the financial support and meeting invitations and protection given to Derbyshire compared to how a good man like Robert Griffin is essentially ignored (except by TOO; I give credit to MacDonald for giving Griffin a forum).  Contrast Griffin’s wise words with Derbyshire’s self-interested pro-miscegenation rambling.

That VDARE is getting the lion’s share of “movement” donations, and that some of that goes to Derbyshire, is absolutely disgusted.  Not surprising tough.  Not surprising at all.

Let’s delve deeper into this; this is important.  

Let’s consider Derbyshire some more.  Not only is all written above true, and documented in his own writing, but let us not forget: for years, Derbyshire was openly hostile to White nationalism.  He wrote an insulting “hit piece” against Kevin MacDonald (it was when I wrote a riposte defending MacDonald that Derbyshire first came to my attention).  He openly mocked WN’s as “crazy” and “nutty” and “obsessed with racial purity.”  He publicly agreed with the assessment of Amren conference attendees as “latrine flies.”  He challenged critics of his marriage to come to his home so he could greet them “in the appropriate manner” (i.e., an elderly fist in their face, I suppose).  He sided with GNXP against WNs, and had one of the GNXPers at his home (welcomed, not attacked).  He praised the likes of the anti-WN and anti-Salter “Jayman.”  

But what happened when National Review kicked Derbyshire to the curb over his “the talk” article? Guess who it was who eagerly embraced Derbyshire and gave him new life – and money! – to spread his repellent views?  You guessed it – the “movement.”  The same “movement” Derbyshire attacked with relish for years now fell all over themselves to rescue him, including inviting him to address all those “latrine flies” he previously mocked in (digital) print. And, of course, he gets money and more money, supported via VDARE, etc.  And he is praised by “movement” commentators on blog threads.  This anti-WN race-mixer is propped up by the same WNs he’s always despised.

On the other hand, let’s look at how genuine WNs are treated.  Let’s consider this Sallis fellow – a WN for over twenty years, someone who made a major contribution in popularizing Salter’s EGI concept in the “movement” (and defending it against critics), among many other contributions.  Ted has essentially been “blacklisted” by Der Movement for the “crime” of questioning “movement” dogma and for criticizing “movement” leaders and for asserting that these “leaders” should be held accountable for their actions.  The anti-WN Derbyshire embraced; the WN Sallis is persona non grata.

Explanation?  I put forth two explanations, both of which are undoubtedly true.

First, many in Der Movement consider White nationalism as a money-making enterprise, as a way of earning a living (and living well).  They may well be genuine activists, sincere in their beliefs, but they want their money.  Derbyshire was never a threat to that – his attacks could easily be explained away by his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children.  Criticism coming from a twenty plus year veteran of WN is a whole other story, potentially far more damaging.  Let’s quarantine that “infection” before folks start getting the wrong ideas and the shekels stop pouring in.  Yes, there is also the issue of bruised egos among the thin-skinned, but I would think the money is more of a factor here.

But that first explanation does not explain the extent of the discrepancy; 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; Sallis, on the other hand, is an “outsider,” so decades of contributions are flushed down the memory hole before you can even say the words “latrine flies.”

The “rock stars” may not want to hear any of this, but it’s true.  And it’s a damning indictment of their poor character.