Category: Greg Johnson

More Alt Right Madness

It continues.

I’m sort of oscillating between schadenfreude and disgust.

I’m not taking sides here – a pox on ALL their houses – but I do hope that Greg has learned his lesson with TRS, and will eschew lulzing jakasses from this point forward.

By the way, read the comments section of the AltRight.com piece.  With a few exceptions, it is like swimming through an open sewer.

When oh when is this Alt Right contagion going to burn itself out?  When even the Grand Lord Pepe turns against them, is the time nigh?

It Really Doesn’t Matter

In the end, it’s the Alt Right as a whole that is wrong.

Read this.

Let’s say Greg is telling the truth.  I really don’t know the facts, but I have no problem accepting this; when I was writing for Counter-Currents, Greg was always a “stand-up guy” with me, always reasonable, so I have nothing personal against him despite more recent disagreements about Der Movement, my critiques of Der Movement, and my disapproval of ethnonationalism. If Greg is proven correct and “exonerated” that’s great.

However, in my opinion, in the broad scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter.  As one commentator suggests, either side in this argument is demonstrating sociopathy.  Someone – whoever it is – prominent on the Alt Right is a destructive force.  And this destructive force has unleashed all the low level human material – all the stupid and vulgar comments and paranoid conspiracy theorizing on both sides, throwing people under the bus, the TRS antics (Did they really turn against Greg?  More important – what did an intellectual like Johnson ever see in a bunch of lulzing jackasses to begin with?), and earlier I watched YouTube videos from a certain miscegenating CC supporter, commentator, and podcast participant (who shall go nameless) – videos that were truly cringe worthy. This is the Alt Right?  It’s like a circus freak show, an embarrassment, someone has to make a stand against this pathological infection of racial nationalism.

The Alt Right is a completely juvenile cul-de-sac of retarded stupidity made more ludicrous by its delusions of grandeur. Yes, Spencer has promise as a White nationalist leader and, yes, Johnson is a leading racial nationalist intellectual, but both individuals – despite their differences – should agree on one thing: ditch the Alt Right, let it collapse into a morass of Pepe cartoons and Kek screams, and let’s move on to serious activism for godssakes.

Yes, if someone is “exonerated” all well and good.  For them.  The rest of us are still being dragged into the sewer by this Alt Right nonsense.

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.

6/11/17 Notes

Some notes.

As I’m planning to begin tackling Heidegger’s Being and Time over the next several months, I found this interesting:

But if the change we desire is already on the way, does this mean that we can simply sit back and let history do our job for us? No, because some of us are not just called to dissent, we are called to fight. But we go forth into battle with the assurance that the change we fight for is already in some sense real, and it is coming to meet us.

I agree with that assessment…or sentiment.

I have some concerns here about this:

In Year Seven, John Morgan of Arktos Media came to work with me full time at Counter-Currents.

…but everyone does their own thing; I have no say on how Counter-Currents is run, so good luck with all of that. Of course, the “back story” there may inform the recent flare-up of the Johnson-Spencer-Friberg/Arktos feud, but what do I know?

Here is an interesting Durocher piece.

Note that as regards bison, phenotype/morphology/phenotype is not enough – the actual genome matters.  Durocher seems to support that view.  Very well.  Sound familiar?  I’ve been preaching the priority of genotype over phenotype nearly my entire time online and writing for racialist journals.  It is of course common sense and biologically reasonable and consistent with adaptive fitness.  Of course, when I do it, I’m labelled “crazy “and with an agenda.  Perhaps Durocher will have better luck- the fact that he specifically mentions Northern Europeans may make his comments more palatable to a “movement” that sees no difference whatsoever between Southern Europeans and Africans, or Eastern Europeans and Asians.

June 5: Spencer’s Video and an Open Call

An open call.

Here is an excellent, and realistic, Spencer video on the latest London terrorist attack. Here, Spencer hits some notes consistent with points I’ve made over the years: objectively worthless (my words, not his) Whites will continue to grovel and appease regardless of the provocations, worse is not better because there is apparently no limit in sight to the level of abuse Whites are willing to take, and that change will require a fundamental alteration in White thinking patterns so activists need to concentrate on basic principles and not overreact to single incidents like this one.

Spencer once again proves his potential as a pro-White leader.

Now, you know, I’m not of the Alt Right  and I (strongly) dislike the brand and its pretensions to legitimate “movement” hegemony.  I could in theory adopt an attitude of schadenfreude about all the divisive, internal Alt Right feuds going on, and if I was really the “crazy” and “bitter” lunatic the Alt Righters claim I am, that would indeed be my attitude.

However, I realize that – until the time comes that the Alt Right fad burns itself out – the Alt Right does have predominance (illegitimate hegemony) in racial activism today, particularly in America but growing in Western Europe as well. This predominance means that missteps of the Alt Right can harm racial nationalism as a whole, and I would like the damage minimized.  That is, we need “damage control” until such time that activists come to their senses (there’s a first time for everything) and realize there’s more to racial nationalism than Millennials, juvenile jackassery, generally superficial analyses, Trump worship, and screaming about Pepe and Kek.

In that frame of mind, I make an open call, I call upon both Spencer and Johnson to put their differences aside, exhibit genuine leadership for the greater good, and, at the very least, stop the attacks against each other and their allies.

Things change in Der Movement.  Not so long ago, Johnson was on good relations with Spencer and with Friberg.  Now, he’s on good relations with Hunter Wallace, a change from the past.  Spencer has refrained from criticizing Johnson until the recent Friberg incident.

Yes, I know, nationalist leaders of the past have had their feuds and falling outs.  Hitler and Rohm, Codreanu and Cuza, etc. But, guys, you are not at their level, your differences do not rise to the level of those historical breaks, and petty feuds mostly about personality and access to money aren’t helping any of us.

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?

In Praise of Extremists

A critique of mainstreaming from Counter-Currents.

This seems to me a reasonably forceful criticism of mainstreaming, and I of course agree wholeheartedly:

Vanguardism must be repeatedly emphasized, because the instinct of every politician seems to do the exact opposite. Politicians are inveterate panderers and flatterers of the public mind, which unfortunately has been completely molded by our enemies for generations. Politicians follow the people. Vanguardists seek to lead them. Politicians take public opinion as a given. Vanguardists seek to change it. Politicians always seek to soften their message to appeal to the public. Vanguardists realize this is folly. If one attracts lukewarm followers who are in only partial agreement, then under normal circumstances, you will be fighting with them as much as with your opponents — and when things get tough, they will sheer off and leave you alone anyway.

That’s what I’ve been preaching for years – mainstreaming, at its best, will leave you with support a mile wide and an inch deep.  I’d rather have the opposite: support only an inch wide, but a mile deep, and then take the time to expand that mile deep support ever wider. Greg seems to agree; thus:

Thus Vanguardists realize that there is no real substitute for the slow, painstaking, and difficult work of converting a significant minority of our people to our way of thinking. We have to uphold a radical and absolute vision and then bring as many of our people around as possible.

Yes, indeed.  Less Le Pen and more Golden Dawn. Less Trump and more Salter. Less Alt Right/Alt Lite/Alt Wrong and more EGI Notes.  Let’s talk about the ideas of Yockey rather than obsess over cartoon frogs or civic nationalist political candidates.  How about more emphasis on Codreanu and the Legionary movement and less emphasis on how to boost Marine Le Pen’s vote totals?

And then we have this:

 
We should follow the old Roman maxim, “Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re”: suave, supple, and infinitely pragmatic and persuasive in style — yet firm and steadfast, indeed adamantine and dogmatic about essential principles.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time. Modifying rhetoric and tone?  Certainly. After all, the hard tone of this blog is not meant for the general public.  But modifying core principles?  Absolutely not. And even if we wanted to do so, it doesn’t work.  Mainstreaming fails, time and time again.

…extremists are important. Cultural and political innovations take place on the extremes, at the margins, and then are diffused to — or imposed upon — the mainstream. Thus we should treasure extremists. We should cultivate them. We should encourage their creativity. 

I certainly agree.  I would like to see this attitude actualized.

Then we should steal their best memes and spread them far and wide.

If only people in the “movement” would steal my best memes and spread them far and wide. Please do.

And foremost among those memes is that the “movement” is a complete failure, needs to be deconstructed, and reconstructed starting with first principles.