Category: interviews

High-Information Moralizing

And some very important questions at the end.

Consider some of the comments here.

CounterCurrentsTV

CounterCurrentsTV

2 days ago (edited)

You are one of the dishonorable Orc shills that I mentioned in the podcast. Shame on you.

“Orc.”  Apparently, Johnson wrote that “snug in his hobbit hole” out in the forest, where there is “de facto anarchy,” as opposed to the “centralized authority” of the capital.  Lots of maturity there.  I suppose at some point an analysis needs to be done about this whole Lord of the Rings fetish.  Is it an ethnic/subracial thing?  Or just the Type I/Type II divide?

Will to Power

Will to Power

2 days ago (edited)

@CounterCurrentsTV Good to know that you and many others prioritize putting personal vendettas and petty squabbling ahead of what’s in the best interests of the movement. Let’s be honest here, because that’s what this is. Granted I’m not privy to private conversations, but from an outsider’s perspective this looks appalling on your end. And before you go ahead accusing me of being a Spencer shill as well, I’m not. There is a nuanced position to take in this whole affair, and Millennial Woes embodies that perfectly. I don’t have any particular favoritism in this scenario and I really like the both of you two. That’s the case for many people, I’m sure, which is what makes this whole situation so regrettable. Spencer isn’t going anywhere, you’re not going anywhere, Alt-Hype isn’t going anywhere, so the sooner you all come to terms with that reality and restore relations, at least to the point where you don’t dread crossing paths at conferences, the better the movement will be for it. In other words, please pluck your fucking stubborn heads from your behinds, because this is all becoming extremely distasteful.

 

CounterCurrentsTV

CounterCurrentsTV

2 days ago

You don’t recall, huh? Perhaps you should inform yourself before you engage in this kind of low-information moralizing.

There we go again with his favorite phrase “low-information moralizing.”  In my case, I have recently attempted to increase the information content of my moralizing by reading material on, and listening to podcasts on, all the moronic “movement” feuds, scandals, and personal problems, including, but not limited to, such wonderfully moralizing things as “ghoulish” bodypart photos, “fashy” facebook groups, whether or not “movement” celebrities are or are not Jewish, etc., and I have to say that after diving into the “movement” sewer that I prefer to be “low information” thank you very much. Some types of information can’t be unseen or unlearned.  By the way, Der Movement Inc. is so utterly and despicably disgusting that anyone involved in it has no right to cast aspersion on its critics. Clean up your own house first.

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

Richard has admitted that the campus speech tour approach was a mistake — but don’t forget these speeches were at one point quite successful, so it is only since Charlottesville that they became too difficult to do. He is not vainglorious, and he is the public face of the Altright. I accept Greg in the movement, as long as he knuckles down under Richard Spencer and Greg Conte.

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

I wonder if I am the one in this thread labelled an Orc Shill by GJ (Hail, Johnson! Hail Victory!) Look I’ve acknowledged that GJ is a good white identitarian doing a lot of good stuff – I just called for him to drop the vendetta against RS. Indeed this is part of the reason why gay leaders are inadvisable — they bring personal cattiness and bitchiness with them. GJ is demonstrating, personally, the very reason why he should not be “the leader”. As a follower, GJ, welcome aboard.

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

CounterCurrentsTV edited his comment. His comment, in my inbox, read initially: “You are one of the dishonorable Orc shills that I mentioned in the podcast. Shame on you: lying and shilling for that sociopath. Spencer is cancer. “Mistakes have been made” is a nice passive way of saying that Spencer has made catastrophic errors of judgment. These errors are not flukes. They spring from a deeply flawed — narcissistic, dishonest — character. The movement would be better off if Spencer simply retired. ”

Honestly? Richard Spencer is cancer? Richard Spencer is a sociopath? This is just a handbags-at-dawn camp attack.

 

Corporation Camp

Corporation Camp

1 day ago

I have been following this petty beef between Greg and Spencer for years. It has always come from Greg’s side tbh.

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

Yes. Richard Spencer always avoids this stuff in his podcasts.

CounterCurrentsTV

CounterCurrentsTV

1 day ago

The bottom line is: I think the movement would be stronger if Spencer simply retired. He has a track record of terrible decisions, with disastrous consequences. These are not random and accidental. They flow from his bad character. He’s vain, sociopathic, impulsive, dishonest, and self-indulgent. Furthermore, he’s not even an advocate of White Nationalism. He denigrates ethnonationalism and praises the EU and the USSR. He’s simply an incoherent shill for Russian geopolitical interests. Why does Spencer support Putin’s war against “Nazis” (genuine White Nationalists) in Ukraine, but then ruin NPI with Nazi rhetoric and Hitler salutes? If there is a coherent agenda there, it is anti-white. He’s also a terrible spokesman: rambling, inarticulate, and half-baked. Beyond that, Spencer’s one enduring achievement is that he has somehow corrupted otherwise perfectly decent people into being grotesque liars and shills, like “Disappointed Englishman.”

Let’s take a closer look at this last comment.

The bottom line is: I think the movement would be stronger if Spencer simply retired.

I agree.  However I go further and say the “movement” would be even stronger if Johnson, Taylor, Brimelow, Dickson, Duke, TRSMajority Rights, Roissy, et al. all retired as well.

He has a track record of terrible decisions, with disastrous consequences.

Like letting “extremely vetted” meetings get infiltrated multiples times by ludicrously transparent infiltrators?  Like banning people who were not only long-time commentators but also writers for your website?  By getting wholesale on the Trump train, to the extent of stating that he would enact real pro-White demographic change, but never admitting your error?

These are not random and accidental. They flow from his bad character. 

Indeed.

He’s vain, sociopathic, impulsive, dishonest, and self-indulgent.

Indeed, again.

Furthermore, he’s not even an advocate of White Nationalism.

Neither is Johnson, who is an ethnonationalist advocating the possibility of Europeans ethnically cleansing each other.

He denigrates ethnonationalism….

Which supports, and not refutes, Spencer being a White nationalist.  WN is, by definition, nationalism primarily based on race and NOT on ethnicity.

…and praises the EU and the USSR. 

I agree with Johnson’s criticisms here.

He’s simply an incoherent shill for Russian geopolitical interests. 

Perhaps.

Why does Spencer support Putin’s war against “Nazis” (genuine White Nationalists) in Ukraine, but then ruin NPI with Nazi rhetoric and Hitler salutes?

I supported the Ukraininan nationalists, but let’s be honest, they were used to advance a globalist agenda.  Perhaps Spencer was right about that.

If there is a coherent agenda there, it is anti-white. 

Oh, you can say that about the entirety of Der Movement, Inc.

He’s also a terrible spokesman: rambling, inarticulate, and half-baked. 

As opposed to?

Beyond that, Spencer’s one enduring achievement is that he has somehow corrupted otherwise perfectly decent people into being grotesque liars and shills, like “Disappointed Englishman.”

And they’re “crazy and bitter” too!

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

Greg, you claim Richard has bad character, but this video and your comments here provide evidence of your bad character. Honestly. Comments that Richard is cancer, etc. Please up your game! Do you accept that it is not right for a gay man to lead the identitarian right?

CounterCurrentsTV

CounterCurrentsTV

1 day ago

Nobody takes you seriously, orc.

The Ring!  The Ring!  De facto anarchy in the provinces!

Here are the questions alluded to above.  The primary question, and one that should have been asked of Johnson, but was not, is this:

If Richard Spencer is an incoherent, vain, sociopathic, impulsive, dishonest, and self-indulgent cancer, then how has he so quickly risen to a position of high prominence in the “movement?” 

We have to admit that he has surpassed Duke and Taylor as the most well-known Far-Right activist on the American scene, and that he has significant influence and a wide array of allies and adherents.  Doesn’t this mean that Der Movement is full of vain, impulsive, dishonest, self-indulgent sociopaths who would, naturally, accept someone embodying those traits as their leader?  You can’t have it both ways – that Spencer is such a horrible human being but at the same time the “movement” that so readily accepts him is fundamentally healthy.  Either Spencer is not that bad or Sallis is 100% correct about Der Movement, which means that your own character is suspect for your over-the-top critiques of “crazy and bitter” Ted.

Let’s ask more questions.  

If you believe that Spencer is as bad as you say, then doesn’t that mean that the “movement” in which he is a prominent leader must be broken beyond repair?  Doesn’t it mean that Sallis is correct in his characterization of Der Movement as an inept and dishonest chronic failure?  Doesn’t it mean that most American Alt Righters are feckless peabrains, easily manipulated and unable to distinguish true leadership from false?

Isn’t it true that there is an affirmative action program in the “movement” that benefits the likes of Spencer (and you as well), based on ethnic origins?

Further, what does it say about your judgment, and that of Taylor, Brimelow, Derbyshire, and the rest of “the boys” that you all were fooled by Spencer for years and you all wanted a “big tent” Alt Right including Spencer? Why should any of us trust your judgment now?

Advertisements

Some Enlightening Interviews

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

I think the Alt-Right may be on its way out. It seems deeply divided within its own ranks and in trying to assert itself it used shock tactics that have backfired. Another one of its multiple problems has been its largely futile attempt to substitute shocking interviews and dramatic demonstrations for the work of gathering resources.

I also worked with Wilmot Robertson in support of Instauration.

Wilmot Robertson is the noblest person I have met in this cause.

Careful there, Sam, careful, hordes of greasy, five foot tall, hysterically Catholic, superstitious olive-skinned Afrowops will be swarming all over like roaches!  Have no fear though.  “Wilmot” will scare them off by brandishing a magic rune, analogous to a vampires and a cross.

The presenter was a young fellow a few years younger than I was…Politically, he came from the Left. He had had ties to the SDS and had cut sugar cane in Cuba in support of Fidel Castro.

This youngster’s name was Jared Taylor.

The rest is history, indeed.

Griffin Reviews Hawley

A better book review.

Robert Griffin, who phone interviewed me a long time ago for one of his books, seems to me to be a good man and an honest academic.  I am pleased he has written a critical analysis of Hawley’s Alt Right book, a review that is perhaps more objective than the more positive reviews given by (ego-driven?) individuals interviewed by Hawley and featured in the book and who no doubt are positive about the publicity (good for panhandling drives, I guess).

As per Hawley, Griffin notes his obsession about “racism” and “supremacy” and, indeed, anyone who, like Hawley, would write the following is intellectually suspect:

Throughout this text, I use the term ‘white nationalist’ largely because that is the term used by many on the Alt-Right to describe themselves.  But I acknowledge the critique that white nationalism was a term invented to make white-supremacist views more palatable.

True enough, Hawley uses weasel words such as “I acknowledge the critique” without openly saying whether he agrees or disagrees with it (although his fulminations against “racism” is a possible clue here). The bottom line is that the “critique” in question is politically-motivated libel and slander, and is objectively false.  An honest academic would have pointed out the emptiness of the critique and the clear differences between nationalism and “supremacy,” but, as Griffin suggests, Hawley may have been more concerned about his upcoming tenure application as he is about White “racism” and “supremacy.”

I give Griffin’s review a 10 out of 10.