Category: John Morgan

Will the Real John Morgan Please Stand Up?


Identitarians recognize that internal squabbles only weaken our civilization and distract us from the real problems at hand. We must develop a wider sense of identity and see ourselves as Europeans as much as we are Poles, Norwegians, or Spaniards. Europe is confronted by competitive and hostile forces on all sides – from the Middle East, from Africa, from Asia – even, it pains me to admit, from the United States, which in spite of its origins rarely has the best interests of Europe at heart. This means recognizing that we actually have much more in common with peoples who may have been historical foes than with those who are trying to subjugate and replace us in our own lands. While I am not going to pretend that there were not genuine problems between European rivals, we simply have to set these old conflicts aside and look at the bigger historical picture. Even the European Union is not a bad idea – what is bad about it is the way in which it has been implemented and the destructive neoliberal values that it upholds, but the general concept is a good one. The world is entering a multipolar phase. The Third World is rising, and is not content to allow itself to become the plaything of Western economic interests. In this new reality, Europeans will only survive if we stand together.

Sounds a lot like Richard Spencer…or Ted Sallis.  Quite different from Morgan’s hyper-ethnonationalist stance a little while back.  I obviously agree with Morgan here now as much as I disagreed with him back then.  Will the real John Morgan please stand up?

Do these guys have any ideological foundation or are they all ideologically incoherent?  Can they be trusted?  What do they stand for?  Is it all about “we’re all like real mad at Richard Spencer right now, so let’s mock pan-Europeanism by pretending pan-Europeanists believe that Russians are Irish are “interchangeable?”  Is this all about personality and personal animus and competition?  Looks like that to me.

But there are also various levels to identity. One’s identity can involve all of local, regional, national (perhaps), ethnic (which can be transnational, as with Hungarians), and civilizational (as in Europe) factors. Ideally, all of these levels work together and complement one another. One can be a Flemish regionalist, Dutch, a Belgian, and a European without any of those elements necessarily contradicting the others.

Well, yes.  Concentric circles of interest, anyone?  Sound familiar?  The idea that one can be both a pan-European racial nationalist and be an ethnic nationalist at the same time – sound familiar?  If Morgan believes this – does he? – then what was all the narrow ethnonationalist sound and fury a while back (that attracted a White-hating “I’m the enemy, silly” Asiatrix like a fly to shit *)?

That these fellows want to regurgitate all my talking points dating back to the early 2000s is fine by me – if they were consistent.  But for all I know, a couple of weeks from now, Morgan will be raving again like his earlier piece.

These are serious issues that need to be discussed seriously and not based on inter-“movement” feuding.

As well, how can one separate race and ethnicity?  What is ethnicity without race?  Irishmen are White Europeans, not Black Africans.  Even racially mixed ethnicities (e.g., Latin Americans, Central Asians) are defined by the particular mix of the constituent races.  On the other hand, a race is composed of ethnic groups.  Even if there were widespread interbreeding between the ethnic groups of a race a complete and even panmixia is unrealistic, so that distinguishable sub-groups would still be present.

*Interesting how non-White enemies of White racial interests support ethnonationalism for us…while supporting pan-racial solidarity for themselves.

Alt Right News: Even Worse Than I Could Have Ever Imagined

Delenda est Alt Right.

Morgan’s take on the feud.

I of course have no idea whether any or all of that is true or not.  It seems to be unlikely that Morgan could make all of that up, in such exquisite detail, although it could be that the interpretation of events is slanted. Or not.

The major point in my opinion is that even if a fraction of what Morgan says is true, then the Alt Right is broken beyond repair (and that includes Morgan’s involvement with the Hare Krishnas – even if they are genuine avatars of Hinduism, why should any Man of the West be involved with Hinduism to begin with? Can we stop this insane “Aryan” mythologizing about India, please?).

Getting to the meat of Morgan’s tale – again, if a fraction of that is true, the Alt Right goes way, way beyond mere bad judgment.  And if most (all??!!) is true – then the Alt Right is a raving madhouse beyond all imaging.

And then we have this, which is obviously true:

Furthermore, Arktos’ current Editor-in-Chief is a half-Persian and a practicing Zoroastrian who has already stated his intention of using Arktos to promote his pan-Aryanist beliefs encompassing Persia and India.

That alone should permanently discredit the Alt Right brand.

But, hey, it looks like my prediction of the Alt Right’s collapse is starting to come true sooner than we could have ever suspected.

Betrayed by Pepe?  Say it ain’t so!

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, 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 would be the chan nihilists and Left-wing press they so eagerly cultivate.


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 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.

Der Movement’s Refractory Period

On the unrequited love for the God Emperor.

Here’s an excellent comment in response to my own reply to Morgan at Counter-Currents (emphasis added):

I have found the Alt-Right’s naïvité with regard to Trump baffling and embarrassing. Whatever one might think of the stall he set out prior to his election, was it not absolutely obvious that the man himself is nothing more than a blustering mountebank?
His Presidency is a busted flush now: he has been unable or unwilling to deliver any of his commitments, and the insane intervention in Syria indicates that he cannot even be relied upon to do no harm.
To a European sensibility he comes across as inarticulate, ignorant and vainglorious. If he has such evident difficulty uttering a grammatical sentence what must his thought-processes be like? I regret to say that he seems very much the inferior of Obama in terms of intellect and character. And there is now the very real danger that so erratic a man could impulsively embark upon — or be gulled into — a military confrontation with Russia!
I’m afraid the Trump debacle will be used as a stick to beat the Alt-Right for years to come. Instead of uncritically acclaiming this billionaire hotelier and television celebrity as a ‘God Emperor’ etc the movement could have derived a realistic appraisal from his track-record and known temperament.
A period of reflection is now in order, as they say …

For Der Movement – and particularly Roissy – that “period of reflection” is going to more like a refractory period, right before they hitch up with the next Man on White Horse hero.

Right now, some of these Alt Right guys seem aware of their error, but is this really fundamental reflection as to why they keep on making the same mistakes over and over and over again?

Behold the Alt Right, 4/7/17

Two items.

Kushner the cuck is winning, goy civic nationalist Bannon is losing.  Thus, Trump is morphing into a Neocon: pro-Jewish, pro-Chinese, anti-Russian, obsessed with “conservative” details while ignoring hardcore “blood and soil” issues.

Related to this, further criticism of Morgan and the Alt Right’s 1984-style attempt to rewrite history is as follows. 

A better riposte on my part is to focus on how unreasonable it is to use the word “unequivocally.” Who ever “unequivocally” supports any candidate or even any activist or piece of work?  I do not unequivocally support the work of Salter, and certainly not of Yockey.  Really – I do not even unequivocally support my own work!  There’s always doubts, always room for change, room for improvement, room for admitting you may be wrong.  To use the word “unequivocally” is in my opinion being disingenuous – you can always walk back your previous positions by saying you did not “unequivocally” support them. So what?  Are you going to do nothing and believe in nothing except for those times you “unequivocally” support something?

“Unequivocally” is an unreasonable standard.  Best to say that much of the Alt Right was fervidly and in some cases uncritically supportive of Trump the candidate, Trump the man. In the case of Roissy, it’s been hero worship to the point of hysteria.  The disappointment was easy to predict, as it has happened time and time again, and the “movement” never learns. 

Second, let’s see what the “Goddess” and “Lioness” of the Right is doing. It’s Dynomite!

Really, even if they are just “good friends” – no sure bet given Mudshark Annie’s dating history – that isn’t much better.  She’s “good friends” with that?  Hear the lioness roar!

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Trump Trumps the Chumps

Alt Right mendacity.

Neocon Trump.

I don’t want to be too critical, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to stomach Morgan’s fabrications, first that pan-Europeanists assert that Irish and Russians are identical, and now this laughable distortion (emphasis added):

At no point did I ever unequivocally support Trump, and I can’t think of any major figure on the Alt or New Right who did…

My grammar corrected reply:

That depends I suppose how you define “unequivocally” and who you define as “Alt Right” – but I’d say VDARE, Amren, Occidental Observer, Chateau Heartiste, and Radix all strongly supported Trump’s candidacy, some more strongly than others.  Yes, some – not all – of those sites gave caveats and the usual “I don’t agree with him on everything” but the excitement and the “last chance for White America” breathless hero-worship were there to all to see.   The Chateau folks are still engaging in hero worship. 

I see a bit of re-writing history here.  I see as the reasonable stance during the campaign to support Trump to promote right-wing populism and destabilize the multicultural system – but note that Trump himself is a vulgar ignorant buffoon with no core philosophy and Jewish family connections.  Very few people took that stance.

I’ll give credit to the crew for waking up a bit – too little too late, but better late than never.

Trump is what he always was, and what anyone who’s not a quota queen could see: a blustering, overweight, jackass tweeting, imbecilic, ignorant, Negro-loving, beta race cuck, ignorant buffoon with deep family ties to Jews – what can you expect?  That does NOT change the value of the Trump campaign and the election, nor does it change the (ignored by Der Movement of course) validation of the Lind hypothesis during the primaries. Trump has been useful as a tool. But, you know, when a tool no longer serves its purpose, you use another one.  We perhaps don’t need a hammer anymore, maybe we need a pair of pliers or a screwdriver.

Better yet, we need a plumber’s plunger, to clear up the backed up sewage from Der Movement.

The real problem here is not Trump.  As I said, he is simply being who he is – a jackass. The real problem is with Der Movement, particularly with the Alt Right.  I predicted that they would try and rewrite history and not admit that they were wrong – right again! If only I could time the stock market with such accuracy. But, alas, I’m not Economic Man.  Too bad.