Category: John Morgan

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 AltRight.com 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.

Stockholm and Morgan: Critical Points

Some comments on the Feb. 25 Stockholm Identitarian meeting as well as Morgan’s Counter-Currents article on the Alt Right.

Some of the speeches were just awkward or silly; no need for me to embarrass those speakers – and infuriate their fanboys – but focusing on those.  I’m also not interesting in hearing about “money and banking.” Although I have some interest in social credit/citizen dividends ideas, I’m afraid if I hear the words “federal reserve” or “fractional banking” I may start weeping.  Ramzpaul’s talk was terribly boring, so I don’t have much to say about it.

How about some more relevant speeches for the state of the Alt Right today?

Hoffmeister’s speech was more or less OK.  Putting aside the “He-Man” stuff – after all, I don’t want to sound like a bitter, neurotic, cranky old fart – the only problems with this talk is the error about Kennewick man, and also the suggestion that Whites had to be in America first in order to have a claim to the territory. For some reason, other racial groups feel no need to justify their own dispossession of earlier aboriginals.  I don’t see the Japanese agonizing over the Ainu, or see standard Negroes regretting displacing Pygmy or Khoisan populations.

Millennial Woes’s speech was interesting, and he admitted the profound “malaise” of the Alt Right since Trump’s election, and cited two legitimate reasons for this.  First, that the Alt Right doesn’t really know what to do next, and seems ill-prepared for the adult, disciplined work to build a real movement to take advantage of Trump’s breaking the “glass ceiling” of American right-wing populism.  Second, the constant attacks against the Alt Right by the System and leftist thugs.  Indeed, this speech legitimizes much of my criticism of the Alt Right – showing their ill-preparedness, both to move forward and to anticipate the obvious response of the Left to Trump’s victory and to the Alt Right’s brief ascent to prominence; their lack of discipline; and their current squandering of the golden opportunity handed to them by the events of 2016.

Kaalep’s (nice haircut there) speech started out well and degenerated into stupidity.  Err…which part of Europe dominated for the past several centuries?  That’s been the north, Kaalep’s “north star” “northern barbarians.” The “over-civilized” Greco-Roman world doesn’t run things now, and not for a long time.  It’s not the “Greco-Romans” who created the 19th century colonialism that is backfiring on Europe through reverse colonialism.  It’s not the Greco-Romans who started the two world wars that wrecked the White world, not the Greco-Romans that created the current EU, and who are running it into the ground.  The lazy and hedonistic PIGS countries – siesta-loving swarthoids with their palms out for handouts – are followers in the EU, not leaders. It’s those “northern barbarian” Germans, led by their Queen Merkel, who are today leading Europe to the abyss.  Instead of having one part of Europe dominating over the other, how about cooperation, with each nation and area maintaining their own identifies?  We don’t need historical revisionism that ignores the last half millennium, or self-serving “my nation will lead us out of the wilderness” navel-gazing.  I support Estonian nationalism, and Kaalep seems to be doing a fine job in his nation.  But it’s ironic that these ethnonationalist types have no qualms about ideas of domination when it’s their folks doing the dominating, eh? 

Now, I don’t want to be too critical here.  Kaalep seems like a sincere fellow, he’s doing good work for his country, he does think about Europe, and he means well.  The problem in general seems to be (shades of the American “movement”) one of too narrow perspectives. Any Euro-swarthoids there? Any Russkis (a giggling “Russian-American” doesn’t count)? They have the likes of Jorjani and Ramzpaul there, but no one from, say, Golden Dawn or Casa Pound was interested?  Are there no Identitarians from Spain or Portugal?  How about a Russian perspective that is independent of Putinism and Duginism?  How about the Ukrainians – what do real nationalists there think about having their sacrifices hijacked by globalists?  Maybe those folks were at the meeting and participated and I somehow missed it; but if so, Der Movement certainly isn’t popularizing such talks. More likely they simply were not there.

Do we always have to hear from the same people spouting the same things over and over again?  If you want a Europe-wide movement, how about having a Europe-wide meeting?

Now we come to Jorjani.  Let’s for a moment forget about the Iranian issue, partially manifested again by the pathetic potshots against the Ancient Greeks (NECs hold grudges, do they not?).  Let’s forget about all the ramblings of the last 2/3 of the talk. Let’s forget that he himself brought up an issue that I previously refused to discuss, his personal situation. Even though he brought it up, it’s not something to dwell on other than to say it is puzzling (for reasons which should be obvious).

Here my major objection is something which constitutes my objection #1 to the Alt Right – their ideological imperialism in the “movement;” the idea that the Alt Right and today’s racial activism are one and the same.  Non-Alt Right activists such as myself object to, and will continue to resist, the Alt Right’s attitude of dominance and entitlement.  I must say that the first 4.5 minutes of Jorjani’s talk constitute some of the most disturbing examples of Alt Right imperialism and premature centralization in Der Movement today. Alt Right corporation…I have a fairly good opinion of Spencer, but the rest of them?  The term “confederacy of dunces” comes to mind.  Who the hell are these people, and this pushy NEC, to be dictating to us all that from now on the Indentitarian Right, broadly defined, “is the Alt Right?”  I give an extended middle finger to that hubris.

Some would say – “it’s survival of the fittest” and if the Alt Right displaces other forms of racial activism, then that’s all for the good.  My reply is that fitness in a particular environment doesn’t always equal the best outcome from the White racial standpoint.  So, if Negroes out-reproduce and displace Whites from a territory, demonstrating superior biological fitness, is that the best outcome?  I would say no.  In a given environment, a roach or a bacterium may be more biologically fit than a human, but that doesn’t mean humans are then obligated to make way for insects and prokaryotes.  That the Alt Right is more fit for today’s pathological “movement” environment tells us we need to change the environment, not that we should embrace the metastatic fitness of the inept Alt Right.

The Alt Right, on the other hand, is a culture primarily of blogs, memes, podcasts, and videos. It has yet to produce a single book or other statement of principles that everyone involved would agree is the quintessence of the Alt Right’s worldview. This is a natural outgrowth of the anti-intellectualism inherent in Anglo-American political and cultural discourse…

Anti-intellectualism is putting it mildly.  But get this:

The American Right (just as the American Left, albeit in different ways) is absolutely obsessed with race: evolutionary theories, comparative IQ scores, crime statistics, and the like.

But at the same time it is anti-intellectual.  Does that make sense?  Actually it does, when one realizes that the “racial science” of the American Right is for the most part a combination of pseudoscience, science fiction, and Ostara-like fantasy.  The paradox of an anti-intellectual “movement” being at the same time obsessed with racial theories and “HBD” is no paradox when you realize that “racial history/HBD/race realism” is anti-intellectual hokum.

In no way can neo-Nazis be regarded as Alt Right or New Right.

You got that right.  Except instead of a cartoonish “neo-Nazi” instead use “principled national socialist.”

We can’t pretend that an Irishman and a Russian are interchangeable.

That canard again.  I want to know – who says that?  Who believes it?  Who advocates that? If ethnonationalists don’t want to be viewed as fundamentally dishonest then you guys really need to stop making the most absurd strawman arguments.

…and who in some cases have even called for political unification between America, Europe, and Russia, is a severe disservice to the diversity inherent in European civilization. 

Some sort of union or confederation need not imperil local distinctiveness. Even Yockey, that advocate of Western Imperium, specifically noted that local identities would be preserved.  

This is not to suggest that there is no basis for Europeans and those of the European diaspora around the world to work together towards common ends, but I believe this can only be rooted in the specificity of particular nations, regions, and traditions, otherwise we will simply be exchanging the cosmopolitan homogenization of global multiculturalism for a “white” form of homogenization. 

More ethnonationalist strawman arguments.  Who is calling for a general homogenization of Whites (other than Hoffmeister in the Intro to Lowell’s book, and I long ago sharply critiqued him for that.  One person.  One. That’s what you build an argument against?

The various European peoples and their offshoots have specific needs and identities, and these must all be respected and nourished under separate and unique institutions. 

Yes, and?

So while I would never suggest that studies of or concern with race are without value, I believe that ethnicity has to take first priority over race as we consider what we are fighting for.

Prioritizing ethnicity over race led to the two world wars that wrecked the White world, directly leading to our sorry state.  Are we supposed to let dishonest ethnonationalists lead us to the abyss again?

Which brings me to two more deficiencies of the Alt Right project, at least as it has played out so far: it lacks any solid economic or geopolitical viewpoint. It’s too focused on problems at home and on identity politics to be worried about the larger picture…I may have sounded very critical of the Alt Right in this talk, and indeed, I think it still has a long way to go before it can be taken seriously as a political movement worthy of contending for actual power, as opposed to the vague influence it exerts today.

You’re getting dangerously close to “old crank” territory there, Morgan.

I think a marriage between the ideas of the New Right and the techniques of the Alt Right can be a very happy and fruitful one.

I don’t know…given what I’m seeing, it’s just as likely we’ll get a marriage between the ideas of the Alt Right and the techniques of the New Right.

Let’s turn all of this around. Let’s consider the grand ethnonationalist Europe with all the atomized nations with their absolute sovereignty. Let’s take Ireland, since that nation has been mentioned. What if Ireland decides to ditch ethnonationalism and solve its “labor shortage” by importing one million hard-working African Negroes. Do they have the right to import Negroes into a nationalist Europe? Yes or no?

Another one (and more dear to the heart of the Majority Rights Silk Road crowd). Let’s say that Ireland decides to conduct a military alliance with China against England, with Chinese military bases on Irish soil.That OK? Yes or no?

If you say yes, well that’s quite interesting indeed, the “logical outcome” of ethnonationalism. If you say no, then you admit to limits to national sovereignty and a racial veto to destructive behavior of individual nations.

Excellent Comment Against the "Lesser of Two Evils" Philosophy

Also an indictment of mainstreaming.

Read here.  Excerpt, emphasis added:

As for Orban “doing the best that he can under the circumstances,” my own feeling is that we need to stop making excuses for politicians. So many people on the Right will excuse their favorite politicians with the reasoning that, yes, they’re doing some reprehensible or negligent things, but it’s all an elaborate cover to keep them in power so that they can enact their REAL agenda. And some people will stick to this line no matter how many times a politician will violate the alleged principles that they supposedly stand for. “It could be worse,” seems to be what the argument boils down to. But I think we should stop settling. That sort of logic is why so many people continue to vote Republican in the US – “Sure, they don’t ever actually do the things I think they should be doing, but they’re still better than those nasty liberals” – in spite of the fact that they’re virtually indistinguishable. I’m not saying Orban is as bad as that, but at the same time, I don’t regard him as being “one of us.” We need to expect more from, and have higher standards for, people who claim to be our leaders.