Category: O’Meara

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.

O’Meara’s Introduction to Yockey’s The Proclamation of London

One critique.

Reading O’ Meara’s Introduction to the latest edition of Yockey’s The Proclamation of London, one unfortunately sees the anti-biological race problem rearing its head again.  The strawman argument is made that so-called biological racial materialism (the adherents of which – like myself – O’Meara doesn’t want to waste his breath on) is all about looking at humanity from the perspective of superiority/inferiority or of a strict genetic determinism.  That is true of Der Movement certainly, and, from a Judeophilic and Asian-worshiping perspective, also true of the HBDers.  But it is not true of a kinship-based racialism that takes the reasonable view that it is adaptive to pursue the promotion of interests of those most closely related to you (genetic kinship), modulated by the numbers involved. That is a core component of my ideology – the Salterian EGI component – of which that there can be no compromise.  Race exists, it is real, population groups differ, genetic kinship differs, and adaptive behavior is tied into the relative levels of that kinship.  Culture is of course extremely important – High Culture/Civilization (using the broad definition, not the strictly Spenglerian distinctions) that includes science/technics – is indeed the most important proximate interest, but genetic kinship is ultimate. I don’t care about, or care for, racial aliens who ape aspects of White Western Culture.  I care about racial Europeans.  When talking about a Race-Culture both aspects are important, and in the order shown: race, then culture.
O’Meara also makes the bizarre argument that racial classifications are arbitrary because Victorian Englishmen saw themselves as more racially similar to Jews than to the Irish.  But here O’Meara is confused, and points the finger of blame in the wrong direction.  What biological science actually says is that indeed the English and Irish are more similar, racially, than either are to Jews (or even to many other European – including NW European – groups).  This belief of Victorian Englishmen was cultural – more akin to the Yockey/Evola “spiritual race” concept than to anything else.  Therefore, O’Meara uses this example of cultural race stupidity to indict biological racial materialism – even though biological racial materialism gives the right answer, and cultural race gives the wrong answer.  The example given is actually supportive of the importance of genetic kinship.  One can also state that total Identity is composed of both biological and cultural characteristics, and that today any racially aware Englishmen would consider himself more similar to the Irish either biologically or culturally than to Jews.
To be fair, apart from this issue, O’Meara’s Introduction is quite good.  This nevertheless is important and the critique, in my opinion, justified.