Selective, very, very selective.
Well, so one of the complaints about the execrable South Asian NEC D'Souza is plagiarism, a charge more mainstream sources have also leveled against the even more execrable South Asian NEC Zakaria. Very good. But then the plagiarism of Andrew Hamilton is ignored, and his boringly repetitive essays praised by movement comment thread peanut galleries. If plagiarism is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it, no?
This sort of "movement" cherrypicking extends to the favorite past-time of "gay-baiting" various "movement" personages. That is 100% politically motivated (here I refer to internal "movement" politics. not real Yockeyian High Politics). After all, there are some august "movement" personages widely rumored to be gay (no names, I don't engage in this sort of womanly gossip-mongering), but who are NEVER the target of the sort of vulgar gay-baiting that takes places on "movement" blogs and comment threads. The reason? Well, gay-baiting in the "movement" is typically done by "activists" belonging to specific "precincts" within the "movement" and they share with those august personages a similar set of beliefs. On the other hands, the targets of the baiting are memetic opponents within the "movement" to those doing the baiting, so the accusations and insinuations come out specifically in those cases (the "movement" being so obviously successful that it can afford to be ridden with this sort of sordid public squabbling). It's clear that there is no principled opposition to homosexuality as such, because a distinction is made between "our guys" (let's not mention the rumors) and "their guys" (mention the rumors at every opportunity). That says more about the character of the baiters than it does the baitees; even more so, it says much about the character of the pathetic cesspool known as the "American racialist movement."