Saturday, July 7, 2018

Comments on Comments: It’s Der Alt Right

When the comments section is better than the original article.

Comments and my riposte.

This is a sad truth we need to face. I cannot recall any revolutionary movement of any consequence, no matter how radical and underground, that did not have the backing of moneyed people.

Yes, it is a shame that wealthy Whites don’t cough up money.  But you know, there IS money in the “movement” and it is wasted.

Correct insofar as the Alt Right needs a supporting infrastructure:
* Info ops
* Self defense
* Legal defense
* Cultural-social activities
* Building fronts with allied groups
* Fundraising (especially, as money drives everything else!)

I’ve been saying this for years.  Although I do think the “movement” is doing OK with respect to the tin cup panhandling (“fundraising”).  It’s everything else that they have trouble with.

I’ve often wondered where are the older, mature and more balanced leaders of the Alt-Right? 

Don’t you know the Millennials have disdain for such people?  And some of these older people don’t pass the Quota Test of Der Movement’s ultra, ultra official affirmative action policy.

There are a few that I’m aware of (e.g., Jared Taylor and others), but I’m not so sure they would identify as Alt-Righters. 

You would be more sure if you had bothered to do a little research.  Here is Taylor describing himself as a “long-standing member of the Alt Right.”  Although, certainly, after Heilgate, the enthusiasm for the Alt Right brand in certain quarters took a precipitous drop.  We wouldn’t want to offend a certain high, high-IQ Levantine tribe now, would we?

They’re also not as perceptive on the ‘Jewish Question’ as many of us would like.

But they are marvelously perceptive on the ‘Hora-Romanian’ question, never mind the dreaded ‘dumb Afrowop question.’

The Left is very good at building such infrastructure, and this pays off in their successful street actions.

The Left, which supports affirmative action in the broader society, practices meritocracy in its leadership.  The Far Right, which opposes affirmative action in the broader society, practices the most ruthless ethnic quota system in its leadership.  And so the Left “is very good at building infrastructure.”  And the Far Right most definitely is not.  Surprise!

(1) In terms of leaders, we need men, not women. Race-conscious White women have their place in our movement (mostly in the realm of support), but they should not be the leaders in it. Any movement that has women as the core of its leadership will not generally attract and inspire men. We need strong, masculine men whom other men will look up to, who will model their ways and conduct before other men who have the potential to serve as future leaders.

Agreed.  No yeastbuckets.

(2) We need men who are older and decidedly more mature than the likes of Richard Spencer and others. This is not meant as an attack on Spencer, but it’s hard to deny that his immaturity has shown through on several occasions with him at the helm. Much of this, I believe, is due to his age and lack of maturity at times. The mistakes of our movement would likely not have occurred as frequently had we started with older, wiser and more seasoned men. Regardless of what has been done in the past, this is something we should at least work toward.

If Spencer wants to challenge his ban from Europe, probably that needs to be done through the courts, rather than trying to sneak in and having Poland’s “right, right, right-wing government”  (it’s all “Visegrad” you know, and all so “based!”) telling him to leave. That’s the maturity problem I guess, similar to what happened several years ago with the Budapest conference (another example of the “based” Visegrad group, I suppose) that was the ostensible impetus for the Spencer-Johnson feud.  Unable to challenge it in court?  Then don’t go.  You’re banned.  Yes, I know, not good.  But maybe if all the Beavis-and-Butthead/cosplay Charlottesville, etc. antics never happened, then things would be different.

(3) We need men who are married (and who have stable marriages especially!) and who have children. This is the ideal, and I recognize that it’s not always possible. Men who are leaders in their home, and who are not ruled by women. I know this will not go over well, but it seems to me that far too many of those on our side are young, unmarried men. A good many are against marriage altogether, and are not particularly keen about having children either. I believe this is the wrong attitude. It is healthy and natural for us to want to marry and procreate, and in this way we will increase our racial numbers and secure a future for our posterity. Condemning the institution of marriage and remaining childless will not be good for our people in the long run. Yes, I know a whole lot of American women are disgusting and rabidly feminist, but there are still some good White women out there. Where there is a will, there is way.

In general, agreed. But we need to solve the social pricing problem if you want more stable family men involved.  That goes back to infrastructure and the lack thereof, which is a failure of leadership.

(4) We need men who are moral and circumspect in life. This means they don’t say one thing and live completely opposite to it. They have consistency in both word and deed. They don’t have to be perfect (none of us are!), but only that their lives are not marked by deviancy, gross immorality, drunkenness, dishonesty, unethical business practices, nor the kind that would turn off the very people we want to reach with our message.

This would seem to eliminate a large fraction of activists, a majority of the leaders, and something like two-thirds of the Type Is.  And the madness of “White nationalists” with yellow fever fetishism is completely absurd.

(5) We need men who fully abstain from mind-altering drugs, marijuana and alcohol. Yes, I know there are some folks who can handle their alcohol and drink moderately, but my message is primarily directed to those who think they can be effective leaders while still consuming products that threaten their mental clarity and decisions. At this stage in our fight against White genocide, we ought to be the most mentally clear, careful and strategic thinkers out there. But this will not likely happen if we are alcoholics or addicted to marijuana. This is not the time to ‘party,’ but to be sober and wise.

The fact something like this has to be written tells you how pathetic Der Movement really us.  But then, again, given that some Alt Right “leaders” and their stepandfetchits make alcohol-enriched half-drunken Beavis-and-Butthead podcasts, this advice is all too necessary.


Spencer has belatedly come to certain conclusions that I’ve been advising for many months – that is, to step back, make a strategic retreat, and build some sturdy infrastructures before stepping back into the public fray.  Now, I don’t believe it will be done right, and have no confidence for success, but at least he has minimally realized the necessity.

Another long Counter-Currents essay that boils down to…Richard Spencer: bad.

Hey, no attacks against Tommy Robinson too?  They’re slacking off over there!

The elements of National Socialism (NS) selected for emphasis by the enemy—military expansionism, Nordicist racial supremacism, sub-Nietzschean megalomania, genocide—were mostly conditional to 1930s Germany, the idiosyncrasies of Hitler, and the fighting of the Second World War. These negative phenomena may have been strongly represented in NS, but they are not the “essence” of the Right…

Really?  I thought these, at least the Nordicism, was at the core of at least the American “movement.”