When I received the below Tweet, I had not thought it was actually Collin Liddell. He has been rude and weird in his attacks on me in the past, but I had to assume that this sort of thing was below him.

@stormer9k pic.twitter.com/0BxY563lYG

— AlternativeRight (@NewAltRight) November 8, 2015

Upon looking at the Twitter account, and realizing that it was indeed Liddell, I again gave the benefit of the doubt in my mind, assuming he was perhaps drunk, or simply having a very bad day (both things do happen to the best of us).

When I was linked to the article that he had created this image for on Alternative Right, I was shocked. The piece, entitled “JOINING THE DOTS ON ANDREW ANGLIN,” is a rambling, bizarre personal attack, wherein an outrageous conspiracy theory about me is presented. Though the piece is framed as a response to my criticism of Richard Spencer, there is virtually no mention of anything that I presented in the piece.

Liddell begins by openly bragging that he attempted to use the New York Times, arguably the most powerful Jewish media outlet in the world, to attack me and promote Richard Spencer. After I refused to engage the journalist, Stephanie Saul, who had repeatedly emailed me, began looking for people who had written about me, and found Liddell.

Opening with this, he quickly descends into a childlike name-calling tirade, accusing me of being secretly Black.

But what struck me about Saul’s overtures was that she seemed mainly interested in talking about the Daily Stormer. This is what first alerted me to the fact that the article was not actually going to be about White Nationalism, because the Stormer is not White Nationalism.

But why did Saul come to me? The reason is that she naively figured I would be good for some useful quotes, having written extensively on Andrew Anglin and the Stormer in a number of articles here, here, and here (read them, they’re fun). She was looking for quotes that would allow her to build the Stormer up into the centerpiece of her article and the face of White Nationalism. It is not and never could be.

Those articles were written last year, my main post responding to them is here.

Naturally I sensed this and took a conscious decision to frustrate her intentions by playing down the Stormer, telling her it was just a childish troll site (certainly its modus operandi) and that none of what it said should be taken at face value. I then recommended that she pay more attention to the The Right Stuff and The Daily Shoah, a much more engaging and effective form of White Nationalist trolling/humour/debate, and certainly funnier and better informed than the dreary formulaic “Heil Hitler” boilerplate churned out by the boring Mr. Anglin. TRS is also run by people I can vouch for, as they don’t avoid interactions on the internet, unlike Anglin who remains a suspiciously elusive personality.

Perhaps the most forthcoming bit of Anglinia (yes, sounds like a nasty infection) was the recent interview he did with Red Ice Radio, where he came across as a much milder and low-energy guy than his image as the reincarnation as Julius Streicher – another baldy like Anglin, but one that didn’t look quite so much like an octoroon as Anglin, who no doubt shaves off his frizz. (Was it my imagination or did Anglin flinch when Lana in her breezily toneless English-as-a-second-language sort of way referred to Blacks as “monkeys?” Well, listen for yourself.)

I am a secret Black and I shave off my frizz and am offended by people calling Blacks monkeys.

Wow. Just wow.

He then expands his conspiracy theory by inadvertently complimenting my phenomenal output.

One of the things that is most suspicious about Anglin is his supposed work rate. Go to the site yourself and count how many articles, purportedly written by Anglin, appear every day. While a lot of these articles are just copy and paste reworkings of normal news items with a bit of Heil Hitler schtick thrown in, some of them, like his recent hit piece on Richard Spencer and the NPI conference, are of considerable length. I’m a fast writer, but I could not manage that kind of output even if I made my articles as boilerplate boring as Anglin’s and took plenty of speed.

The only rational explanation for this is that Anglin is more than a one-man band, but who are the other nameless members of his troll gang and who are the paymasters? These are questions that are not likely to be answered, but are questions that should be forever kept in view when dealing with the topic of the Stormer. From now on, to emphasize this hidden workforce, I will only refer to Anglin in the plural.

So I’m secretly a Black man who works for Jews and has a team of people writing my pieces. He knows this because I shave my head and write too much for a mortal man.

This is now not simply a series of personal insults, but a full-on tinfoil hat-tier conspiracy theory.

@stormer9k all Colin Liddell his done screaming like a monkey about you is convince me he's a fucking kike tool.

— Andrew Auernheimer (@rabite) November 8, 2015

Who is he trying to sell this to? He prides himself on appealing to an allegedly more intelligent demographic than I appeal to, and yet I cannot imagine anyone with an IQ over 90 buying into something like this.

Presumably, he does not actually believe it himself, but believes that he can convince others it is true.

We see that he believes tricking and lying to people is the best method to convince people of things when he does briefly address a real criticism I have of the Richard Spencer approach – that he downplays the Jewish issue, and attempts to pander to the Jewish media, regardless of the fact they will call him a Nazi whatever he says.

An impartial reader might think the Anglins have a point and that, yes, White Nationalists should completely insulate themselves from the media, but the Anglins only have a point if one assumes (a) that Spencer is completely naive about ethnocentric Jews, (b) that most Whites are not put off by Streicher-esque “gas the Kikes” anti-Semitism, and (c) that the media is an irrelevance.

Here again he is either misunderstanding or pretending to misunderstand what I have said.

Point-by-point:

(a) I don’t think that Spencer ignorant of the Jewish problem, I believe he purposefully downplays it both because he is connected to Jews such as Paul Gottfried, feels the donor-base may be offended by more aggressive anti-Semitism and perhaps because he genuinely believes the general public will be more attracted to him if he never has a definite, clear position on anything.

(b) “Gas the kikes,” which is repeated continually by Liddell as the core of my presentation, is a joke from /pol/. It is generally followed by “race war now.” The purpose of it is to demystify the Holocaust myth through mockery of the entire narrative – both the fable of gas chambers, as well as the image of “Nazis” as evil genocidal maniacs.

And yes, I do think young people are open to mockery of the Holocaust, demonization and outright dehumanization of Jews. One would think the popularity of this site demonstrates that. It is basic human nature to desire to put blame on an external force for the problems of the group, and it just so happens that this external force is actually demonstrably responsible for our problems.

(c) The mainstream media is indeed irrelevant to me, but then I am sitting on a site with millions of unique visitors a month. I am not opposed to someone using the media to their own ends, what I am opposed to is pandering, apologies and backtracking. I also find the idea that you are going to trick the Jewish media into supporting you (or at least not being as hard on you) by lying to them to be utterly nonsensical.

This is the one paragraph where he actually attempts to directly counter an argument I’ve made:

I know Richard pretty well by now, as do many others in our movement, and none of us would ever call Richard naive on the JQ. As for the palatability of Streicher-esque anti-Semitism, it is certainly palatable for many White Nationalists – indeed in-itself it hardly bothers me as history is full of unsavoury characters and I rather like history – but for other Whites, not to mention those Jews who might want to identify as Whites and help our cause (and there are some), it is certainly a different story.

What he is apparently saying is that Spencer knows the Jews are at the root of the disease which has infected Western civilization, but believes it better to deceive people because they might get offended by the truth. I have absolutely no idea whether or not this is Spencer’s actual belief, but this is how Liddell is framing it.

He then indicates that we need to be very conscious of the fact that there are good Jews who may support us if we are nice to them. I don’t know how to respond to that, except to say that I disagree, and do not believe pandering to the “good White Jews who support us” should ever, at any point, enter the mind of any White activist.

Liddell concludes:

Knowing what I know, and parsimoniously deducing what I don’t know, I conclude that the Daily Stormer is a fake White Nationalist site, created by our enemies in order to soak up White Nationalist resources and sentiment and deploy them towards self-ghettozing those Whites already aware of their interests, and thus separating them from those who aren’t. The actions of the Anglins, however many there turn out to be, point unerringly in that direction.

The idea that I am alienating people with my methodology is not in itself offensive, and may be worth discussing. I would of course be open to considering this. However, the entire conspiracy theory becomes superfluous in the context of such a discussion, as the ideas and their outcome should be able to be judged on their own merit by anyone with normal intelligence. Saying “I think it’s because he’s secretly a nigger who works for Jews” draws attention to the fact he is incapable of properly formulating a criticism of my work, as I believe I have done with Spencer’s positions (right or wrong, I was respectful and voiced genuine ideas).

Hilariously, under the conclusion that I am soaking up White Nationalist resources, there is a PayPal button. I have been banned from PayPal as well as every other popular payment system for over a year.

Radix is also able to accept donations using PayPal.

Right now, I function exclusively on Bitcoin and cash through the mail contributions. Heidi Baruch of the SPLC has bragged about shutting down my PayPal account.

Just a bit of real talk here: I function on an incredibly small amount of money. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t even care. All of my personal energy is involved in stopping these Jews, and as long as I have money for food and lodging, I don’t even think about it.

Funny though that secret Black secret agents of the Jews would be banned from using PayPal while the one true force to fight the enemies of Whites would be openly using this service without a problem.

@Pr0tocolsrReal @stormer9k and who reads them anymore? Nobody. DS has millions of monthly UVs, they have hundreds, maybe thousands.

— Andrew Auernheimer (@rabite) November 8, 2015

Pretending He has No Idea What’s Going On

Liddell was apparently trying to pretend he was not aware that much of the content on this site is intended to be humorous in nature. However, in the comments section he admits that he knows we are joking, but he just doesn’t think it’s funny. He does think TRS is funny, however, and this is a site which has two podcasts named for Holocaust jokes – “Between Two Lampshades” (for Colin: this is a reference to the claim that Nazis made lampshades out of Jewish skin) and “The Daily Shoah” (for Colin: “Shoah” is the Hebrew word for “Holocaust”).

This is the Twitter avatar used by TRS:

(For Colin: Yes, that is an oven, and yes, it is being used as a joke about Hitler incinerating Jews.)

In the comments section he even goes so far as to say he approves of /pol/, which is obviously the source of most (read: all) of my material.

The fact that he endorses sites that use Holocaust humor aggressively, but condemns me for doing that exact thing (in fact, that appears to be his only non-conspiracy theory related complaint), presumably demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that whatever his issue here is (I’m not clear on this), it is personal, and not ideological. Thus the lack of any real attempt to say anything at all in this long article he’s produced.

Who knows – maybe his reasoning in supporting TRS and attacking me is that he knows I wouldn’t agree to go to a conference with an open homosexual presenter and not talk about Jews?

Also in the comments section, where well over 95% of people were disagreeing (much of it was “I’m no fan of Anglin, but…”), both RamZPaul and Greg Johnson disagreed.

Thanks, @ramzpaul for not endorsing the Liddell theory. I think you're funny too. pic.twitter.com/2mUVLH1lKS

— Andrew Anglin (@stormer9k) November 9, 2015

Thanks @NewRightAmerica (Greg Johnson) for not endorsing the Liddell theory. pic.twitter.com/pQXcm4Azwi

— Andrew Anglin (@stormer9k) November 9, 2015

Neither of these people presumably like me very much, but neither do they wish to be associated with this sort of weird attack, and (also presumably) fear that they will be if they don’t denounce it, given that Liddell is a part of their clique.

RamZPaul endorsing me as sometimes funny means more than Johnson saying I’m not funny.

I do think I’m funny.

For the record, because this has come up, I do write all the articles with my name on them. If it doesn’t have my name, I didn’t write it.

Also, to RamZPaul’s point about me turning around and accusing Liddell of being a secret agent because he called me a secret agent – I have not and won’t do that, given that the entire concept is ridiculous and nonsensical. Clearly, if someone is a secret agent, they are going to be pushing ideas which are destructive to the movement, but a person pushing destructive ideas does not necessarily mean they are a secret agent.

As such, my position is that (short of someone being publicly outed as a fed) the only thing that is ever appropriate to address are the ideas themselves.

I don’t have this idea simply because I don’t want to look as ridiculous as Liddell presently looks, but because I genuinely believe there is nothing to be gained by throwing around wild accusations.

For those interested, the comments section on that article is still open, though being heavily censored by Liddell. He says it’s because people disagreeing with him have “said enough.”

The Irony of This

The weirdest – and perhaps most hilarious – aspect of this fit Liddell has thrown is that his basic position is that I am not professional enough to meet his standards. He then attacks my alleged lack of professionalism by saying “he’s a secret nigger working for Jews – I know this because he shaves his head and types really fast.”

As anyone who reads my work is aware, I would never attack anyone in this way. Not because it is merely “unprofessional,” but because it is disgusting and vulgar, and I maintain a higher level of self-respect than would allow me to sink to that level.

What is perhaps even more ironic is that his reasoning for attacking me appears to be my popularity, while his criticism is based on the idea that I will never be popular.

The Numbers are In

I believe that actions should be taken in light of data. I am not psychologically married to Holocaust humor or pictures of Hitler. The reason that I use these methods is because I believe they work, in that they attack the core basis of Jewish power, which is the demonstrably nonsensical mythology surrounding WWII. What’s more, they have been demonstrated to work. This site gets hundreds of times more traffic than Radix Journal or Alternative Right.

I am genuinely incapable of comprehending how one could look at the disparity in popularity between my presentation and that of the “Alt-Right,” and determine that mine is less “palatable.” Objectively, this position is false, based on existing data.

And yes, I have based my methodology on the propaganda strategy of the Third Reich (modified with modern American humor), because this was a scientific strategy. The Alt-Right argument is that times have changed, and that emotionally-charged, raw, simplified truth, focusing on the demonization of the other as a primal enemy, no longer works. But their argument cannot be demonstrated, or even explained (if it could be explained, Liddell would have focused on that instead of a typing-speed conspiracy theory about me being a secret team of Black Jewish secret agents).

I am fully open to genuine criticism, and if data can be produced demonstrating that their methodology is more effective than mine, I would have no problem admitting I was wrong. Right now, however, virtually the entire White web is criticizing NPI in much harsher terms than I am, and there is no evidence that the conference served to spread the message to people who had previously been uninterested, or even that the media they attempted to use to spread their message communicated that message to a single individual.

In my view, this “times have changed” line of reasoning is not actually based on anything, given that basic human psychology – which is what propaganda is designed to deal with – has not changed.

An Embarrassment to the Entire “Alt-Right”

Looking at this article, and the backlash Colin Liddell has already gotten, I genuinely feel embarrassed for him as an individual and the entire crowd associated with him. This is not the image you want, that whenever someone offers genuine criticism of you, someone from your group photoshops them into a nigger.

Liddell is, of course, an individual, and I have no problem accepting that he was acting entirely alone when he decided to produce this defamatory gibberish.

@stormer9k he's part of a larger pool of people serving the Jew, and he's playing the Rand to your Trump. Everyone else is scared to hit you

— Andrew Auernheimer (@rabite) November 8, 2015

However, Liddell is very close with Richard Spencer. They do a podcast together several times a month. What has happened here would be analogous to my colleague Sven Longshanks publishing an article saying that Richard Spencer was a secret Black working for Jews. If this were to happen, I would not only completely cut-off the working relationship with Sven, but I would come out and publicly distance myself from him and the statements.

I have asked Richard Spencer several times on Twitter if he will be distancing himself from this, and he has not yet responded.

@jackthe_homie It looks horrible. I'm embarrassed for these people. @RichardBSpencer is going to need to make a statement on this.

— Andrew Anglin (@stormer9k) November 8, 2015

Liddell is also sometimes published on The Occidental Observer, which is a site I have only the greatest respect for.

It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with by the larger whole of this group, as any sort of endorsement of irate personal attacks on Whites who you dislike for unclear reasons is possibly worse than the initial criticisms about the way the event itself was handled.

Genuine Criticism

Most of the internet has reacted negatively to the conference, and I think that there is a duty for those involved to at least acknowledge this reality, and further elaborate on what may simply be misinterpretation.

The primary concern appears to be with the inclusion of Jack Donovan as a speaker at the conference. I have only recently become aware of this fact (I had only really read a few of his essays, not paying particular attention), but Jack Donovan is an open homosexual. And he is not particularly modest about it either.

Here’s a post he wrote on the Roosh forum regarding his orientation and sexual behaviors:

Yeah, I’ve been a top for years. I basically fuck men like they are women — but I’m glad that they’re not. I’m banging this jacked rich liberal right now. Probably the best piece of ass I’ve ever had. I’ve had sex with women, but I’ve been with one guy for 14 years, so there is no question of…switching teams…in any meaningful way. He’s a good guy who supports me and my work and always has. I have a dude on the side, but it’s all on the level, and betraying Lucio — who became blood-brothers with me for my second book, and has my initials tattooed (by me) on his arm — because I decided to “explore other ideas for philosophical reasons” would be the homo version of “Eat, Pray Love.”

As far at The Way of Men is concerned: It’s either right or it isn’t. A lot of the ideas came from conversations with my straight friends about their frustrations with their lives. It’s not about me “converting” people. Let’s be real. I’m a jacked tattooed guy who is more or less a skinhead. Do you for a moment think I can’t get laid? The reality is I can post a pic to a hookup app and have someone blowing me inside of 3 hours. I’ll be able to pull prime ass from dudes with daddy issues for the next 10 years.

I don’t need to creep on straight guys to get laid, and everything I’ve ever written on the subject would make it unforgivable for me to do so.

There are other posts on the Roosh forum (and presumably elsewhere on the internet) where Donovan talks in explicit terms about gay sex.

Surely, people have a right to ask (without being photoshopped as a Black): Is someone who brags about “fucking men like they were women” and pulling “prime ass from dudes with daddy issues” someone we want as a leader in the White movement?

We are also left wondering if Donovan was invited in spite of his sexuality or because of it. Was this merely “ah it’s just one guy and he isn’t flaming so it’s not a big deal,” or was it part of an attempt to redirect the narrative towards homosexualism? It seems to me that unless you purposefully wanted to alienate the traditionally-minded wing of the White movement (or perhaps make a statement of “tolerance” to the Jewish media), the potential benefits of having Donovan speak would be outweighed by the implicit (explicit?) endorsement of open homosexuality as a part of the “New Right.”

Spencer himself has written that he wishes to include people who are “passionate about gay issues,”
indicating that those who are disrespectful to homosexuals will be banned from his conferences.

Our conferences will include people who hold many different views on religious, social, sexual, historical, and political matters. We do not exclude anyone for, say, being a Buddhist, Pagan, Catholic, or atheist, or for being passionate about gay issues or thinking that they are not important. We hope that such questions can be discussed respectfully at our conferences.

NPI will, however, exclude those who show reckless disregard with the media, or those who’ve made morally indefensible public statements. Such people make our movement look bad. We choose not to grant them a platform. It’s as simple as that.

Obviously, I am not the only person who is going to take issue with all of this.

People were also bothered by the way Spencer dealt with the media. Though there were many cringe-worthy bits within the Huffington Post and Daily Beast articles that were written on the event, this bit in both pieces was especially frustrating:

From the former:

“The Jews exist precisely because they were apart, precisely because they had, maybe you could say, a bit of paranoia about trying to stay away — please don’t quote paranoia,” Spencer said.

From the latter:

Spencer tried to phrase his thoughts on the whiteness of Jewish people carefully. “The Jews exist precisely because they were apart,” he said. “Precisely because they had a sense of apartness—perhaps you could say a little bit of paranoia, about trying to stay away. That’s a clear aspect of Jewish—”

Then he caught himself. Jewish paranoia is an old anti-Semitic trope, and Spencer didn’t want to come across to the press like some old Nazi. He’s young and articulate and handsome in a generic way, a bit like a local TV weatherman. His aim is to give fascism a human face.

“Please don’t quote ‘paranoia,’” he said with a nervous smile, as he glared at the three journalists who showed up at his press conference Saturday afternoon.

That is open backtracking on the Jewish question before the Jewish media that Spencer invited to the event.

This is the header image that the Daily Beast used for the article on the conference:

What this appears to indicate (yet again) is that no matter how hard you try to pander to Jews and their media, you will be portrayed as a Nazi/KKK/genocidal maniac. This makes it very hard to accept in the abstract the concept that it is important to try to trick the media. I just simply cannot grasp the logic being employed here.

As quoted above, Liddell claims that Spencer understands the Jewish problem but doesn’t make it a primary focus because he thinks Whites (and “Jews who might want to identify as Whites and help our cause” – can’t forget those) will not accept a message which focuses on Jews. However, if the only place Whites are going to hear this message is via the Daily Beast and the Huffington Post, even if it is true that people prefer a message which doesn’t include Jews as the focal point, it doesn’t matter because everything they hear from Spencer will be framed within “he’s actually lying and trying to trick people” – which according to Liddell is an accurate description of what he is doing.

My ideas on the lack of appeal of a message seemingly designed to alienate normal people was included in my previous piece on this topic (here, again), so I won’t rehash that, but it is worth responding to the Liddell meme that I am “ghettoizing White Nationalism.”

If this is an accurate claim, there needs to be data to support it, and I am not seeing any such data. The numbers themselves say quite a bit about what people are interested in, and this entire revolt against the NPI conference which is taking place across the internet certainly appears to indicate that if anyone is “ghettoizing,” it is the NPI crowd.

Of course, maybe this is wrong, and I just don’t get it. But if that is the case, I cannot expect Colin Liddell to explain to me what I don’t get, as he has made it clear that all he is interested in is name-calling and conspiracy theories.

In Conclusion…

I want to state clearly that I am not arguing here that Spencer is “hurting the movement” with his conferences. Unlike Liddell, who blames me for his own lack of appeal, I believe that I and those I associate with have enough agency that our actions are not limited by the actions of others who identify as pro-White. I will continue to speak frankly about my views on homosexuals and Jews and work with and endorse others who do the same, and for the foreseeable future The Daily Stormer will remain the most popular pro-White website.

I would be lying if I said that I was not concerned about outlets such as Red Ice and TRS being co-opted by a new form of White nationalism which embraces homosexualism and avoids open discussion of Jews, but these people are adults and their decisions on this matter are none of my business.

Ideally, I would like to see Richard Spencer and the rest of this “alt-right” crowd alter their methods and adopt something which is more geared toward populism. It wouldn’t take much, all things considered, and I will continue to hope this happens.

I am not the type to hold a grudge. I don’t even feel angry at Liddell for attacking me in this weird way. I am not an emotionally-driven person. All I want to do is stop what is happening with these Jews, period. I have no other interests, and certainly don’t care about the personal feelings of people I have never met.

It is also worth noting, just for the record, that I never had the intention to become as popular as I have become. This is just something which happened as a result of me being myself. I have never had the intention, as Liddell contends, of being the “face of White Nationalism.” My entire adult life (since I was in my late teens), I have used the internet to voice what I thought was correct, and many of my earlier views were very different, as is often the case with people in their teens up through their twenties. A drive to publicly state what I believe to be true is a part of my personality.

New selfie exposes true face of a secret nigger-jew Nazi army: blue eyes, yellow eyebrows and beard, pink skin. pic.twitter.com/FWmiCS65FH

— Andrew Anglin (@stormer9k) November 10, 2015

Beyond this, I have no desire to be any sort of political leader, so I am not at all fit to be the “face of White Nationalism.” In a perfect world, I would be endorsing and working for the goals of a political leader who has modeled himself after David Duke. Richard Spencer could become that person, but he is not currently that person. Currently, besides David Duke, who is not presently active in politics, there is no person of the caliber of David Duke around to endorse, but I do my best to endorse whoever is politically active who shares my value system.

My one goal is to stop the Jews by spreading the message of what they are doing to us. I am only a man, and cannot be expected to do everything right, but I do my best.

And that is what I’ll keep doing until they put a bullet through my head.

Hail Victory.

Richard Spencer better hurry up and get a grip on this Jew problem – the problem is getting a grip on him.

Reporting on Spencerfest 2015  – which took place at the National Press Club (wow) – for the Huffington Post, the Jewish kike Samantha Lachman titled her piece “White Nationalists Gather On Halloween To Discuss How Oppressed They Are.”

The Jew Lachman writes:

They’re not racist, they just want a white ethno-state.

The 150-plus white men who gathered on Halloween to discuss their shared European heritage and identity insisted they don’t think they’re better than other races.

They’re simply different, they said.

That all seems fair enough, that’s just like the Jews with their own ethnostate, they don’t think they’re better they just – wait –

Okay, so it’s slightly different than Jews. But it’s the same basic concept.

They’re “white advocates” and “identitarians.” “Racial idealists” or “racial communitarians.” The label “white supremacists,” to them, is a political “scare term” created by liberals and groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to undercut “legitimate” white interests.

The conference, called “Become Who We Are,” invited other white people to gain this race consciousness so their revolution can move off Twitter, blogs and online journals and into the mainstream. Discussion topics included “The Origins of the White Man,” “The Tragedy of Southern Identity” and “Why We Will Win.”

“There’s something radical about actually being public and talking about these views seriously,” said Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, which organized the conference. “There’s a tendency in our movement to embrace the fringe — we want to be alienated from society, we want not to be taken seriously.”

???

It’s a strange statement to make to the media. Who is being accused of doing this, exactly?

“We’re trying to make this a sensible position that all white people need to think about,” he said.

Nonetheless, conference attendees wore name tags that revealed only their first names.

Spencer referenced the red pill in the movie “The Matrix” to suggest that white people were becoming “red pilled” — awakened — by their reality or lived experiences.

“You can’t get away from this general tendency to delegitimize the white man,” he said. “We totally recognize the fact that our views are considered beyond the pale, or awful — but we’ve got to start this way. The gay movement had to start at some point, Zionism had to start in the 19th century when that was considered a ridiculous, terrible notion.”

Wait – what are the gay movement and Zionism considered now?

I forget.

Oh right. They’re horrible, destructive things that are loved by Jewish kikes. Maybe pretending to think they’re good will make Jewish kikes like you.

It’s a strategy that has worked well in the past, lets roll with it (WINK WINK WINK).

After all – and correct me if I’m wrong – the gay rights movement and Zionism both got their demands met by tricking people into thinking they believed things they didn’t believe while making the insignificant sacrifice of alienating their own primary support base on a fundamental level.5

We gotta go with what works.

Of course, this insistence that their views are based on genuine differences rather than a sense of superiority is undercut by the sort of rhetoric their community uses to describe traits they believe are inherent in other races or ethnicities. Jews are manipulative. African Americans are lazy or violent. Latinos are free-riders who are stealing American jobs. Etcetera.

This reporter, who is Jewish, was one of three journalists who attended a conference session open to the press at the National Press Club in the heart of Washington. A sentiment among the event’s speakers and attendees is that Jews have rigged the American political system to encourage more open immigration policies, so they can bond together with other minorities and subjugate Americans of European ancestry.

But Jews, they said, have maintained a cohesive identity, and there’s much to admire about that.

“The Jews exist precisely because they were apart, precisely because they had, maybe you could say, a bit of paranoia about trying to stay away — please don’t quote paranoia,” Spencer said.

Maybe do a few more interviews with Jews, then learn that they will quote you even when you tell them not to quote you. I’d say it takes between 60 and 75 interviews with Jewish journalists to figure out they are dishonest people.

After 100 to 130 interviews with Jewish journalists, you figure out that saying nice things about Jews doesn’t make them like you more.

As a rule, it takes approximately 3500-4500 interviews with Jewish journalists before you realize there is nothing to be gained from interactions with Jewish journalists, and then don’t even bother inviting them to your conferences.

“The opposition to intermarriage. The creation of their own state. The recreation of their language. This is the greatest triumph of racial idealism in history. All we’re asking for is equality. The same right that Jews claim for themselves,” said Sam Dickson, an attorney who advocates for breaking up the United States to create a white ethno-state. (Dickson has represented the Ku Klux Klan in court.)

Yes, beg the Jews for equality. It’s a method which simply cannot fail. These Jews will eventually feel pity and give it to you.

It’s inevitable.

Dickson suggested that white people “could give” black people Massachusetts and New York — “blacks could be given Manhattan” — while whites would take states like Iowa. He said the white ethno-state of his imagination would be open to all whites, liberals and conservatives alike.

“White people, as we’ve become a minority, will not be able to live in a state of severe repression and discrimination,” he said. “Our ethno-state will not be a meeting of the Tea Party; it’s not going to be the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s going to be a genuine ethno-state with Christians, Catholics, alcoholics, teetotallers, gay people — it’s not going to be a subset of the right.”

Yes, explicitly say that you are going to include gays – that will make White nationalism more popular with progressives. Brilliant strat, wouldn’t have thought of it myself.

There were only about 12 or so women at the conference, which is perhaps understandable given that white nationalists on Twitter want to #BringBackThePatriarchy and force women back in the kitchen, 1950s style.

I want to do that. I’m pretty sure Richard Spencer doesn’t want to do that. But go ahead and associate him with that, because he isn’t going to blame you personally or Jews as a group, but will instead blame me.

Despite its timing, none of the conference’s attendees wore costumes. They were frightening enough dressed as themselves.

Cute ending, Jew! You should be writing for The Big Bang Theory! Neat!

The Serious Part of This Article

I do not attack other White advocates, and I never will. Even while Richard Spencer once called me a cuckservative, and his right-hand man Colin Liddell repeatedly accused me of being a secret agent for talking about the Jewish gas chamber hoax, I have no reason to show anything but support for these people, because for me, this is not about feelings or ego, but rather about stopping these kikes. Somebody has to do it, and I don’t care who as long as it gets done.

That said, I think constructive criticism is valid and indeed necessary. I do not think that it can be construed as damaging to their cause to state my opinion on their methods.

We have the same goal, which is White countries for White people, so I have no reason not to want Richard Spencer to succeed.

The issue here is that they are coming at this from an angle which I don’t think can possibly be effective. I am not concern-trolling, I am genuinely concerned.

No revolution has ever succeeded on the rallying cry of “we’re normal middle class people, please just leave us alone, please, I’m begging you leave us alone, please.” This is not a position that can incite populism, and it is impossible to have a revolution without populism.

We have a record of the way political revolutions work. The French, Bolshevik and NSDAP revolutions, for instance (two violent, one non-violent) all were based in movements which focused exclusively on the working class. Some intellectual elite supported these revolutions, but they didn’t need it explained to them why they should support them.

No White political leader in America would be expected to hang out with working class people and talk about pick-up trucks, guns, team sports and Jesus. They would, however, have to make it known to these people that they understand and care about them, and that they are fighting for their interests. My head comes close to exploding trying to comprehend how this simply reality would not be obvious to anyone and everyone.

The conference itself is not the issue necessarily. The amount of money and energy poured into it could be an issue, I suppose, but I don’t know the details of that and can’t comment; all things being equal, conferences can be a good thing. However, it seems that these people believe that the conference is somehow an end in and of itself. That end, apparently, is to look normal and by doing so get normal people to think you are normal and then become White nationalists.

Again, there is no historical precedent for this approach, just as there is no historical precedent for a revolution composed exclusively of the upper-middle class and indeed appearing, to the casual observer, to purposefully exclude and alienate working class and even lower-middle class society.

In the above interview with the Jew he invited to report on the conference, Spencer explicitly says that the purpose of the conference is to bring people off the internet into the real world. Political rallies which focused on popular issues such as immigration or Black crime would be a better way of doing this, would get a whole lot more people involved – and hundreds or thousands of times more press coverage.

I’m not even totally clear on the concept here, but presumably, press coverage is the idea, right? Otherwise it makes no sense, because no one who doesn’t already know who Richard Spencer is – from seeing him on the internet – and (at least for the most part agree with him) is going to the conference, meaning that this conference does nothing to expand the movement, or reaching out to create awareness at all.

Besides the above Huffington Post article, the only other piece on this event appears to be a Raw Story blog about the Huffington Post article, and a local DC news piece about antifa (led by Mike Isaacson, lol) protesting the event.

And a Daily Beast piece which features this header image.

This is the same image they would have used if I had thrown a Stormer conference where all attendants were required to wear SS uniforms and speakers did nothing but make gas chamber jokes; again, this speaks to the logic of making it a priority to try and get the Jewish media to be fair with you.

Again, I’m not being disparaging here, but the #BoycottStarWarsVII hashtag had tens of thousands of articles written about it and was featured on every major television news outlet. A bunch of Hollywood celebrities came out and commented on it. I dare say, this did a lot more to normalize White nationalist sentiment than Spencer’s conference, and it did so among the disenfranchised youth demographic that matters most.

Back when there was a bit of drama between myself and some of the allegedly high-brow White nationalists, Greg Johnson wrote a piece responding to my claim that middle class baby boomers are a demographic which is both impossible to appeal to and largely worthless for any type of political revolution, saying that they were worth appealing to because they have money. Well, what is the purpose of this money? What are they going to do with the money? Get better cocktails and hors d’oeuvres for their conferences?

What good is a political movement without people?

In order to get people you need a popular, simple and emotional message which is repeated over and over again, and you need a charismatic leader to say it over and over again with passion that inspires people. This is a scalable model. There is no other workable model for political revolution.

It isn’t really complicated at all. And it is scientific fact, as it has been tested and repeated. Trump is repeating it now – he won’t throw a revolution, but he is gaining widespread popular support by using this method. And look at Putin; the Russian upper class tends to dislike him, but it matters not at all because he has a 90% approval rating from appealing directly to the masses. Also, look at any other successful leader ever in history.

But Richard Spencer and the people associated with him appear to be attempting to press a message which meets only one of the four basic quota for a populist message.

Popular?

The idea of White countries for White people would be popular if people were exposed to it in the right context. Of course it would be.

Simple?

Spencer makes things way more complicated than they need to be, as you can even see in the above interview. Wanting to come across as intellectual for the sake of sounding intellectual for the sake of a small group of upper-middle class Whites means the message cannot be simple.

Emotional?

The same with simplicity not being a factor seen as appealing to said demographic, emotionality is seen as a turn-off so is avoided like the plague.

And a charismatic leader?

I don’t know if Spencer is or isn’t capable of coming across as charismatic, but if he is capable he isn’t doing it. Instead, he comes across low-energy and lacking in intensity.

A Position of Weakness

All of the combined elements of this attempt to appeal to the progressive upper-middle class by being reasonable and not a Nazi comes across as wholly weak. We see this even in the headline of the Huffington Post article – “White Nationalists Gather On Halloween To Discuss How Oppressed They Are” – this is a Jewish woman who they invited to their conference mocking them for being weak.

A DS-approved conference headline would read: “White Nationalists Gather On Hitler’s Birthday To Discuss How To Stop These Kikes.”

But the response, every time I have interacted with these people: “ooooh, no one will ever listen to you if you talk about Hitler and the Holocaust and deporting all Jews” – well then, why do so many more people listen to me than listen to Richard Spencer? Why is my reach so much greater than all of these people’s combined, if the message is less popular than theirs? Am I just a better marketer, capable of marketing a less appealing message more effectively?

Am I being accused of being some kind of marketing genius?

What is the basic reasoning for the theory that my message is not going to be as popular as theirs in the future but it is more popular now? Are they headed for a breakthrough? Is the next conference really going to set it off?

Who’s kidding who here?

Maybe I don’t have the perfect, refined message, but it is demonstrably more popular than that of Spencer, AmRen, Ramz Paul, et al. That’s just a natural fact.

The Good

I want to make it clear that I don’t view this conference as negative, overall. I consider anyone sincerely working for White interests an ally, regardless of details. My main point is that people with this type of organizational skills could and should be using those skills to generate a populist movement. I’m not really sure how that could be argued with, honestly.

However, that doesn’t mean that the conference is not, overall, a net positive (given that there is actually nothing negative about it). I’m sure those involved had a good time mixing it up, I think relationships could have been formed which could lead to more efficient action in the future, and though media coverage was very sparse, media coverage of any type is good.

Here are some articles from those who attended the conference, to give you a better idea of the positives than I’m able to give as I did not attend.

National Policy Institute 2015 – Aryan Skynet

Reports from the #BecomeWhoWeAre NPI event in Washington DC – Red Ice

“Becoming Who We Are”—An Immigration-Critical Jew Reflects On NPI’s Conference – VDARE (don’t lol, goyim)

The Matt Forney Show, Episode 110: NPI and the Great White Shark Hunt – Matt Forney

Everyone seems to have felt good about it, so at the very least it was a chance for White bonding, which is something we all desperately need.

On top of this, it is an improvement that Spencer this year invited Kevin MacDonald, and that people were talking about Jews. Spencer had previously been reluctant to discuss the world’s foremost problem. So there’s an improvement, and reason to hope that more improvements take place in the future.

To Conclude

If we want to do this White revolution thing, we can do it. A popular movement is well within our ability, just following what I’ve laid out here. It isn’t like I invented populism.

I personally don’t know what it is that Richard Spencer wants to do, because I have to assume he is educated enough to know that these conferences cannot possibly lead to anything other than more conferences.

But the conferences certainly don’t hurt anything. Richard Spencer holding conferences does not keep other people from organizing a serious political movement.

I’m here to support anyone who tries to get this thing organized and rolling.

Somebody has to stop these kikes.

Hail Victory.

This week, the DramaQuest continues, as the forces of conferences and book reviews once again confront men of action and attempt to dissuade people from taking part in the ultimate agenda of total justice so as they may continue to circlejerk without looking like fools for never doing anything and not even having any form of a plan to ever do anything!

Andrew Anglin has finally decided that he has zero interest in being cordial, and has declared Total War.

Will the forces of doing things prevail, or will those who don’t want to look stupid for spending decades doing nothing succeed in their plot to stop anyone from ever doing anything????

Find out, as Infinite DramaQuest continues, right here on the Daily Stormer!

Cast of Characters

Previously on Infinite DramaQuest:

The heroic White warrior Robert Ransdell launched a full frontal assault on the Jews, garnering massive media attention

The YouTuber RamZPaul attacked Ransdell, accusing him of being a Jew and a secret agent

Daily Stormer Commander Andrew Anglin rushed to the defense of comrade Ransdell, stopping RamZPaul and silencing him on the issue

Colin Liddell, chief servant of Richard Spencer, clumsily attacked Anglin, accusing him of being a secret agent for talking about Jews

Commander Anglin responded to Liddell’s attack, crushing his inane arguments and mocking him for lacking the intellectual capacity to produce arguments which go beyond name calling

Jobbik pulled out of Spencerfest 2014 due to disgust at the American racism, and the Hungarian government banned the festival

Spencer held the festival anyway, was arrested and deported from the country for being an evil racist

Liddell responded to Anglin’s defensive repelling of his attack with exactly six million tears

Carolyn Yeager assessed the situation, rightfully crushing the Hitler-deniers and hoax-confirmers

Greg Johnson wrote a six million word essay, attacking everyone involved in this situation and claiming that he himself is the only person who matters

Anglin responded to Johnson’s assault, annihilating his forces entirely

Alex Linder joined the fray

A Jew in Salon Magazine attacked Philosemite Jared Taylor, accused him of Nazism

Chechar and Matt Parrott defended Anglin, the latter claiming Nazism wasn’t extreme enough

And now…

This week on Infinite DramaQuest: Colin Liddell Posts a Blog, Attempts to Outflank Us to Save His Ego, Which was Previously Put Through a Wood-Chipper

In a gross attempt to gain some traffic to his completely unread blog, Alt Right – now constantly referred to by people on the internet as “Altistic Right” – Colin Liddell has launched a third attack on yours truly, the Big Bad Wolf.

Foregoing his opportunity to present an intellectual defense for his position, Liddell went with insults, a silly tautology and an superfluous analogy.

He begins by repeating his previous insult that I am a secret agent, while once again demonstrating that no matter how many times I explain it, he will be incapable of understanding what is happening on this website.

In defense the way to win is to get your enemies to attack you at your strongest point. In offense the way to win is to attack your enemies at their weakest point.

Now, just supposing you were a White-hating, globalist shill – or a slap-headed moron who just acted like a White-hating, globalist shill – and wanted to sidetrack nationalism for as long as possible, then you would want to trick nationalists into attacking by the most bloody, dangerous, and fruitless route possible, the one where their efforts would reap the lowest possible return, and which would lead to their destruction.

In fact, you might even set up something like The Daily Stormer, a populist mix of 4chan Nazi porn, monster truck machismo, and juvenile racist trolling that serves to repel normal people from nationalism, while ghettoizing existing nationalists ever further from the mainstream.

And there you see again – we are hurting his movement by actually getting people involved in a real pro-White movement.  I guess everyone needs someone to blame, but why not blame the people who are responsible?  Why not blame the sneaking rat Jews, Colin?

Note you also see that Colin is opposed to the following things: populism, 4chan, masculinity and racism.  Or at least, those are all the things he doesn’t like about the site, and the reasons he believes – or perhaps, merely claims to believe – I am a secret agent man.

Honestly, I was a bit shocked by the rehash of the secret agent accusations.  It just seems so lowbrow, for such a highbrow intellectual figure as Liddell.

Liddell then goes on to address the recent Johnson attack and my response.

Following Greg Johnson’s thoughtful and precise article against such self-destructive Vantardism, which merely referred to The Daily Stormer in passing, that sites’s publisher Andrew Anglin was stung into writing a long, rambling, defensive, and idiotic article – Fortress Defense Saga: Greg Johnson Joins the Assault on Our Base – which, predictably, failed to address any of the pertinent criticisms made.

More obfuscation and outright lies.  Johnson himself has not denied that the criticism was largely aimed at me, and the entire thing was framed in that context.  Is Liddell incapable of grasping that, or is this merely another cheap shot, which he expects that his readers will not catch?  Does it even matter, given that he has no readers, except when he writes about me, when all of his readers are my people?

And he says that I failed to address criticisms.  He said that last time, without specifying which criticisms I had failed to address.  In fact, my response was, as usual, thorough to the max. This is just another weak insult.  If there were points that I failed to address, surely Liddell would have mentioned them explicitly – saying that some unknown points were not addressed is just Liddell taking advantage of the fact that this whole situation has been made extremely confusing by the refusal of the Right Whinge to engage in straight-talk, given that they apparently believe that saying it straight is only for coal miners and meth addicts.

Eventually, Liddell gets to his super-killer argument.

But, better than this, Anglin was flushed out by Johnson’s article into revealing his secret plan and the simplistic mechanism of his anti-nationalism. Halfway through his outpouring of butthurt flummery, there is a moment of unwitting clarity when he reveals his formula in a direct address to Johnson:

“You cannot preserve the White race without addressing the Jews.
You cannot address the Jews without addressing their hoax.
You cannot address their hoax without addressing Adolf Hitler.”

This is the article’s eureka moment – the cockroach caught in the kitchen light, so to speak – so, go back and have a good look at it again, and think deeply about what Anglin is actually saying.

What Anglin is unequivocally saying here is that before you can do anything at all about preserving and protecting the White race – stopping mass immigration, say, or encouraging White women to have at least 2.1 babies – you must first get everyone to love Hitler and hate the Jews, and if you can’t accomplish these supposed preconditions then you had best forget the whole shebang, So what he is really saying is simply:

“You cannot preserve the White race.”

Interesting that if he is trying to appeal to some sort of intellectual class, he would choose to use such a sloppy rhetorical tautology to explain his argument, huh?

I could, of course, simply flip it around to make my point:

But, better than this, Liddell was flushed out by Anglin’s article into revealing his secret plan and the simplistic mechanism of his anti-nationalism. Halfway through his outpouring of butthurt flummery, there is a moment of unwitting clarity when he reveals his formula in a direct address to Anglin:

“You cannot preserve the White race while addressing the Jews.
You cannot avoid addressing the Jews while addressing their hoax.
You cannot refuse to address their hoax without distancing yourself from Adolf Hitler.”

This is the article’s eureka moment – the cockroach caught in the kitchen light, so to speak – so, go back and have a good look at it again, and think deeply about what Liddell is actually saying.

What Liddell is unequivocally saying here is that before you can do anything at all about preserving and protecting the White race – stopping mass immigration, say, or encouraging White women to have at least 2.1 babies – you must first get everyone to ignore the thing you will constantly be equated to and get support from Jews, and if you can’t accomplish these supposed preconditions then you had best forget the whole shebang, So what he is really saying is simply:

“You cannot preserve the White race.”

But I wouldn’t ever do that, because I have this thing in my back called a “vertebral column” which physically prevents me from being capable of engaging in such base intellectual dishonesty.

Instead, I have offered detailed arguments as to why we should attack at the absolute weakest point of Jewish power, which is their idiot gas chamber hoax.

Ah, but Liddell claims that this is their strongest point!  Without explanation.  He just says it.

He gives us this super-cute analogy (apparently for no reason, as it does nothing to push what he is selling, it is just an arduous method of repeating his “the hoax is unbeatable” theory; but as he does not have arguments to support this theory, he resorts to pointless analogies).

Imagine, if you will, a fortress that has two approaches. One is from the West, over easy terrain, over which you can move your cannon easily, towards a point where the walls are quite low and weak. It is the obvious place to attack.

On the East, however, the approach is rather more difficult. Lets say it passes over a weak rope bridge, surrounded by enormous towers packed with enemy archers. Underneath a moat full of man-eating crocodiles awaits. Once across the bridge, it is a sheer climb up slippery rocks with the approach enfiladed on three sides by the enemy’s artillery, until you reach the gate of death, where any survivors can easily be drowned in boiling oil.

Now which way would you attack? Led by a sane, honest, and wise leader, you would of course attack from the West. But led by the likes of Anglin, you would be conned into attacking by the narrow tortuous route of certain death, the Hitler route.

If it is the strongest point of fortress defense, Mr. Supersmartintellectualguy, why are they making laws all across Europe to keep people from researching or talking about it?  One would assume that this is a last-ditch effort to hold together a rapidly collapsing lie.  Instead of recognizing this obvious weakness, Liddell says it is their strongest point, and we should simply forget about it.  This is stupidly wrong on the face of it, but Liddell is now committed to it, and can’t back down.

I have an analogy too, buddy.

Imagine, if you will, a fortress that has a completely rotted-out front door.  It is the only entrance to a stone castle with 10-foot thick walls.  The door is so rotted-out, the soldiers in the fortress are literally using their own bodies to try and hold it up. It is the obvious place to attack.

On the East, however, there is a field containing a gigantic rock.

Now which way would you attack? Led by a sane, honest, and wise leader, you would of course attack the rotted-out front door and force your way into the fortress. But led by the likes of Liddell, you would be conned into going out into the field and repeatedly smashing your head against the gigantic rock, the Holocaust avoidance route.

I however, don’t require redundant analogies, as I have actual arguments.

The entire structure of Jewish dominance – which in agreeing with Johnson, maybe Liddell has pulled a kick-flip and now agrees is the main problem, but that remains unclear – is based upon the Holocaust.  Without that, they stand naked as the singular destroyers of Western Civilization.

Liddell then, for reasons unclear, compares the Holocaust to Christianity, in the process apparently denying the Holocaust and also celebrating the Jewish-backed destruction of Christianity as a good thing.

No matter how long you persist, the great mass of the population is never going to start seeing Hitler through the same rose-tinted spectacles that Anglin pretends to wear; and even though there are plenty of flaws in the story of the Holocaust, most people are going to keep on seeing it in the way that the mainstream media present it. Harnessing ethnonationalism to that dead weight is the political equivalent of sinking its body in the lake.

It took hundreds of years for the equally mythic construct of Christianity to be partially overturned – and that was with most of the forces of modernity working in tandem towards that end. With that in mind, do really think that Anglin, from the depths of his internet hole, can persuade the world that Hitler was a saint and the Holocaust was a jolly good thing and didn’t happen?

Firstly, thank you for finally admitted the hoax is a hoax, Colin. Though you did it in the most spineless way possible, at least you did it.

Bravo.

Next – what are you talking about, that it took “hundreds of years” to destroy Christianity? In fact it took a single generation – the baby-boomers – when the Jews sold the forbidden fruit of free sex and drugs and unlimited money and no responsibility forever no matter what to a bunch of gullible goyim.

I don’t want to argue about Christianity, but pretending as if the majority of the West was not Christian at the time of the war and that it was nigh exclusively Jewish cultural manipulation through the entertainment media and the university system (along with the Jewish take-over of the churches themselves) which led to a collapse of the religion is simply stupid and factually wrong.

Here’s a graph for you, good buddy:

The comparison is idiotic in the first place, as Christianity is a religion, as such based on faith rather than facts, meaning it required a philosophical change of heart about something that can’t be proved either way, whereas the Holocaust is simply a lie which can be easily disproved with already meticulously documented facts.

Seriously, man.  Why would you even say that?  Do you like being made to look stupid?  This whole thing you wrote seems to have been designed for easy ridicule, to the point where some of my readers are likely to suspect I’ve convinced you to work for me and launch the most benign possible attacks so as I can respond and make myself look smarter than I actually am.

Anyway, the fact that you would bring up the Jewish destruction of Christianity as a positive social change shows where you are coming from (I doubt you are much of a fan of Neo-Paganism either, which is generally the context of such statements in our little community).  You are a liberal.  You agree with Jewish agendas, which is why you would wish to obfuscate the fact that Jews are responsible for everything by claiming we shouldn’t blame the Jews for our problems.  The sole issue you have is the invasion by these savages, and thus you try to separate that issue from the entirety of the Jew problem.

That is the real reason you don’t want to discuss the Hoax.  If we directly attack the Jews, this whole system comes crashing down, and the balance of nature will be restored.  All the Jew influence will be deleted.  Masculinity will be restored, and all that comes with that.  And that idea makes you very uncomfortable, I am quite certain.

What are These People Even Talking About?

One of the key questions in this entire DramaQuest is: what are those in the Right Whinge actually arguing for?  They have made it clear they are against us and apparently all of our issues, and yet it is unclear what they want or how they plan to achieve it.

I think it is very telling that Liddell and Johnson both wrote essays against me and praised one another for their clever attacks on my person, when the reality is that they agree with each other about very little, ideologically.

Liddell has said that if you are going to talk about the Jews you have to be sneaky about it so that you don’t get called a Nazi, even though everyone gets called a Nazi anyway, while Johnson has said Jews are the number one enemy and that anyone who doesn’t address them is a coward, and he cited Le Pen as an example of such.  Liddell cites Le Pen as an example of successful nationalism and what we need to aim for in America.  Richard Spencer, who is the love object of Liddell, is apparently trying to model himself directly after the European “mainstreamers” that Johnson condemns as enemies.

The reason these two are on the same side against me is that they share the quality that they have no interest in a popular movement, and despise anyone who would attempt to take that route.

The ultimate idiocy here is that there is absolutely no need for “intellectual arguments” in our situation.  Any single intellectual is capable of looking at the facts and determining his own conclusions.  If he is incapable of that, then by definition he isn’t an intellectual, and thus needs to be appealed to on an emotional level.  Kevin MacDonald has already laid out all of the needed facts for any true intellectual to consume and draw the obvious conclusions from.  So the idea they are trying to convert the intelligentsia is silly because it is conceptually impossible.

So who?

Watch one of the presentations of Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor, and ask yourself: “who exactly it this supposed to appeal to?”  Go peruse Counter-Currents – or any of these other “intellectual” blogs – and ask yourself the same thing.

The answer, obviously, is middle class White liberals over the age of 40 – precisely the most useless group of people on the face of the earth, as well as the group that is the least likely to have any interest whatsoever in issues of White survival.

That is why virtually no one at all cares about Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor or any of the rest of these people, and no one ever will.

So then, who am I targeting [in America]?

First, I am targeting all disenfranchised and angry White males under the age of thirty, which is where all of the real power lies.  This site appeals to members of all socio-economic classes in that age bracket.

Second, I am targeting all age groups of traditional American conservatives, who generally come from the working and middle classes.  This is still the core of America – people who are uninterested in Spencer’s purposeful avoidance of straight-talk and surely uninterested in Johnson’s promotion of homosexuality and Antichristism.

An added bonus is that any true intellectual is able to grasp what I am doing here (it isn’t particularly complicated).  They are then surely able to gather their news from here daily, maybe having a laugh here and there while they’re at it.

Liddell is not an actual intellectual, just an upper-middle class liberal who sees subhuman hordes preparing to destroy everything he likes.  Johnson is something closer to an actual intellectual, but apparently cares very little about getting anything done and just genuinely doesn’t like people who don’t read philosophy books and read and/or write reviews of them.  Also, given that he doesn’t have children and presumably isn’t planning on producing any, he doesn’t have much of a dog in this fight, and views this as a hobby, as evidenced by the lack of a consistent ideology in his writings.

The one group I am not attempting to appeal to here is middle class liberals.

I am, unashamedly, a populist.  Every successful revolutionary movement in history has been populist in nature, for what I would have to assume are obvious reasons, but will go ahead and state anyway: a ruling minority can only ever be ousted by a disenfranchised or otherwise enraged majority; if a minority is overthrown by another minority, it is simply a power-transfer and the existing system doesn’t change in any noticeable fashion.

If this rule is wrong, give me an historical example of when something different happened.

What’s the Plan?

What these people need to explain – in real terms, rather than wordy gibberish (I won’t hold my breath) – is why, if their plan works, they have gained absolutely no traction in the many, many years they’ve been attempting this, and why, when the people are in a state of extreme need, and looking around for a solution, their popularity has not increased at all.

If Richard Spencer is the savior of the White race he has been marketed as, why does no one care about him?

And finally, if I am going about this in exactly the wrong way, why is the Daily Stormer the number one pro-White site in the United States?

You know why I don’t promote Richard Spencer?  Because no one cares.  No matter how many conferences he has in historic European cities, no matter how many essays he writes, no matter how many podcasts he does, no more than a handful of people are ever going to care about anything he has to say.  There is absolutely nothing inspiring about this man. He is inoffensive to the point of lifelessness, he purposefully employs a form of politician-speak that isn’t even used by real politicians anymore given that it is so widely recognized as fundamentally dishonest and has thus been abandoned by professional public speaking coaches and he refuses to offer clear solutions.

I don’t usually say these things, because I believe in solidarity, and have no beef with you people.  But at some point – I can’t pinpoint it – this debate got so ridiculous that it became necessary to inject a little bit of reality into the situation.  The idea that it is easier to get Richard Spencer elected to office than to use the internet to expose the Jews as the open and public destroyers of society is so monumentally stupid that it is almost inconceivable that anyone would be capable of formulating such an idea.

But Spencer isn’t even running for office, is he?  I guess he needed a conference in Budapest with a bunch of non-Americans before it made sense to run for office in this country.

If you people want to be in charge, then be in charge.  You don’t need my permission.  Start a movement that is more effective than the one I am presently involved in, and the people will join you.  If it works, I’ll join it myself.

The fact that you attack me and blame me for your failures simply demonstrates how pathetic and incompetent you are.

How is that not obvious to you?

It is surely obvious to most everyone else.

These Attacks of Theirs

As we saw above with Liddell’s most recent flailing attack on this site – and saw with each of the other attacks as well – these people struggle, immensely, to explain what exactly it is they don’t like about us.  Their arguments are obviously weak, based on nothing much, seemingly made of nothing they pulled out of nowhere and then expanded across dozens of paragraphs for the purpose of distorting the fact that there is no actual content.

First it was a general attack, then I responded and it was reduced, then I responded again and it was reduced again and now it is just “eh, too much Hitler – don’t do the Hitler.”

This is because they don’t actually know, consciously, why they are against us.  But I do.

What we are actually dealing with is a dislike of the basic idea of populism by a group of people who despise working people.

I have read Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, I have been to probably fifty different countries.  I am not Homer Simpson (a Jewish caricature mocking the traditional American White Man, the posting of which certainly says a bit about Colin’s general mindset), nor am I am obese basement troll.  What I am, however, is post-liberal.  I understand that the system of liberalism is unsustainable, that if Liddell and Spencer were to have their way the same exact situation would happen again, and that the only solution to the problems we face is radical Traditionalism in every sector of society.

Hitler was a populist.  That is why Liddell dislikes him.  Not because he actually believes in the hoax or believes this was some “dark part” of history.  Johnson respects the aesthetic of National Socialism (as well as a lot of post-Hitler Nazi esoterica), so doesn’t condemn Hitler, but recognizes our use of this aesthetic is for populist purposes, and so condemns us for using it.

These people won’t ever change anything, because even if they claim to want to, they are unwilling to recognize the only way it could be done, which is through direct and unapologetic appeal to the masses.

The Sheer Idiocy of Pro-White Liberalism

The last point in the entire debate is that no matter what you do, if you are attempting to restore traditional European society, you are going to look and act basically exactly like Nazis. Because NS was the post-industrial revolution embodiment of traditional Europeanism.  It was scientifically formulated as such.

What happens is that the further you try to get away from the label of “Nazi,” the more you necessarily have to compromise, because in fleeing the label, you abandon stances and doctrines with similarities to those of the NSDAP, and so are forced to abandon key aspects of a nationalist platform.

Basically, what the Right Whinge are trying to do is combine modern liberalism with a whites-only society. And though I want something very much more extreme than that, if I thought it was possible to achieve that, I might put aside my agenda and embrace it. After all, a whites-only society, whether based on liberal principles or not, would at least give us more radical folks the option of existing how we wish to exist, free from harassment by the system.

We would also end up voting our way into power anyway through the liberal democracy system that the pro-White liberals would doubtlessly leave in place, as conservatives are still the majority in America if you get rid of the Jews and non-Whites, at which point we could form a one-party system and end the vote.

However, this plan for a liberal White revolution can’t possibly work. Even if you could manage to combine liberal thought with the concept of a Whites-only society (that is, isolate racial identity from other forms of social conservatism) – and you couldn’t, as is evidenced by Johnson’s attempts to do so, which contain endless inconsistencies and outright contradictions (one of the most blatant being complaining about the White birthrate while celebrating homosexuality) – it would be incapable of achieving victory over the present system, largely due to the fact that liberals are weak and gutless cowards, as evidenced by Liddell and others continually speaking out against “hate” and defaming anyone who ever accomplished anything that mattered.

As I have said, they are also fundamentally incapable of rallying the masses.

What rallied the masses in the sixties, when liberalism began its conquest of the West, was seduction. They offered free sex, drugs and a general lack of any personal responsibility. Plus a lot of really good music. But the people now have all of these things. So what would you then rally them behind? Just “we need rid of these foreigners and Blacks, so we can have peace”?

It cannot work. Yes, of course people are fed up with foreigners and Blacks, but that idea alone cannot maintain a new Zeitgeist. It cannot stir the youth to revolution. What can stir the youth to revolution is a critique of the entire system of the Jews, and the way it has affected all of us on a personal level.

The fact that we can see all of these people invading our countries and feeding off of us like buzzards on a still breathing man is indeed powerfully upsetting, but at this point those who are inspired by liberal thought – who are definitively a part of a very specific socio-economic class – can still avoid them, for the most part, and it doesn’t much matter if in thirty years they are the majority, because who cares what happens in thirty years?  Certainly childless middle class White liberals do not.

However, if we look at the entirety of the effects of Jew liberalism on us, the levels of alienation we’ve suffered in our individual lives, the way our families have been torn apart, the way we have been undermined by the fairer sex which was created by God to be our faithful companion, the way our masculinity has been stripped from us, the way our identity and sense of belonging has been crushed into powder and swept out into the sea – then we are left with material fit for Total Revolution.

We are vocalizing an idea which appeals to the masses, a full-on rebellion against modernity.  Hitler is the ultimate symbol of that, because Hitler is Old Europe, and Old Europe is what our very bones are calling out for.  National Socialism was the pinnacle of European civilization.  In order to progress forward, we must first return to that point.

This is the only plan which can possibly work.  Thus we should relish in extremism, not avoid it.  It is all or nothing.  There is no halfway.  Halfway is impossible.  The entire Jewish system must be removed.

Unlike Johnson, I won’t attack “mainstreamers” as useless, as I believe they ultimately move things in the right direction, even though they don’t go the whole way.

However, in the end, the only way we are going to fix society is through hardline National Socialism.

The Jew system doesn’t accept apologies for being White and I wouldn’t be willing to offer one anyway.

I am White.

I am a National Socialist.

And I am not sorry.

Hail Victory.
Andrew Anglin

As was obviously bound to happen, Counter-Currents’ Greg Johnson has joined the assault on The Daily Stormer, attempting to weaken our resolve and capture our fortress through subterfuge and complex trickery.

Johnson has thrown in with the likes of Alt Right and RamZPaul – a group collectively referred to as the “Right Whinge” by everyone on the internet – to attack us for doing a good job and actually getting people aware of and interested in the struggle for White survival.

Johnson’s essay, which calls me and my people – you, dearest brothers – “retards” in the most clever of fashions (Greg is big on clever fashions), reduces the arguments of Colin Liddell, which were largely weak and stupid, into a simplified form: “yeah, it’s cool guise, but 2 much rednecks and Hitlers lol.”

He coins the term “vantard” to refer to us, claiming that we are populist retards pretending to be the vanguard of the revolution, while he is the real vanguard.

Overall though, the piece is quite good, I believe, in that it makes a point of agreeing with everything I have been saying for years… then somehow uses these points to attack me.

Johnson writes:

For me, there are four political absolutes:

1. Europeans constitute a distinct race, the white race. Thus to be French or German or Swedish or Greek or Italian or Irish is also to be white. Therefore, no non-racial form of civic, linguistic, cultural, or religious nationalism is sufficient to defend European peoples. Because non-whites can be citizens of European lands, speak European languages, share in European culture, and profess Christianity, any form of nationalism that cannot distinguish such people from whites cannot save our race.
2. The white race is threatened with simple biological extinction, compared to which all other political issues are trivial distractions. Only by recognizing the absolute and biological nature of the threat can we define a real solution and create the necessary moral seriousness and urgency to implement it.
3. The only tenable solution to the threat of white extinction is White Nationalism: the creation of homogeneously white homelands for all white peoples, which will require the alteration of political borders and the mass resettlement of non-whites.
4. Jews are not Europeans. Many Jews have European blood, but they have a distinctly non-European consciousness, which defines their origins, interests, and destiny in contradistinction to Europeans. This means that there is an inevitable conflict between Jewish and European interests and identity. There is, moreover, a long history of Jewish enmity and malevolence towards Europeans, which has sometimes — though not always — been recognized and reciprocated. Finally, although White Nationalists can debate endlessly on the relative responsibility of Jews for the perilous state of white humanity, there should be no debate on the fact that the organized Jewish community is the principal enemy — not the sole enemy, but the principal enemy — of every attempt to halt and reverse white extinction. One cannot defeat an enemy one will not name. Therefore, White Nationalism is inescapably anti-Semitic.

So. We agree on all of this.

What then, is the issue?

Well, we’re going to try and figure that out (SPOILER ALERT: I read this entire article, and we never actually figure it out –Ed).

He mixes the attack on me with attacks on the rest of the “New Right,” who he accuses of “mainstreaming” and denying the Jew question.  A point I obviously agree with.  Interestingly, it seems Johnson’s position is much closer to our own than that of the likes of Liddell, Spencer and Taylor.  He is just apparently worried that if we populists are successful, after the revolution he will be forced to attend backyard BBQs and drive a pick-up truck while blasting Waylon Jennings.  He then squirms around and attempts to provide an intellectual justification for his fear that we will Waylocaust him, and fails.

Johnson even admits that we are right about Hitler, just says we shouldn’t talk about it.

He writes:

Of course vantards can protest that Adolf Hitler did, in fact, agree with our principles. That is true of course, and to Hitler’s credit. It is also true of quite a lot of other intelligent whites. But the things we believe are true and good regardless of what any historical figure thought about them, one way or the other. So does harping on Hitler, no matter how factually correct one might be, make it any easier to persuade the people we are trying to save?

This is an admission of Hitler truth, which can be cited by enemy forces seeking to make him look nuts, if that is in fact how these things work (that is how he and others claim these things work).

So it’s not “don’t defend Hitler,” it’s just “don’t defend Hitler on a regular basis.”

Still, he shows he has more spine than the slithering holo-hugger Liddell, who claims we blame all our problems on innocent Christ-Killing Jewish farm weasels and should accept that it is all our own fault and then cry about it.

He then attacks us for allegedly appealing to “inferior” Whites:

The second vantard error is to insist on what I call “premature populism,” which is presented as an appeal to working class whites but is in fact usually just an appeal to stupid, vicious, and tasteless whites of all social classes (and an implied insult to working class white people). But our movement should aim to recruit whites of all social classes who are above average in intelligence, virtue, and taste. At this stage we simply don’t need inferior whites, and no special efforts should be made to recruit them. We’ll represent their interests just like the rest of our folk, but we would be foolish to trust our racial salvation to them.

By “inferior” Whites, presumably, he means “people who do actual work.”

Definitely looks to be a load of gibberish thinly veiling gross levels of blatant elitism, but as I will not base my response on presumptions, Johnson will need to clarify what he means by “inferior” Whites.

Thus, until such a time as the meaning of this term is explicated by Johnson, we will deal instead with the accusations of obsessive Hitler-worship (because it is okay to say Hitler was the good guy, it just isn’t okay to say it very often).

Firstly, I agree with Johnson’s calls of “by any means necessary.”  Damn straight – we’ve got an extinction scenario on our hands here.

Adhering to this principle, I will say that though I admittedly enjoy it, I have no specific emotional need to discuss the Third Reich or the Hoaxocaust, and would stop doing it if someone could present a good reason to. Thus far, I have simply witnessed a flailing demonstration of a lack of an understanding of why I talk about Third Reich history, rather than a decent argument against the logic I am employing in doing so (which I haven’t been secretive about).

The first reason that World War II history is important is that, as Johnson admits, Jews are the primary enemy of the White race. The base of Jewish power is their position as unquestionable, due to their alleged suffering. The source of this position is their filthy Jew lies about Hitler and the alleged 6 trillion. Thus, in order to fight our primary enemy, the Jew, we must remove his unquestionable status, and in order to remove that status, we must expose the hoax. Showing the true nature of the Reich is necessary because it works to expose the hoax.

On top of this, National Socialism is clearly the natural foundation of any future White society, as it is scientifically perfect. The response to that from the Whinge would be that we can use the ideas of Hitler without the swastikas and salutes, but that point is moot because you are going to get called a Nazi no matter what.

It is slightly profound that this dramarama with the ongoing attacks on The Daily Stormer by these people who agree with all of our goals but find us annoying (slash retarded secret agents) is coinciding with the Budapest dramafest wherein Richard Spencer, a pillar of the “take it easy, bro, it’s cool” White movement was banned from Hungary and arrested for being an evil racist.

The weakest part of the essay is when Johnson quotes Liddell’s stupid analogy about leftists not promoting Pol Pot or Mao. Liddell argued that the Third Reich was a “dark part” of the history of nationalism, and thus should be hushed up and forgotten about. However, Johnson himself praises Hitler as a hero (as quoted above from the very essay I am responding to), so presumably would not consider this a “dark part” of history.

His purpose for quoting that passage is that though unlike Liddell, he is in possession of a spine, he believes that there is no way to rehabilitate this part of history, so the Jewish lies might as well all be true, thus we need to surrender and accept their ridiculous narrative of lampshades and soap and just try to work around it.

How on earth are you going to work around the Holocaust, Mr. Johnson? It is the event most closely associated with Jews in the minds of all normal White people. And as you say in your essay, it is absolutely necessary not to compromise on the Jew question, and as an Anitsemitic nationalist, your ideology will, no matter what, be directly linked to Nazism, always.

And it isn’t like it’s super difficult to disprove the hoax.  It takes a maximum of two hours and five minutes.

From where I am sitting, these “mainstreamers” you criticize in your essay ultimately went mainstream because refusing to address Third Reich history put them in a position where they had no moral grounds upon which to approach the Jewish question, and thus they had to forego addressing it and instead just claim that White people did all of this to themselves for no reason.

Let me explain something to you here, Greg.

You cannot preserve the White race without addressing the Jews.

You cannot address the Jews without addressing their hoax.

You cannot address their hoax without addressing Adolf Hitler.

The real retardation here, Greg, is imagining you can somehow navigate around the source of Jew power.

So as long as the hoax stands, you and your essay-writing, conference-holding buddies are the same thing as us skinheads with our gas chamber jokes in the minds of virtually everyone on earth. You blame us for existing, claiming that if we didn’t exist they wouldn’t be able to lump you with us, but they would be calling you the exact same thing even if we didn’t exist.

The only thing that The Daily Stormer not existing would mean is that instead of tens of thousands of people reading articles about White issues daily, there were be a few hundred. You and your circle-jerk would have the same number of readers, and still be called evil racist Nazis for suggesting that White people have a right to exist.  You and I both know there will never be a softer White advocate than Richard Spencer – he has put his entire being into being as soft and non-threatening as is humanly possible – and what happened to Richard earlier this week, Greg?

Do you remember what happened to Richard Spencer, the softest ever White advocate, earlier this week, Greg Johnson?

The Jewish fantasy version of the Third Reich is the defining force of the 20th century, and the only reason any of these problems we both want to solve are happening in the first place.  It simply cannot be pushed under the rug.

Failing to Internet, Massive Misconceptions About Modern Youth Culture

Another aspect of this debate which I will just throw into this rambling screed, which is sure to be over 9000 times less refined than Johnson’s essay, which was a admittedly an A+ masterpiece of essayism (as is generally his style), is the fact that Johnson and the rest of the Right Whinge have zero conception of modern youth culture, and apparently mistake the intelligent White former-middle class for redneck methheads.

Johnson enjoys attacking working people who don’t read philosophy books as “inferior,” and implying they are worthless, but seems unclear about the fact that working people are not what makes up the bulk of our readership.  The majority are under-thirties, who probably grew up in middle class homes and did some college, probably have above-average IQs.

Interpreting our presentation as 100% serious is ridiculous, but appears to be where these people are coming from.  The Daily Stormer has a layered brilliance.  Though I offended a few people when I labelled the site “vulgar propaganda” in my response to Liddell’s initial assault, this is both a method of influence as well as a stylistic choice that appeals to any major dude.

One of the key figures of modern internet culture just came out as a full Nazi on this site, Greg.  What does that tell you?  What it tells me is that you are outside of the modern paradigm of youth culture, and when you criticize me, you are criticizing a fantasy of beer-chugging hillbillies in trailers.

What is actually going on here is something much more subtle, and something much better:

Nazism is hip.

We are the cutting edge of cool, whereas you are the cutting edge of weird.

That is the core irony of this.  Whereas you people are attacking me as if I’ve no idea how to appeal to masses of people, I have hit on a method of appealing to masses of people which has proven to be exponentially more effective than anything the Right Whinge has accomplished in however many decades.  Which is why I am now so much more popular than you that you feel the need to attack me and call me a retard.

Although I do fancy a working man’s revolution, and speak to that audience directly as much as I am able, the larger agenda is to reshape White Nationalism, which is naturally cool but has had it’s coolness stripped from it by vampires like Jared Taylor, back into something that the youth can embrace with vigor, in the way the sixties generation embraced liberalism.

We need sexiness.  We need romance.  We need youthful rebellion.  And we need it quickly.

Please refer me to imagery that embodies all of these qualities more than that of Nazism.

We also need to lol, Greg.  Because laughing is the one thing that is going to keep us sane in a world where sanity itself is virtually a capital offense.

My goal is that anyone who comes to this site laughs out loud at least once every visit.

How you have all missed all of this is beyond me.  But it truly appears that you are so far removed from the present youth culture of White people, as well as the basic eternal principles of what inspires young people, that the entire Stormer operation has flown right over your head, like a Messerschmitt Me 262 over a field of goats.  You have merely attacked a fantasy you’ve created in your mind, and like Liddell, actually think I am trying to be Romper Stomper when I post pictures of it to mock his “these damn kids” attempt to portray me as such.

It’s cool though, bro.  I’m not mad.

Just to be Crystal (No, Not Meth Johnson, You Troll)

According to his four principles, Johnson and I share the same basic goal.  However, we have severely different methods of pushing for these goals.

My technique includes the following elements:

• Nazism
• lols
• Traditional American straight talk
• Shocking, offensive and hilarious propaganda
• Traditional Christian values

Conversely, Johnson’s technique includes:

• Essays
• Conferences
• Reviews of books no one cares about
• Writing of books no one cares about
• Promotion of homosexuality as a cornerstone of White civilization

You can decide which is likely to work best.

Or, you can just look at these graphs.

And, just for the record:

“But listen to me, you stupid Nazis, you are never going to get anywhere promoting Nazism.  You need to do what we do.  It is the only way to be effective.  It’s what will really bring the chickens home to roost, or whatever farming analogy you prefer, plebeian.  If you don’t follow this method, you are a secret agent, or a retard, or whatever.”

Don’t worry, Greg.  Once we are successful in our revolution, we won’t make you go to BBQs or drive a pick-up truck.  You, Liddel, Spencer and Jared Taylor will, however, be forced to listen to Waylon Jennings at least three hours a day for a year straight as part of our mandatory Nazi “man-up” program, which anyone who ever told The Daily Stormer to tone it down will be forced to go through.

The Truth is, None of These People Matter

The bottom line in all of this drama is that these people are nigh irrelevant, and that is likely the core of this whine festival they are hosting.  They are pissed off about the kid with the shaved head and the endless lampshade jokes making more noise in two years than all of them combined, plus their predecessors, were able to make in twenty years.

What matters is what we are doing.  We are invading popular culture, we are rallying the sections of society that matter under a single banner.  It is sad that we have to suffer attacks from jealous and/or confused persons who claim to support the cause of White liberation, but such is life, and a tear I have not shed.

I respond because they are spreading information which may confuse, and thus there is a need to state my perspective.  It stands for posterity, so that perhaps these arguments will stop showing up, given that no one with any degree of integrity can ever take them seriously again.  I once did a similar thing to the Arab terrorist Mark Glenn when he was demanding that Antisemites embrace Islamic immigrants – you don’t see anyone talking about that anymore, do you?

As we continue to move forward, the truth will become more and more obvious: that the format of the Daily Stormer – this embodiment of teenage angst having become twenty-something anger over no past, no present and no future – has laid out is the precise way forward.  We need young men of all classes to embrace their hatred of a system which robbed them of the nations their ancestors created for them, robbed them of the power and the glory of the historical European society.

And we are doing that.

The Right Whinge has bunglingly appealed to class warfare concepts in an attempt to tear down White unity for reasons which remain unclear, and this has failed.  They have been confronted, they themselves have been torn down, and they have been dismissed.

Forward, march.

Whether we are the sons of craftsmen and butchers or the sons of university professors and neurosurgeons, we know that we are all the sons of Europa.

Together.

We.

Stand.

So, Anyway…

We’re moving forward, Greg.  We have a plan, and the plan is coming together.

Do your thing.  Write your books about poetry and pederasty.  We’ve no beef with you.

Please, just stay out of our way.

Hail Victory.
Andrew Anglin

We here at the Daily Stormer have a strict policy of not attacking others in the pro-White movement. However, for the largest part of the online advocacy community, attacking others who are working for the exact same goals is a favorite behavior.

Recently, I defended the Hero Robert Ransdell from the attacks of RamZPaul, who, for no clear reason, denigrated and insulted Ransdell, going so far as to suggest he may be some type of secret agent and/or crypto-Jew. Following this, a writer at Alt Right, Colin Liddell, has attacked me for defending Ransdell, of course suggesting that I myself am some type of secret agent.

I sighed and sighed again.

I will start here by saying that I like the Alternative Right site, read it regularly, and have no issues whatsoever with Liddell’s materials. I also do not take issue with his person, as for me, his person is not relevant.  What I am here taking issue with is only his attempts to break down the cohesion of the White movement by using low-level insults and paranoid theories.

The Framing of the Scenario

The apparent issue here is the divide between the likes of myself and Robert Ransdell, who are on the hardcore side of things, and the “soft” nationalist movement, which as a collective either

a.) genuinely believes that they are going to change the world and save White civilization by holding conferences and giving long-winded speeches that the vast majority of the population will never be interested in, or

b.) does not care that they will never be relevant on any type of scale, and engages in the intellectual circle-jerking for ego-related reasons.

Regrettably, these people have a desire to shut down anyone who disagrees with their approach, regardless of whether or not that person agrees completely with their end goals, and will use gross and deviant tactics to do so.

I believe this technical data needs to be out there. Though Jared Taylor has perhaps never done anything particularly original, he has served as a figurehead for a group of college-educated persons interested in addressing the obvious fact that Whites are fundamentally different from other races and should determine their own destiny.

I of course disagree with Taylor’s position on the Jew issue, but so does Liddel, who writes:

My belief is the common sense one that any group can and should be criticized for its collective behaviour, if that behaviour is adjudged or perceived to be a problem in some way. Examples: Black crime, Pakistan pedophile rape gangs, and, of course, all the evils that Whites are supposedly guilty of. Jews as a group should not be exempt from being called out for this of that attribute as it becomes apparent.

So, the entire disagreement then is on approach, and because of our differences in approach, Liddell felt it was a prudent and adult behavior to attack me and accuse me of being a secret agent.

Though I do not take issue with elitist conferences using big words to mock the low IQs and violent behavior of Blacks, writing book reviews about books only twelve people even ever heard of and thirty page essays about the effects of enlightenment ideology on collective European psychology, I am not so utterly foolish as to believe that this is ever going to result an any kind of change in the real world.

The question posed in my defense of Ransdell that Liddell did not respond to – a question none of these people will ever respond to – is: when in history have conferences and essays resulted in political revolution?

The answer, obviously, is “never.” You would think that people as smart as Liddell, who are able to haughtily mock the working class with college-level phrases and essays apparently purposefully designed to turn-off anyone with a life outside of intellectualism, would also be able to recognize the fact that without the working and lower-middle classes on their side, they are eventually going to be eaten alive by Negroes.

But this fact escapes them.

The Purpose of the Daily Stormer

I created this website with a definite and defined purpose. It is designed to serve as a hardcore front for the conversion of masses of people into a pro-White, Antisemitic ideology. At the same time, it is meant to cause a shift in the Overton Window, dragging the likes of RamZPaul and Colin Liddell closer to the center of the political spectrum.

Personally, I would rather be writing long essays about philosophical musings. I would like to write a revisionist history of of North American colonialism, based on source documentation I’ve acquired. Instead, I write a vulgar tabloid. I do not do this because I am unhinged and simply do not understand that the solution to our problems is more conferences and book reviews; I do it because from the standpoint of an intellectual who does care about changing the system, the only way to accomplish anything is by drawing the support of the masses.

And the way that the support of the masses is drawn is not a mystery.

The American propaganda of WWI and WWII was the most effective system of mobilizing people behind a cause in history. This cause was, in both instances, faked – Germany was never planning to invade the US, nor were they doing anything morally wrong. The narrative of the wars was a complete fantasy, and the intelligentsia of the time was painfully aware of this fact, yet this made little difference, given that the capitalist/Jewish elite was able to mobilize the people with vulgar propaganda.

It may be granted that right now, we have the truth on our side, whereas the Americans launching these wars did not, but the point is that the truth isn’t relevant to the masses – what is relevant is the ability to move people with imagery and emotion.  This is something that the likes of AmRen and Liddell do not even attempt, as they believe it to be below them, and so this is the position that the Daily Stormer is serving, because we are not haughty intellectuals who care more about our own egos than actual political change, nor do we despise the common man, viewing him instead as the core of our social order.

Instead of understanding this, and recognizing we are comrades working for the same goals on different fronts, Liddell and others who attack me as “plebeian” presume that I am just some sort of Romper Stomper street thug character trying to stir up trouble. I am not certain if they are actually incapable of perceiving what it is that I am doing here, and that this has been thought through, or if they are just pretending to not understand because it is easier to disagree with the presentation itself than the ideological basis of the presentation.

To be explicit, the ideological basis of the Daily Stormer can be summed up thusly:

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction.

The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:

It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

Liddell and the rest of these people could attempt to argue that the Daily Stormer is not properly carrying out these objectives, but that is not what they are arguing. They are instead arguing that there is no need for this type of material, and that people need to stick exclusively to long exposition about the IQ of Blacks, or the heavily technical explanations of the Jewish Problem offered by Kevin MacDonald.

Anyone who does something different is a secret agent.

Meanwhile, the enemy is making full use of emotional propaganda, not even attempting to make intellectual or fact-based arguments, and swaying the masses to their own side, over and over and over again.

I am not sure how any of this could be any more obvious than it presently is, to anyone with half a brain.  It seems to me that if anyone should be accused of being a secret agent, it is people who deny basic, obvious realities and instead embrace demonstrably ineffective tactics while accusing others of secret agentism.  But I don’t go around accusing people of being secret agents, because I am a grown adult, and prefer discussion of ideas to the exchange of insults.

In my mind, even if a person is a secret agent, they should be confronted on their ideas, as a secret agent’s goal would be to corrupt the ideological structure of the movement.  Making such accusations is simply a base and lazy method to stifle open discussion.

Perhaps Liddell just isn’t as smart as he thinks he is, or maybe he just doesn’t care, and is angry that the likes of the Daily Stormer and Robert Ransdell are rocking the boat by actually drawing support from masses of people.  Maybe Liddell is just too smart to understand the psychology of the masses, or maybe he just wants nationalism to remain a small private club.  I don’t know and it doesn’t matter.  His reasons are his own.

Whatever his thinking may be, however, it is clear from his statements that he would rather thwart any attempts to push the nationalist message into the mainstream than work for real change alongside people who share his stated goals of achieving self-determination for the White race.

From Where I’m Sitting

I am not doing this for ego. If my sole personal drive was my ego, I would not be running this site, and would instead be using my energy to get rich. I am involved in the nationalist movement because I desire to alter society to make it what I think it should be through political revolution, and I have taken the course which I believe is the most effective for accomplishing these ends.

As Liddell and the others who criticize this site and accuse me personally of being a secret agent so enjoy writing essays, I would invite them, in the future, to draw up a comprehensive explanation of why propaganda designed to target the masses is unnecessary.  I would also be willing to do a podcast with Liddell or any other representative of the “stay the course and do exactly what we say or you are a secret agent” nationalist movement, and discuss exactly why it is that they believe that after decades of publishing all of these facts about the nature of racial differences, it is still only a minority who pay attention.

To close, I would just say that I would like to work with all of these people who attack me, and I do not hold grudges. I think RamZPaul produces effective material, as does Liddell.  They serve important roles, just as I do, and my deepest desire is for a unified front among our people.  I am willing to put aside any personal disagreements in order to accomplish this.  I am also more than willing to take constructive criticism, if Liddell or any of his allies would like to rise above name-calling and weird accusations of secret agentism and discuss how we can do a better job than we presently are.

Right now, the Western world is collapsing, being destroyed by Jews and their hordes, and so it is that our ideas have never been more appealing.  What a terrible shame it would be if we let personal egos result in the destruction of our race.

In this post I intend to argue against the acceptance of homosexuality on the radical, pro-white right.  I am shocked that this post even has to be written, but over the last few years certain pro-sodomy propagandists have become influential in the movement.  These pro-white homosexuals, whose work is found most notably at the websites Counter Currents and Alternative Right, go far beyond the libertarian argument that “what people do in their own bedrooms shouldn’t matter”. These perverts actually promote the acceptance homosexuality as a positive good, and argue that opposing homosexuality ultimately harms white interests.

The basic arguments of the pro-sodomy white nationalists are clearly stated in Homosexuality & White Nationalism by Greg Johnson, the editor of Counter Currents.  Many of these homosexuals style themselves as “traditionalists”, claiming to follow Julius Evola and Rene Guenon (interestingly, I cannot recall reading anything in Evola or Guenon approving of homosexuality).  As traditionalists these homosexuals seek to justify their position by appealing to the ancient practices of the white race.  Thus Johson says:

“Homosexual pederasty, which still remains a taboo in our culture, was widely practiced by the ancient Aryan peoples of the Mediterranean world. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all practiced it.”

Johnson is correct in pointing out that the ancient world accepted homosexual pederasty, not homosexuality in general.  Pederasty was a form of homosexuality in which a fully mature man engaged in a romantic relationship with an adolescent boy.  The adult male was always the dominant partner and the adolescent the submissive partner.  It was also acceptable in the ancient world for adult males to engage in sex acts with male slaves, because what was key to the ancient mind was that a free-born adult male must always be the dominant partner during intercourse.  Although it was not shameful for a man to sodomize a slave or male prostitute, a free-born man being the submissive partner was considered a great scandal. But rather than promoting pederasty or sex with male slaves, the only homosexual behaviors that were accepted in antiquity, these pro-sodomy white nationalists promote acceptance of all types of homosexuality. This is the pro-homosexual white nationalist sleight of hand: moving from the ancient practices of sodomizing boys and slaves to the acceptance of two grown men engaging in a mutual sexual relationship, a practice for which there is no traditional precedent.  Let me repeat: there is absolutely no legitimate traditionalist argument for the acceptance of two adult homosexuals living together as equals.  This would have been shameful in any ancient European society, and yet these homosexual “traditionalists” wish to argue for the acceptance of these modern relationships by making reference to Greek pederasty.

Of course it is also possible that homosexual white nationalists secretly engage in pederasty (or wish to do so), but understand how unpopular this would be.  After all, Johnson does attempt to defend pederasty, saying that:

“Technically, the Greeks and others were not pedophiles, who pursue children, for they focused their attention on young men who were well past puberty and ready to begin military training.”

This sounds like something out of a NAMBLA pamphlet.  While the boys in pederastic relationships were not prepubescent, they often were only 14 or 15 years old, and by definition could not be fully developed (a boy with a full beard was generally considered too old). Being interested exclusively in males who are not fully developed is certainly a form of pedophilia.

Johnson also overstates the acceptance of homosexuality in the ancient world.  Pederasty was lauded by many ancients, but many in the ancient world also sought to limit or even completely do away with it. In Rome attempting to seduce free-born youths was a crime, and homosexuality was banned in the army.  The philosophers Socrates and Plato strongly disapproved of the physical consummation of male-male friendships, and according to Xenophon, a famous general and a pupil of Socrates, while many of the Greek cities allowed pederasty, Sparta did not, the laws of that state requiring that friendships between men and boys be as chaste as the relationship between father and son.  While pederasty did have its supporters in Greece and Rome, to suggest that it was an essential feature of Aryan culture is absurd.

In addition to the traditionalist argument, Johnson tries to support his position by claiming that the condemnation of homosexuality is detrimental to the pro-white cause:

“White Nationalism should be a one-issue political outlook. White Nationalism is for the interests of whites and against the interests of our racial enemies. Period. Anything else is beside the point. That means that White Nationalists must work to unite all whites into a self-conscious racial community, rallying around our common racial interests. White Nationalism has only one message for homosexuals: white homosexuals have more important interests in common with other whites than they do with non-white homosexuals.”

This position has unfortunately been accepted by many heterosexual white nationalists.  The obvious problem with this position is that it fails to put any limits on sexual behavior. For example, if we accept pro-white homosexuals, should we also accept pro-white adulterers? pro-white transsexuals?  pro-white whores?  wife-swappers?  zoophiliacs?  Surely white adulterers have interests in common with us, but that does not mean that we should condone their behavior, or that a healthy white society can exist where adultery is rampant. Johnson goes on to say that, “we all must focus our energies on pursuing our common goal by whatever path we choose, and we must resist wasting our time and energy on squabbles that divide us.”  But in this very same piece in which he calls for an end to divisive squabbles, Johnson engages in childish attacks on Christianity:

“If you ask Christians why they think homosexuality is a sin, they cannot point to any saying of Jesus. Jesus saw fit to condemn divorce but not sodomy. Christians have to turn to the Old Testament, to the record of the Jews and their wanderings, crimes, superstitions, and hatreds…Queer-bashers are in the grip of Jewry without even knowing it.”

This is the same gibberish that comes from liberal pro-homosexual “Christians”, and in making these claims Johnson is either being dishonest or is incredibly ignorant of Biblical teaching.  First of all, the New Testament does condemn homosexuality; second, traditional Christianity has never taught that we must follow only the words of Jesus while other Biblical teaching is optional; third, Jesus did not need to condemn homosexuality because his audience already knew that it was wrong.  When teaching on sexuality, Jesus introduced stricter standards than those found in the Old Testament, saying that it is a sin even to look upon a woman with lust.  The idea that Jesus, while introducing an even stricter standard on heterosexual behavior, could somehow be tacitly condoning homosexuality is ridiculous.  Equally ridiculous is Johnson’s claim that because the Greeks and Romans allowed men to sodomize their slaves, therefore you are acting Jewish if you oppose homosexuality.

One can pick apart the bizarre, irrational arguments of men like Johnson, but the obvious fact is that these individuals are homosexuals themselves and go to great lengths to rationalize their behavior.  Like all sexual deviants they are driven by the desire to normalize their own perversions in the eyes of others, and therefore everything they say about sexuality is tainted and should be rejected out of hand.  Furthermore, we should not send the message that these queers are part of our movement, or represent what we are about.  At best this situation will continue to be an embarrassment, at worst it will become a major scandal when an activist who idealizes and promotes ancient Greek homosexuality turns out (surprise surprise) to actually pursue young boys in real life.  I suggest that the pro-sodomy right should be ignored and ostracized from the rest of the pro-white community.  Don’t read their blogs, don’t comment on their articles, don’t appear on their radio shows, don’t buy their books.

Unfortunately far too many white nationalists either accept the pro-sodomy arguments or collaborate with the sodomite right despite their own personal opposition to homosexuality. This latter group includes many pro-white Christians.  I began this post by commenting on how shocked I am that the acceptance of homosexuality is a topic of discussion on the far-right, but the fact that pro-white Christians accept virulently anti-Christian homosexuals into their movement absolutely boggles the mind.  As an example of this inexplicable behavior, I look at an interview of James O’Meara conducted by Andy Nowicki.  O’Meara is a homosexual propagandist whose book The Homo and the Negro is published by Counter Currents. Nowicki identifies as Catholic, and yet in this interview he is thrilled to explore O’Meara’s “queer, psychedelic” world-view (O’Meara has explained his approach as Evola combined with David Bowie and William S. Burroughs).  When Nowicki asks O’Meara about Christianity, O’Meara suggests that “traditionalist” homosexuals should infiltrate the Church and transform it into a pagan institution.  Nowicki offers no objection to this proposal, at least in the text of the interview provided.  I should add that this interview was posted in the category “Alt Right books for Christmas”, and was promoting The Homo and the Negro.  The “Catholic” Nowicki was promoting the sale of a pro-homosexual book as a Christmas gift.  This type of behavior is completely shameful and can only harm our cause.  The Christians who associate with the likes of Johnson and O’Meara, while not living in the city of Sodom themselves, look back at Sodom, hoping that something good will come out of it.  I pray that these Christians change their ways, and begin imitating Lot instead of his foolish wife, and leave the Sodomites alone with the hellfire they have brought upon themselves.