As we covered on this site, Counter-Currents publisher Greg Johnson was banned from Norway. He was arrested on the theory that something he might say might inspire someone to do something against the Norwegian government in the future – even though Johnson is 100% against violence and terrorism.

The speech, originally published at Counter-Currents, is entitled “The Very Idea of White Privilege,” and is reprinted here without the permission of the author.

SPEECH FOLLOWS.

Author’s Note:

I was arrested to prevent me from delivering this talk at The Scandza Forum in Oslo on November 2, 2019. The Norwegian Security Police somehow divined — without knowing the topic or even the title — that this lecture would lead to political violence if delivered. Judge for yourself. For a fuller account of my arrest, see “Anarcho-Tyranny in Oslo.”

I want to thank Frodi and the rest of the Scandza team for making this event possible, as well as all of you for coming out to hear me. I am honored today to be speaking alongside these distinguished doctors of the human sciences. My Ph.D., however, is in philosophy. Philosophers don’t do scientific research. Instead, we stand back and try to talk about the big picture, including the meaning of scientific discoveries for politics and morals. My topic today is “The Very Idea of White Privilege.”

***

A privilege is an advantage that you enjoy and others don’t. Privilege is inherently unequal. Special privileges are the opposite of equal rights. White privilege means advantages enjoyed by whites just in virtue of their race—rights not enjoyed by non-whites. White privilege is a form of hereditary privilege. Whites do nothing to earn or merit white privilege over and above simply being born. White privilege thus refers to a whole range of unequal and unearned—and thus unjust—advantages enjoyed by whites and denied to non-whites in the societies that whites created. White privilege is just another word for white “racism.”

The concept of white privilege has exploded in American public discourse in the last five years, coinciding with the so-called “great awokening,” namely the wave of Left-wing hysteria and gaslighting set off by the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown hoaxes, namely the claims that two blacks who were killed while committing crimes were actually the real victims, innocent victims of white racism.

The concept of white privilege has provoked a great deal of eye-rolling and healthy anger from whites. This manifestation of white toughness has, absurdly, been termed “white fragility,” which is a clear sign that the Left is not just out of touch with reality but simply thinks that it can be conjured up or banished with word magic.

Whites reject the idea of white privilege for various reasons.

• Some think that racism is a terrible thing, but they don’t think that they or their societies are guilty of it.
• The vast majority of white people work very hard and never had anything given to them, so they resent the idea that they benefit from unearned privileges.
• Others think there is nothing wrong with racial inequality and believe that white privilege is just another politically correct moral swindle in which non-whites seek unearned advantages by accusing good-hearted whites of spurious offenses for which they can buy forgiveness.

But as much as I applaud this pushback against white privilege, the concept is not entirely meaningless. For instance, within the lifetimes of some people reading this, whites enjoyed legal privileges denied to non-whites in Apartheid South Africa and the American South.

But there is not a white society in the world today in which whites enjoy such legal privileges over non-whites. Even the idea of nationality through descent is being chipped away as a form of privilege. Indeed, in South Africa and the United States, non-whites now enjoy privileges over whites, both legally and through massive private discrimination.

Yet, even with decades of official and unofficial non-white privilege behind us, certain non-white groups are more likely than whites to be uneducated, poor, and in trouble with the law—to name just three important factors in overall social well-being.

The official explanation for these lingering inequalities is “racism,” that is to say: white malevolence, as well as “systemic” forms of inequality. According to this theory, since all peoples want to thrive in white societies and have equal inherent potential to do so, the fact that some groups conspicuously do not thrive needs to be explained.

Since white people are the architects of these societies, they are obviously the ones to blame. Thus white people must be hectored and browbeaten and reeducated. We must be punished by affirmative action and reparations. And we must endure having our societies torn apart and rebuilt over and over again, until racial equality is attained. Because nothing stands in the way of racial equality except white institutions and ways of life, white ignorance and ill-will, white guilt and white privilege—or so they say.

But it is increasingly difficult to believe this viewpoint because legal white privileges have been overturned and replaced. White privilege has not, moreover, been replaced by a classical liberal meritocracy, in which all people are subject to the same rules and judged on individual merit, but by a system of non-white privilege. But even with the system rigged in their favor, some non-white groups conspicuously lag behind whites in a vast number of indexes of social well-being. (An excellent summation of these differences is Richard Lynn’s The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide [Augusta, Ga.: Washington Summit Publishers, 2008].)

Even though anti-racist activists and non-whites find it increasingly difficult to point to any specific cause of persistent inequality, they just know that it is somehow white people’s fault. This is why the Left has resorted to increasingly “occult”—i.e. hidden and mysterious—explanations for persistent racial inequality.

Since fewer and fewer whites are consciously racist, the problem must be unconscious racism somehow keeping certain groups down. Unconscious racism is a real phenomenon, but how far does it explain persistent inequality? (On unconscious racism, see Kevin MacDonald’s “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 4 [2006].)

Since fewer and fewer whites hold negative racial stereotypes about other groups, and non-whites are still displaying stereotypical behavior, non-whites must be sabotaging themselves because of the “threat,” the mere specter of negative stereotypes existing in their own minds—and this is still white people’s fault, somehow.

Since explicit, legal racism has been dismantled and even reversed, the legacy of past racism must still exert a subtle influence that is powerful enough to cancel out the effects of much more recent systems of non-white privilege, somehow.

The classic statement on white privilege is Peggy McIntosh’s 1989 essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” where she writes:

I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks.

McIntosh offers fifty examples of white privilege. McIntosh’s backpack is more of a grab bag, ranging from discrimination in housing and law enforcement to the color of band-aids. McIntosh’s examples make it very clear that when she speaks of non-white Americans she is thinking specifically of black Americans.

Most of McIntosh’s white privileges fall into two broad categories: (1) aspects of having a homeland, and (2) not being black. Aspects of having a homeland include the following (the numbers are McIntosh’s):

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children’s teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others’ attitudes toward their race.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the “person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children’s magazines featuring people of my race.

27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

46. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more or less match my skin.

All of these “privileges” are simply aspects of having a homogeneous homeland, of belonging to a community of people with whom you share a common biological and cultural heritage. In white societies, one can call this “white privilege.” But in Asian societies, one would call it Asian privilege and in African societies, African privilege. Furthermore, it is too crude to speak about this simply in terms of broad racial categories. Instead, we should speak about Norwegian privilege in Norway, Japanese privilege in Japan, Swazi privilege in Swaziland, and the like. It would also be nice to live in a world in which stateless peoples, like Palestinians and Kurds, have similar privileges.

McIntosh describes privilege as “invisible” and “weightless.” We are “oblivious” of privilege. The unconscious aspect of privilege is also an aspect of having a homeland. A homeland is not just a realm in space. It is also a realm of meaning. To be truly at home, one must fully internalize and master these codes of meaning—language and manners being the most important—so one does not have to consciously reflect on them. Then one can simply relax and live rather than be self-conscious.

A foreign land is not just a place with unfamiliar people and things. The conventions are unfamiliar as well, thus one is constantly forced to reflect upon things that are taken for granted by the natives. Is this the right word? Is this the right greeting? How do I call 911?

It is fun to visit foreign lands, but it can be alienating, stressful, and psychologically exhausting to actually live in one, and this is the everyday experience of minorities and stateless peoples in other people’s homelands. The cure to this problem is to give every people a land of their own where they can feel at home rather than constantly alienated.

Many of McIntosh’s alleged privileges of being white are more accurately described as the absence of the disadvantages of being black. These include:

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.

35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

McIntosh describes black disadvantages as white privileges because she wishes to absolve blacks for these problems and blame whites. Unfortunately, many anti-black stereotypes—for instance, black criminality and financial irresponsibility—are not just dreamed up by evil-minded white people. They are based in experience. Of course most blacks are not criminals and spendthrifts, but enough of them are that it is rational for whites to be vigilant around blacks they do not know, a burden of suspicion that falls equally upon the problem minority and the blameless majority.

One of the central contentions of the Black Lives Matter movement is that blacks are arrested for crimes at a greater rate than whites simply because of white racism. But objective data shows that blacks are arrested for crimes at pretty much the same rate that they commit them. (See for instance, Edwin S. Rubenstein’s The Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Justice in America [Oakton, Vir.: New Century Foundation, 2016].) Thus, if Black Lives Matter wishes to lower the black arrest rate, they should work to lower the black crime rate.

But there is not a single politician in America who has the courage to simply tell blacks to commit fewer crimes. Instead, police departments are being intimidated into giving blacks license to break the law with impunity. Police are also more likely to use violence with white suspects than blacks in comparable situations. This is objectively a system of black privilege. (On Black Lives Matter and the collapse of policing blacks, see Heather MacDonald’s studies on “the Ferguson effect.” On the over-policing of whites in America, including increased chances of death by cop, see Richard Houck’s “Law Enforcement and the Hostile Elite,” Counter-Currents, June 20, 2018.)

Blacks feel oppressed in white societies by negative white stereotypes. But the most momentous of these stereotypes are based on experience. Thus it is rational to use them as guides in dealing with black strangers. Because of this, no amount of reeducation is going to banish them. (For a more detailed discussion of the rationality of experience-based prejudices, see the title essay of my book In Defense of Prejudice.)

As long as multiracial societies persist, whites will continue to resent blacks for not living up to white standards, and blacks will continue to resent whites for imposing alien standards. The ethnonationalist solution to such irreconcilable differences is racial divorce: the creation of homogeneous sovereign homelands, to the extent that this is possible, for all distinct peoples who wish to exercise this right. (I discuss the concepts of ethnonationalism and homogeneity, and how they can be achieved humanely in The White Nationalist Manifesto. Also see my essay, “Irreconcilable Differences: The Case for Racial Divorce.”)

The main reason to reject the claim that America is a white supremacist society is the fact that some non-white groups—chiefly East Asians and certain communities of South Asians—do better than whites in key indicators of success, such as educational attainment, income, and law abidingness, and they did so before anti-white discrimination and non-white tokenism became rampant. If American whites were intent on creating systematic white privilege and supremacy, we failed miserably. White racism is not a sufficient explanation for differing racial outcomes in America.

We have an alternative hypothesis based on the science of Human Biological Diversity. The differing levels of education, income, and law-abidingness—to name just three factors—among racial groups in America are precisely what we would predict given measurable differences of IQ and sociopathic personality traits between the races. For a survey of the effect of IQ on a wide range of social outcomes, see Richard Lynn’s The Global Bell Curve. On racial differences in personality traits beyond just IQ, including psychopathy, see Michael Levin’s Why Race Matters (Oakton, Vir.: New Century Books, 2016).

This does not mean that the American system is “fair” in the sense of being a color-blind meritocracy. We are perfectly willing to admit that some forms of discrimination favor whites—if it is also acknowledged that significant non-white privileges exist. But I believe that Human Biological Diversity is so powerful a determinant of social outcomes that it can basically overpower both white and anti-white privileges, allowing us to act as if these forces do not exist, even though we know that they do. In a similar way, although we know that other measurable psychological traits matter to social outcomes, IQ differences alone are so powerful at predicting social outcomes that we can act as if other factors do not matter. (This was brought home to me by Lynn’s The Global Bell Curve.)

Different races really are different. That means that when different races live in the same social system, subject to the same laws, institutions, and incentives, some will inevitably flourish better than others. There will never be a social system that is equally conducive to the flourishing of all races and cultures. Such inequalities will persist even if we institute remedial forms of discrimination in favor of groups who lag behind.

The science of Human Biological Diversity also explains why some non-white groups excel in white societies, even though they too have trouble finding flesh-colored band-aids.

Many of us would prefer not to mention biological racial differences at all, for fear of hurting the feelings of disadvantaged groups. But we have to talk about such differences, because the present system blames whites for the failure of some non-whites to flourish in white societies. As long as whites are charged with evil intentions to keep some races down, and as long as white institutions and ways of life are targeted for demolition and reconstruction by egalitarian social engineers, we must press the alternative hypothesis of biologically-based inequality.

So if the different races are biologically unequal, what does this imply for social policy? Today’s conservatives and libertarians think they can retain multiculturalism by establishing a true “color-blind” meritocracy. While I am all for meritocracy, it is simply naïve to believe that groups that will naturally gravitate toward the bottom of such a system—the “losers”—will be satisfied with their lot, even if they arrived there by entirely “fair” procedures, and even if they enjoy higher material standards of living than they could in non-white homelands.

Classical liberalism is simply blind to non-material motivations like honor and pride. Many non-whites would rather rule in hell (their own homelands) than serve in heaven (classical liberal meritocracies). Ethnonationalists, however, understand such attitudes completely.

Every human being deserves a home, where he can be himself free of the interference of others. But we should feel at home outside our front doors as well. We should be able to live among people who share our language and values, our history and destiny, the whole litany of “white privileges.” We don’t just need homes. We need homelands—not alienating, bewildering, multicultural bazaars filled with people who do not share our language and values. A country’s Gross Domestic Product does not matter if nobody feels at home.

If races really are different, that means they will create different social systems. These systems will express their natures. They will feel as comfortable to them as well-fitting shoes. But this means that other races will not feel comfortable, even if they are treated with utmost courtesy and fairness—even if they are given advantages over the natives. The solution is not to further change our societies, to further abandon our norms and ways of life to accommodate outsiders. That simply doesn’t work. Multiculturalism does not create societies in which everyone feels at home. It creates societies where no one feels at home.

There is no moral imperative to destroy our homelands to accommodate strangers. There would be no such imperative even if it were possible. And there is certainly no imperative to destroy real homelands in pursuit of the impossible dream of a society in which all peoples feel equally at home.

But there is one place where all the peoples of the world can feel at home. It is called the planet Earth. This planet is big enough for all races and nations to have places they can call their own. This is the ethnonationalist version of utopia. Privilege is inherently unequal, but everyone can be privileged in his own homeland. Norwegians can be privileged in Norway. Somalis can be privileged in Somalia. Kurds can be privileged in Kurdistan. As long as every people has a place to call home, there is nothing unfair about this situation.

Peggy McIntosh describes white privilege as a package of “unearned assets.” That is meant as a criticism. But we must be careful here. Only a bourgeois individualist equates the unearned with the unjust. There are some cases where we have a right to unearned assets. For instance, if a gift truly is a gift, and not simply a disguised form of exchange, then it is an unearned asset to which we have a right. A gift created by past generations and handed on to future generations cannot be a disguised exchange, for there is no way to pay our ancestors back for our genetic and cultural heritage. We can only pay it forward, to future generations. A homeland is an unearned asset, a privilege, and you have every right to defend it zealously.

Norway is not something that all people can enjoy. It is something for yourselves and your posterity. It was created by your ancestors, carved out of a remarkably beautiful but harsh environment through will and ingenuity. It was passed on to you, for safekeeping and improvement. And I hope you can securely pass it along to future generations of Norwegians, once strangers like me have departed your shores.

The above video, posted a few hours ago by Counter-Currents, features an interview with Greg Johnson’s lawyer in Norway.

The interview was done by Frodi Midjord. (Mad props on that beard, by the way, Frodi. Those of us who have tried to look sharp with a full beard know just how hard it is to keep it that clean-looking. By the way, you should get that tattoo removed from your neck; it’s cheap and easy now, just really painful.)

Greg, the editor of Counter-Currents, was arrested in Norway over the weekend for allegedly planning to inspire people to overthrow the government at some unspecified time in the future.

He was told that he would be deported, but was forced to wait in jail for 48 hours. That was nothing more than punitive jail time, as there was no reason they couldn’t have just driven him directly to the airport.

Just this morning, we’ve gotten word that he’s been released, and is awaiting a flight home.

Greg Johnson is out of jail in NO. 48 hours incommunicado with little sleep and terrible food. Now free and awaiting return flight. Celebrity lawyer has taken case. Police and antifa on defensive. And Jeffrey Epstein still did not kill himself.

— Counter-Currents (@NewRightAmerica) November 4, 2019

Basically, nowhere in Europe is safe for anyone with unpopular views.

I’m told I still have a warrant in Europe for making fun of a Holocaust memorial in Berlin in 2014. I never even denied it.

That video is gone forever, apparently, but OGs will remember.

Seriously though – stay out.

They do not have free speech, they are under no obligation to not simply arrest you.

And honestly, if it was me or someone else who is less… polite than Greg Johnson, they might have opted to detain us for a lot longer than 48 hours.

I’m sure when Greg is back stateside, he’ll be recounting the whole ordeal in detail.

You have to go to the page to view the video. You can also just download the MP3 here (no facecams anyway).

I went on Tara McCarthy’s show today to debate Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents after I had been unfairly misrepresented by him in a debate he had on that show with Vox Day.

I was misrepresented in that I never told anyone to be a literal Neo-Nazi and carry swastika flags on the street, and have in fact spoken out against that, explicitly.

I do not believe that “Neo-Nazi White Supremacist” is even a thing, outside of prison gangs, which are generally apolitical. I am certainly not supportive of dressing up like Nazis in public, or the KKK (which is even older than the Nazis), mainly because that isn’t cool. Just like those Ron Paul/Tea Party people who dressed up in tricorn hats.

Or Neo-Pagan hippies

Not cool.

In fact, I don’t think there is any way to make dressing up in historical clothing cool under any circumstances other than a Halloween party. I do support Halloween parties, as I think they are fun. But definitely, there is no political context in which that makes sense.

There is just something very try-hardy and loserish about dressing up like this, and not being connected to connected to modern fashion gives the impression that you are disconnected in general. No normal person sees people dressed up in Halloween costumes for a political purpose and says “yo those guys are with it.”

Even George Lincoln Rockwell said – straight up – that the only reason he ever dressed up like a Nazi is because that’s the only way he could get the media to pay attention to him. He was an ad man before he was a Nazi. That concept was a big part of my own strategy here on the Daily Stormer.

I also believe that at any future rallies such as the one in Charlottesville, we should be using American flags, rather than all of these different strange ones. I have no idea how that is anything other than obvious to anyone. Imagine the optics of the situation if instead of these various different flags that were carried, everyone in attendance had been carrying American flags.

So, after that correction was made, we then had a bit of back and forth over what to do about Nazis and the Holocaust myth.

Greg presented the two options thusly:

1. Confront the Holocaust as a hoax and do not accept the “evil Nazi” narrative, or
2. Claim that Hitler and the Holocaust are irrelevant and try to navigate around them

I accept these as the two options.

Note: Technically there is a third option, which is to not try to deny that the Nazis were evil, but to still support them. This is what the Jew media tries to claim that we are doing - just being purposefully evil.  Although I wouldn't do this, I think this is actually better in terms of mass psychology than the second option, personally, because it least you come across as honest.

You can decide who made the better argument there.

The core of my argument is simply this: everything you say is going to sound like the Nazis in people’s minds. Pretty much no matter what. So it doesn’t matter if you want to be attached to it or not, you’re stuck with it. So you might as well deal with it.

The Holocaust narrative – as Greg admits – is also very weak right now, due to just time. People whining over the Holocaust automatically look like the most repulsive sort of pathetic whiners. So triggering them into further whining about this alleged historical event is good in any context, because it is so weak.

Basically, my position is this: you always have to be on the attack. If you are not attacking, then you are defending yourself, and anyone who is defending looks like they’re apologizing and losing. Trying to say “oh but it doesn’t matter that I believe the same thing as these people who were pure evil” is a weak position to be in, and it locks you into defending that.

If you just say “sure, I support Hitler – Holocaust was a hoax,” you can then move on to further discussion of real ideas.

That is the way public discourse works. Especially modern public discourse. They try to trap you. It’s all about “gotchas.”

I do not think that people should be going out there talking about Hitler or how we need full-Nazism or any of that as part of a real life political movement, but they should overcome the lies about Hitler and the Nazis by simply dismissing them as lies.

Also, Greg’s point about how denying the Holocaust is more complicated than agreeing with it because Holocaust revisionism is complicated – this is also wrong. This is about the way public discourse works, about mass human psychology and the way they interpret people’s nature and motivations. Not about the details of history, which obviously no one cares about.

If you support the mainstream narrative on Hitler then you are defacto condemning him as evil (unless you do the above mentioned third option, and accept that he is evil but also support him). So, when you are saying basically all the same things as him – and there is simply no way to get around the fact that you will be saying the same basic things, unless you cuck out – while also admitting that he is evil (and not presenting yourself as purposefully evil), you are just going to look like a sneaky liar. Like you are trying to trick people.

And Greg effectively said that he things we should be trying to trick people, because he said that Hitler was lied about and didn’t really do anything wrong (except, he argued, invade Poland and want to dominate the Slavs), but said that

NOTE: Hitler's desire to rule over Poland is something which I don't care about, as I am a warlordist and human evolution-believer and believe the strong should rule over the weak and if the Pole don't want to be ruled over they should become stronger. Stalin certainly didn't show any mercy on the Germans or anyone else (although ultimately the communist system was more merciful than its post-war Western counterpart, as it never would have led to child trannies and multiculturalism). This "nationalism for everyone" concept is something which I strongly believe is total bullshit, because it necessarily embraces weakness in order to defend an abstract moral principle that no one ever cared about in history. The entire history of the world was various groups ruling over one another. Sometimes it switched back and forth, with a ruled group becoming the ruler. That's nature. Peace is an unnatural state for mankind.

If the media says “so you support Hitler” and you say “I don’t necessarily agree with every single thing he did and said, but I believe he was a great man who has been unfairly lied about” and you hold that position consistently you will successfully avoid that “gotcha,” and regardless of media attempts, the public will want to move on to the next thing – if the media keeps pressing that same point, the masses will get agitated, saying “well, he already said he thinks everything about Hitler is a lie – let’s move on to the next point already!”

Overall, I think at this point, anyone who shares the same goal as me questioning my techniques is absolutely absurd, given that the Daily Stormer is the most popular pro-White publication in all of history and is now the most banned publication in all of history (proving its efficiency). I understand when Greg and others used to make this argument 4-5 years ago, but I do not understand it now. If you exclude TRS, which is the number two Alt-Right site and also denies and mocks the Jew Hoaxocaust, then Daily Stormer is bigger than all other Alt-Right websites combined. We broke into the top 10,000 sites in the world before the Jews stole our domain and tried to force us off the internet.

This humorous, light-hearted and fun refusal to go along with a program that destroys us, mocking the neurotic and humorless ruling establishment, while creating a parallel culture is the correct approach. I am always attempting to refine my approach, which is why our readership is always growing.

But unless I am simply a much better writer than Greg or anyone else in the movement – and I don’t think I am, at least in the case of Greg, who is an excellent writer in an objective sense, and has gathered a group of very excellent writers on his site – then the fact that I am getting orders of magnitude more traffic proves that my approach is the better approach.

I mean, at one point in the debate he actually suggested that I change my approach to become more like his approach. Would that not make my traffic more like his traffic?

Does Greg think that DailyStormer.com is magic dirt? 

Because I’m about to prove it isn’t on DailyStormer.al.

Other Stuff

We also went through some stuff we agreed on.

In particular, the need of the government to regulate tech companies, and the fact that everyone is going to get shut down quick as all hell if that doesn’t happen promptly.

I also went on a rant about my spiritual beliefs, which is something I am open about, though I don’t really write about them very often.

Overall, it was a good time.

It’s interesting to speak to a different audience, and hopefully I can get a chance to read some of the feedback from that other audience.

The SPLC has weighed in on the Infinite DramaQuest in an article entitled “Eating Their Own: Several Feuds Erupt Among White Nationalists.”  Except they didn’t really “weigh in,” as in give some commentary on the situation, as they didn’t have to.  All they had to do was go through and explain how the whole thing went down in order to make us all look completely pathetic and childish.

As the reader is aware, this is my entire point in all of this.  I have continually tried to steer clear of adventure-based drama-mongering, as I view it as utterly destructive and pointless.  It does nothing but make us all look weak.  My own seminal dissertation on the scenario, entitled “Infinite DramaQuest: The Battle for the Soul of American White Nationalism Continues!” was designed to mock the situation itself, and thus inject some reality into what was happening.

This needs to stop.  I am fully open to working with any of these people, and do not hold grudges.  If any of those involved wish to cease and desist their childlike tantrums, I will support them and publish whatever it is they wish me to publish.  I am a grown adult with an agenda, and I have no desire to see my ancient blood heritage extinguished from existence over some goofy ego-driven nonsense.

Can you imagine the SPLC getting into a gigantic bitch-fest with the ADL and AIPAC?  Probably, you cannot imagine that because it wouldn’t ever happen and is completely unimaginable.  The reason for this is that these organizations recognize they are all on the same side.

So, once again, as far as I’m concerned, none of this ever happened.  No drama has ever happened.  Anyone who has ever attacked me is forgiven.

Let’s try and make this thing work, guys.

Well, another week down the tubes as we wait for ultimate death by Ebola.  I’m hopeful though.  This whole thing is so transparent, they are really going to have a hard time doing damage control on why exactly they made this happen on purpose.

It could also amount to virtually nothing, as they are claiming.  Though I feel this is not the most likely outcome.  Something between nothing and an apocalypse seems most likely.

Infinite DramaQuest is Over, Andrew Anglin Claims Ultimate Victory

I am no longer interested in Infinite DramaQuest 2014, and I have already claimed absolute and unconditional victory.  However, for those still interested, Greg Johnson wrote another piece on it, wherein he claims that the Germans killed millions of Jews.

I had previously maintained a bit of respect for Johnson, given that he basically agrees with all of my positions and simply hates poor people.  But confirming the hoax is deeply troubling and dumb.

Oh, and the Jew Kirchick called Richard Spencer a Nazi in the Daily Beast.

Oh, and an AmRen contributor wrote a piece defending Jared Taylor against the Jew who called him a Nazi, which is interesting for a number of different reasons I won’t go into here, but which you can go read yourself and draw whatever conclusions you feel can be rightfully drawn.

Miss Hitler Pageant

Marcus’ Hitler Beauty Pageant article was one of the more popular articles this week.

Here is the official VK page for the contest.  It’s in Russian.  They were kind enough to post our article.

UPDATE:

The page has been removed and replaced with this:

Note on Slavs

As the above situation proves, Slavs are fine folks.  I have had some complaints about them getting attacked in comments sections, which is a typical Jew tactic.

Note that I am in no way a proponent of massive immigration of Slavs to the UK, Germany, etc.  That is a Jew strategy.  However, attacking Slavs is stupid, and serves no purpose, especially given that we have so many other enemies at present.

As people know, I’ve spent a bit of time in Slav countries, and know they are rather different from us Anglos.  And, to be perfectly frank, I feel the Anglo social order is superior.  But that is due to my own blood, as I know they prefer theirs.  That said, it is better to be in a Slav country these days in almost every way – save for the alienation factor which comes from being in a slightly foreign society – than in the US, UK, Germany, etc.  You can speak freely, for one.  No one bats an eye if you rant about Jews or faggots.  Even if they disagree with you, they are so used to hearing it, they don’t think anything of it.

On top of that, the women are not fat, and everyone is not all uptight all the time.

So, if we exclude the option of mass immigration from Slavic countries, which I think everyone agrees on (the Slavs who frequent this page are nationalists, so obviously they are trying to save their own countries, not immigrate to the UK), the idea of attacking other Europeans due to perceived differences is idiotic.

Don’t do it, or you’ll get banned.

This website is about unifying European peoples, not bickering as we are destroyed by Jews and subhumans from everywhere.

Notes on a TV Show

After having it recommended to me by someone who is good at recommending things, I decided to try watching Breaking Bad.  I am also generally interested in what is poppin in pop culture, as I think it says a lot about what is going on in the heads of normal people. I have very limited “me time” and generally prefer to use it exercising, going on walks, talking to people and so on, so don’t really see much video entertainment at all, but I made an exception here.

And it has thus far been worthwhile.  I think the show is quite good, and basically pro-White.

I will probably, over the next couple months, finish watching it and write up a longer thing about it, but would like to make a few comments now.

For those who don’t know, it follows the story of a middle-aged man who, after being diagnosed with cancer, decides to start manufacturing methamphetamine so he can leave money for his family when he dies.  Throughout the course of the show, he is put in a series of situations where he is forced to abandon his former self and become something else.  Basically, it is the tale of a emasculated middle class White guy – who’s name is even “Mr. White” – taking on Nietzschian ethics and becoming a man of masculine power.

It is a similar theme to that of Fight Club, which was obviously also overwhelmingly popular.  This says something good about society, or a portion of thereof.

Breaking Bad has almost no cultural Marxist programming in it.  They make the expert doctor and a highly intelligent drug-figure Black guys (the latter might actually be a Latino, it’s not clear yet based on how long I’ve watched it, but that would make more sense), but it is almost as if they had to do that just to get the show made at all in Jewlywood.  Though the show is mainly written, directed and acted in by White people, there are a couple Jew producers who no doubt demanded such characters be added.

All of the other non-White characters are portrayed realistically.  Mexican gangs are shown as as barbaric as they truly are (the whole Aztec berserker thing is done very well), and there are no sympathetic Mexican characters.

Assuming the role of drug lord, Mr. White takes on the German alter-ego of “Heisenberg.”  Here, you have a rather startling analogy for the transformation of the Weimar Republic into a National Socialist state, where a broken people, on the edge of total destruction, rose up and obtained strength and power.

The criminal lawyer in the show, who provides comic relief, is an Irishman who changed his name to “Saul Goodman” because “you can’t make it in this business unless they think you’re part of the tribe.”

The drug theme may be seen as distasteful, but again, these are Nietzschian ethics being portrayed, rather than explicitly Christian ethics (I don’t necessarily believe there should be a conflict between the two in real life, which is a discussion for another time – NS is a system in which the two exist side-by-side – but in the show, for the purpose of portraying a concept, Master Morality is divorced from Christian morality completely).  Drug dealing is the last bastion of cowboyism in Western society (excluding online Nazism), and thus the logical place that a modern man would man-up (in a dramatically exaggerated presentation such as that we are discussing).

There is also there the issue of natural morality, which is more basic and primitive than anything else in the human psyche, and that is self-preservation and the care of one’s progeny.  In the old times, we had to kill people who might not have been “bad guys” simply to ensure that our families were fed, due to limited resources.  This is still a foundational aspect of our psyche, whether we like to admit it or not.  When push comes to shove, any real man would kill another man – whoever he was – if his children would otherwise starve.  That is the basic law of nature, existing outside of any man-made ideology.

Obviously, in the show, Mr. White’s family was not going to starve if he didn’t leave them millions of dollars worth of drug money, but again, this is a dramatic exaggeration to illustrate a fundamental human concept.

On top of this, the drug issue is dealt with realistically, showing what actually happens to drug addicts, without any silly romanticizing.  Besides the token Negroes in completely ridiculous places, all of the characters are dealt with realistically, without any clear Marxist implications (again, I am less than halfway through the show, so maybe it will start promoting gay sex like Game of Thrones did, I don’t know yet).

Overall, the show is not necessarily positive (other than perhaps artistically), but its popularity is certainly positive.  Men long to do what Mr. White does in the show – not to sell drugs and murder people, necessarily, but to man-up and cast-off the chains of feminist conditioning.  To become a real man, with responsibility and power, an ability to confront one’s enemies directly without fear, an ability to assert one’s will as he sees fit.

And please – no spoilers in the comments section.

Regarding Not Doing Things

Some people complained that we are not covering Russia well enough, or complained about some other lack of coverage (I do plan to do that PBS Whiteness documentary, hopefully tomorrow).  Well, we have the issue here that we cannot do everything.  And there is always so much going down.  Sven does race war and British issues, Lee does a lot of stuff on Jews and faggotry, Marcus and I cover what we can of all topics.  And I do most American news.  But we are overworked, understaffed, underpaid, etc.  So it is simply not possible to do everything.

I do wish there were more people capable of doing various daily news items.  I am trying to figure out multiple other things, and just don’t really have time, since I have to write 15 articles a day to ensure everything is done.

Not complaining, I love doing this, honestly, and wouldn’t want to do anything else, save that there are other things which need done that I cannot do, due to time constraints.  There are only so many hours in the day.

Donations

As always, your contributions are both needed and appreciated.

Here’s a PayPal button:

And here is the official donations page, where you can get the address you can mail money to, and further informations.

The monthly donation option is particularly helpful, as then I am aware of how much money will be coming in regularly.

Troll Forum

One of the things I want to do that I have yet to find time for is figure out the troll forum.  I did have time to figure out how it is going to work.  First, we are only going to allow people to join who are already regular commenters on the site – this will be a beta mode.  Then, when we open registration to the public after a while, it will be easier to spot anyone who is trying to make trouble.  Er.  Anyone who is trying to make the wrong kind of trouble.  The purpose of the forum will be to make trouble for our enemies, the filthy Christ-Killing Jews.

I haven’t typed up a list of rules yet – because I haven’t had the time – but basically this will not be a discussion or community forum, and discussion that does not have to do with organizing trolls for the purpose of trolling our enemies will be disallowed.  Discussion forums always descend into endless flame wars, and there is no point to these arguments.  No one learns anything, everyone just gets mad, and it is fertile ground for enemy trolls to infiltrate and cause chaos.  No one will be able to push any sort of personal agenda or belief system, or talk about religion, or speculate about whatever.

Laying it out like this will ensure that no one is unclear about what they are or are not allowed to say, and no one will be able to complain of censorship because they started a religious or conspiracy or whatever debate.

Given the above mentioned – constantly mentioned – time restraints, I’m not going to be able to run this thing, but from a distance, so we will need volunteers. I know I said that before and a bunch of people emailed me about it and I probably didn’t reply because I hardly ever respond to emails (see above mentioned time restraints).

There will only be one board, and it will be a troll board.  People will be able to post links in threads to articles, blogs, reddits, etc. which need to be trolled.  People will also be able to organize large-scale trolling campaigns, such as the operations which take place on /pol/.  For instance, creating a bunch of fake feminist accounts on Twitter, and using them to get actual feminists to promote things like #EndFathersDay.

/pol/ is a great board, and I am not trying to compete with them.  However, I think it is very worthwhile to have a place specifically for trolling, where people can go and find what others are trolling, get together and troll together.  This way, you won’t have to look for threads on trolling, you can just hit up Stormer Troll Forum (which is probably the official name) and join in the fun.  You will be able to post screen shots of your trolls as encouragement/inspiration to others.

Due to, you guessed it, time restraints, I have not had time to troll Alex Jones.  This will also resurrect Operation: Jew Wife in full-force.

Probably, even while in Beta mode, the forum will be viewable by everyone, so you can join in without being a member.

As I said, after having thought through the idea of a normal, SF style forum, I decided it wasn’t worth the hassle for the potential benefit.  But there is a need for a place for trolls to organize, and I believe this will all come together beautifully.  But if there is some reason you think it won’t, please let me know.

The Sun Still Shines

It does.  Please remember it does.

Over and Out

Put a fork in me.

Hail Victory.
Andrew Anglin

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

So, as the dear reader is aware, I have been recently attacked by multiple members of the alleged White Nationalist movement.  One of their key complaints is that this site uses too much NSDAP imagery.

Of course, I changed the banner, in part because it was too Nazi, and I thought it more prudent to simply include Nazi concepts in the articles, rather than announce it at the top of the site.  However, as I explained in my response to Greg Johnson this morning, I do believe that promoting Hitler and the National Socialists is an important aspect of the propaganda agenda.  I believe I have fully explained my reasons for this, and thus far, none of the haters have countered my arguments.

I am interested in what the reader thinks.

Is there too much Hitlerism on the site?  Should it be toned down?

[yop_poll id=”11″]

If you like, explain your reasoning in the comments section.

Note: I just remembered I have graphs for the last poll, regarding music tastes.  I’ll put those up sometime this week.  I get so busy sometimes, brothers.  Hard to get everything done that needs done.

Note 2: Regarding the use of the word “Nazi,” which some people complain about, I have decided I like the word, and it isn’t a slur at present, even if it used to be.  I generally use it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but at the same time, think it sounds cool.  You’re also welcome to state your opinion on that in the comments section below.

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

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.