Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Some Thoughts on Colin Liddell's Criticism of the Alt Right and His Need to Rebrand as Affirmative Right — The Usefulness for Politics of Irreverence — The Need for the Left-Right

Colin Liddell of Affirmative Right

Colin Liddell:

As for the original banner itself—loaded with all the mistakes and bad karma of the movement, and an easy target for our enemies—it is now more of hindrance than a help.
It has entered Normiespace and the offices of Big Tech merely as a reason to avoid us and not listen to our invincible arguments or engage with our unbeatable ideas. It has become nothing more than a ticket to deplatforming. I therefore choose to toss it aside and to adhere to the true spiritual banner of the movement—the quest for truth, honour, morality, and life.
For this purpose, I have chosen to rename this site Affirmative Right and to redefine what we do here with a set of principles designed to avoid the mistakes of the past (more on that later).

Will changing the label to 'affirmative' do the trick? What if Andrew Anglin and others take up that banner as well? After all, chameleon Anglin initially attacked the Alt Right but later labeled himself as such(and even trolled that he's with the GOP and Trump).

One problem with Colin Liddell and others like him(expatriates) is they are too far removed from ground zero of The Action to lodge legitimate complaints. Many Alt Right figures are in Hungary, Georgia, Ukraine, India, Japan, Philippines, or some other part of the world. Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch got to define the Alt Right because they are in the US. As such, they could organize where The Action is. If Liddell were in the US or EU(two areas most crucial to the fate of the white race), he could have led a counter-movement to define the Alt Right in his manner. But, like too many expatriates, all he can offer are words and criticism. Granted, many radical leaders throughout history spent many years in exile. Vladimir Lenin moved around Western Europe as he was regarded as public enemy #1 in Russia. Still, he eventually returned to lead the movement IN Russia.

Maybe Affirmative Right blog does some good work, but words alone cannot define a movement. If Liddell really wants to define the future of the alternative-affirmative movement, he has to do more than talk or write. He has to form an organization and lead people. I don't see him being up for the job. And Andy Nowicki is more writer-novelist-critic by temperament than a man of action.
In contrast, Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch did bring people together and did organize a movement. Now, I agree with many of Liddell's criticisms of them. When Spencer ran Alternative Right website with Alex Kurtagic as his main henchman, I posted many comments warning about the dangers of the Alt Right getting too cozy with Neo-Nazi types. And there is no doubt that Kurtagic has the outlook(and looks) of Heinrich Himmler.

Richard Spencer is a spent force. (He should be called Richard Spender.) With his looks and charm, he could have done much for the movement. And I'll give him credit where it's due. He could have had a plush job in Conservatism Inc. if he'd played along and went by the script like most whores in the GOP. He did not and instead staked out a rather courageous path for himself. Still, there is smart courage and dumb courage. Also, just because you're anti-stupid doesn't mean you're smart or wise. One form of stupidity can be against another form of stupidity. And Spencer is ultimately a stupid person whose ideology is composed of Darth-Vaderian Nietzscheanism and James-Bondian Tomfoolery. He loves to clench his fist and talk about power and struggle, and blah blah, but he's really a spoiled brat who thinks everyone should make everything 'fun' for him. When the Power effectively shut down his college tour, he sniffled that it wasn't panning out. Gee whiz, he thought it would be 'fun'. What did he expect from the repercussions of a radical movement that really threatens the Power? The Power is just gonna sit back and roll out the red carpet for Spencer to have 'fun' with? Is that how Jews treat Palestinians? It sure ain't fun for Palestinians there and here(whose BDS movement has effectively been criminalized by Jewish Power). How childish and naive can one get? Spencer is all talk and no understanding of the Power even as he yammers endlessly about power, power, power. He needs to study Zionist suppression of Palestinians than watch 007 movies to understand how power works. Or at least watch THE GODFATHER and NO WAY OUT. He's always been yakking about how it is the Power that really matters, and yet he is surprised that the ruling power in the West used dirty tricks to shut him down? The student of Power didn't see it coming? He sudden fame really got to him. His 15 min of fame owed completely to Hillary and Mass Media's attempt to tie Trump to the 'toxic' Alt Right, but Spencer began to see himself as a self-made man than as a media creation and tool. (And as if to prove Hillary and the media correct AFTER THE ELECTION, Spencer steered the Alt Right into a genuinely toxic direction.)

Also, his narcissism is so stupid(and now stale) that he's turning into a laughing stock. He goes on and on about how the media just couldn't get enough of Spencer because he's so good-looking, brilliant, and awesome. Oh, he's the Don Juan of the movement, the man they love to hate to love, and they can't keep their hands off him. Well? When the Power finally decides he's a menace, the Power shut him off, and that's been that. So, he wasn't so irresistible after all. He's more Don Quixote than Don Juan. (Never mind that the media also interviewed 'albino' Anglin and fat Matthew Heimbach a good number of times.)
But even worse is that Spencer's future vision is hardly better than that of Neocons and Zionist-supremacists. If Jews feel that they should rule the world, the only difference with Spencer is that he feels that his Faustian tribe should rule the world with new rounds of imperialist ventures. (At least old imperialism could be rationalized on the prevalence of different sets of values, curiosity about the world, sense of adventure & discovery, and pioneering spirit. But what's the point of imperialism at a time where every corner of the world has been explored and mapped? Also, a world where any nation can offer stiff resistance to invasive imperialism(as in Iraq and Syria)? Imagine the Brits trying to invade China or India today.
Instead of countering Jewish-Zionist globalist supremacism with the ideal of universal nationalism, Spencer's agenda is to rule the world with white supremacy. It is all the more ridiculous when Spencer can't even order a cup of coffee in a diner and keep a membership at a health club. When white people are on the verge of losing their homelands, Spencer-the-clown's silly little mind is filled with Kiplingian fantasies(of conquering the STARS too -- Let's rule over Ewoks and defeat the Klingons).
In any struggle, the weaker power must seek moral advantage over the stronger power that has the material advantage. If you allow the stronger power to have both moral and material advantage, your side is cooked. But how can there be any viable moral argument from the Spencerian Alt Right when its main message is "Ultimately, we want to conquer and rule the world with Faustian-Nietzschean-Bondian-Vaderian white supremacy?" Spencer is too stupid to lead anything. At best, he's a decent commentator on a host of Beltway topics.

On the matter of Andrew Anglin, 4Chan Trolls, The Right Stuff(TRS), and others like them, Liddell's complaints are somewhat misguided. The real problem was taking people like Anglin seriously, an error committed by Liddell's site as well(even if in condemnation than praise). There is NO POINT in taking Daily Stormer seriously or engaging with their 'ideas' and proposals like 'white sharia'. Also, it doesn't matter if Anglin is or isn't a Fed-asset AS LONG AS Alt Right or Aff-Right people keep him at arm's length.
There are two ways to fight the power. One way is the moral and serious way. But there is also the other way: The irreverent, pestering, and outrageous way of the jester. The trick is to keep the two sides separate. Jews used many ways to undermine White Gentile domination of society and culture. They made serious Holocaust movies & documentaries. They built museums and published many scholarly books. But the other way was also effective. Jewish nasties, comedians, pranksters, subversives, and etc. were masters in mocking Jesus, spreading porn, indulging in vulgarity, and shitting on every sacred cow in the West. Jews made both SCHINDLER'S LIST and CADDYSHACK. Jews host both Holocaust conferences and Porn conventions. The trick, however, is not to mix the two. We don't see the director of the Holocaust Museum having serious conversations with a Jewish porn-oligarch. Now, behind the scenes, it's very likely that Jews of all kinds see eye to eye. It turns out ADL had ties to Jewish mafia since the beginning. But at least for public consumption, Jews keep seriousness over here and clownishiness over there. I don't think the Holocaust Museum will be inviting Howard Stern any time soon.
So, as long as the Alt Right keeps the Nazi-larping trolls in their own sphere, it's not a problem. Even though much of the trolling and 'shit-posting' have been offensive, they've also been effective in spreading irreverence of sacred cows of sacred Jews, magic Negroes, holy homos, and globalism. They've also been effective at exposing hypocrisies of the Power. That is the key, the use of outrage antics and black humor to make people laugh at Jewish power and its bogus pieties.
The problem arose when Spencer decided to have a SERIOUS discussion with Andrew Anglin. Now, one can have a conversation with anyone -- Bill Buckley invited all manner of guests on FIRING LINE -- , but Anglin is NOT someone you can have a serious discussion with about the future of the white race. He's too much of a clown, idiot, and degenerate. His stuff has to be kept in the jokesphere. You can't mix oil and water. The Radical Left in the 60s found out the hard way when its serious wing joined with the clownish wing represented by the likes of Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and the Yippies whose priority was gaining notoriety as attention-whores. The Yippie shtick of running Pigasus(an actual pig) as political candidate was funny, but when these clowns were allowed to be part of the Leftist movement itself, everything began to turn into a shit-show, indeed something like the Gong Show. Soon, radical leftism spiraled out of control into a circus and poisoned the Democratic Party in the 1972 election against Richard Nixon.

Liddell is right that Enoch and Spencer were foolish to form a direct contact with Anglin and the Daily Stormer crew, but his site was, in a way, guilty of the same thing by taking Anglin and DS seriously even in opposition and condemnation. Whether pro- or con-, one should never take that stuff seriously. Anyone who's been to Daily Stormer knows the site is criticism-proof because it's too absurd. As Spencer often likes to say of things, "It is what it is." Debating DS is like taking Hustler Humor seriously. Of course, courting DS is even worse, but denouncing it also gives DS far more credit than it deserves.
Anyway, the point is even nasty Nazi-larping trolls have some value to the movement AS LONG AS the movement doesn't get near them. Trolls spread irreverence of sacred cows and premises underlying the Power. It's like Jews will use even Stormy Daniels against Trump. 'Serious' Jews will not invite her to their conferences and gatherings or take her seriously as a person, but they will let people like her vent their spleen against Trump and whomever Jews hate. So, we should regard Daily Stormer as Stormy Daniels of Counter-Power politics. A porn-bomb that can make a mockery of PC and the Power. Just be sure not to take the bomb in your own hand. Let Anglin and other clowns toss them. We can just watch and enjoy with plausible deniability since WE don't officially condone such things. The problem with Spencer and Enoch is they took the stormer-bomb in their own hands. It's like Jews don't condone what Kathy Griffin did with a decapitated rubber-Trump head and publicly even disavow it, but they don't mind OTHERS doing pulling such stunts. In opposition to Trump, Jews employ both the respectable gavel and the jokey poker.

Mike Enoch is the most interesting figure in all this. Whereas Daily Stormer is mostly retarded, The Right Stuff has presented something close to first-rate satire and insightful commentary. But because its satire is edgy and abrasive, it too would be problematic if it became an ACTIVE WING of the movement. As an independent voice cheering on the movement, it can do much good. But as a part of the movement, it can too easily be highlighted by the enemy as 'nazi' stuff. Again, oil and water doesn't mix in politics, especially for a movement with huge disadvantages in media and money. For such a nascent movement, good image is crucial, and TRS is counter-productive as a movement player. It's one thing for TRS guys to make Nazi jokes in their racy podcasts. But it was quite another thing for Mike Enoch to pull a Heil stunt at the NPI conference(after Trump's victory) when the whole world was watching. There was no way the Mass Media were going to cover that as 'larping' or 'joking'. Also, even if Enoch meant it as a prank, there were some real morons there who took it seriously and joined in the salute.
Still, DS and TRS aren't problematic AS LONG AS they stay in their own space and do their own thing. To be irreverent and outrageous against sacred cows, one needs more freedom and vulgarity than serious people in the movement. But serious people need plausible deniability from TRS and especially DS because some of their stuff are really over-the-top. That said, just like all religions were built on both iconography(affirmative erection of holy cows) and iconoclasm(mocking desecration of false gods), the Movement will need not just a serious & respectable arm but dirty fingers to pull down the pants of the Power and grab its nuts.
Finally, maybe what is more necessary than changing the adjective -- 'alternative' to 'affirmative' -- is changing the noun. Why stick with only the 'right'? This left vs right dichotomy has been useless since the end of the Cold War(and fall of communism) and the emergence of the Convergence between 'Fiscal Conservatism'(more money for the globalist rich) and 'Social Liberalism'(cultural decadence promoted by capitalists as the New Norm). Indeed, even regarding the Cold War as a right vs left conflict was problematic as communists nations tended to be more nationalist and culturally conservative than capitalist nations of the West. But because of the egalitarian economic ethos of the Soviet Empire(that seemed awesome in reach and power), people went along with the narrative of 'right-wing' capitalists vs 'left-wing' communists. And because the rich class feared economic leftism, it formed an alliance with social conservatives and nationalists. But in truth, the rich everywhere tend to mainly care about more riches and more self-indulgence. For this reason, they secretly despised social conservatism that said NO to excessive decadence. And they felt restrained by nationalism that said capitalists should prioritize doing what is good for the nation as a whole(like hiring native workers and paying them a decent wage with benefits); nationalism was less profitable than globalism. Because of the threat of worldwide communism, the capitalists went along with social conservatives and nationalists. After all, if American capitalists had treated the American working masses during the Cold War the way they treat working people today, many American proles may have demanded either fascism or communism. Why would the American working classes have tolerated and even supported the capitalists IF the latter had just to shipped jobs overseas, lowered wages, and brought over tons of foreigners to replace native workers? But with the end of the Cold War and the transformation of China from a Maoist to a Market economy, American capitalists had a golden opportunity to enrich themselves with Free Trade and to indulge themselves with fun decadence. The big losers were not only social conservatives and the working class but the True Left and Classic Left that had prioritized the needs of national workers and the importance of speaking Truth to Power. But the Democratic Party went with Free Trade under Clinton, and Big Business made a pact with PC because the 'new leftism'(a bogus variety) emphasized globo-homo-mania that, if anything, was great for the rich because, after all, homos are the most vain and narcissistic people on Earth who love catering to the powerful and privileged. Washington DC is 10% homo, and many of these 'gays' are in the Deep State cooking up new Wars for Israel, new Fruit-Crusades to turn the world pink, and new economic policies to make the super-rich in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood even richer. Calling someone like Rachel Maddow a 'leftist' is to defame true leftism and to give her ilk too much credit. They are not about equality or working people. They are about elitism, hierarchy, Jewish tribal supremacism, globo-homo power grab, and censorship of little people who dare to speak truth to power.

Indeed, we in the 'dissident right' are more leftist than those freaks. Calling such globalist tribal-oligarchs and their commissars a bunch of 'leftists' obfuscates the fact that they are really a bunch of supremacists who don't give a shit about the people. Because leftism has long been associated with much good(as well as bad, like discredited communism) -- struggles for workers, more freedom and liberty, equality under the law, and etc --, it only lends credence to our enemies by calling them the 'left'. Tucker Carlson calls Rachel Maddow a 'leftist', but in fact, his positions are now closer to the True Left and Classic Left than Maddow's. We need to remember that the leftism of the French Revolution forged a new politics where the national elites were compelled to identify first and foremost with the national masses. (Current globalism is neo-aristocracism whereby elites of the world mainly identify with one another than with their own national folks who are to be replaced by Diversity.) Nationalism is leftism as well as rightism. It is about Socialism of identity and interests between national elites and national masses. It is also about the tribalism of shared history, blood, and culture. Even though National Socialism turned evil upon lurching into imperialist mode with wars and genocide, its core nationalist and socialist policy was sound. Indeed, Zionism has been, from the beginning, a national-socialist ideology. It was a means to bring together Jewish rightism(reverence of blood, history, and culture) with Jewish leftism(the need for the elites to be mindful of the people as fellow brothers and sisters than as mere subjects). The reason why Jews hate left-rightism with such virulence among goyim is that they want to keep that great secret to themselves only. It's like Jews in Israel hate the idea of Iran having the Bomb because they so dearly want the Bomb for themselves. What Jews want most for themselves, they most vociferously deny to others. Jews love free speech but not for thee. Jews love Israelis owning guns but not for thee. Jews love nuclear weapons but not for thee. One thing for sure, just like National Socialism turned evil by going imperialist, Zionism too is a moral failure because it went from nationalism(defense of Jewish homeland) to imperialism(use white goyim to wage endless Wars for Israel).

No comments:

Post a Comment