Counter-Currents
1,384 words
On January 24, Andrew Torba made the announcement that Gab will be sponsoring AFPAC 3, the America First (AF) conference modelled after Conservatism Inc.’s CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), to the tune of $20,000 dollars. He claimed that “AFPAC is group of grassroots young Christian thinkers who, like it or not, are the future of right wing politics in this country.” The announcement was met with a wave of people scrambling to cancel their Gab Pro subscriptions, regretting that they’d given Torba their hard-earned money just to see him donate it to a group which tried to derail Gab and insulted its long-time user base not one month ago. The reactions from groypers were that they now run Gab and soon, they’ll convince Torba to start banning “wignats.”
Donating to AFPAC is pretty uncontroversial in Right-wing circles. Donating company money to AFPAC that was given to the company so that it could keep the Gab service running looks like a betrayal of Gab Pro users and donors, however, especially given that the America First groypers actively despise a good percentage of these users as “wignats” and would ban them from the platform given half a chance.
Before proceeding further, I’ll say loud and clear that I am a “wignat.” By this I mean I am a White Nationalist, and I believe that white identity politics are the way forward. I am also a big believer in the power of revisionist history and in the importance of countering Semitic lies. This is apparently what wignat means these days. I remember a time when wignat meant “wigger nationalist,” which is to say a White Nationalist or other white dissident Right-winger who has a behavioral profile of being low IQ, prone to criminality, self-destructive and self-defeating, often a habitual drug user, and unnecessarily violent and conflict-prone. Nowadays, a wignat is anyone who calls out the conservative grift machine — and increasingly, Populist Inc. — while espousing white identitarian politics, supporting revisionist history, and professing awareness of the Jewish problem. Either that, or anyone whom the groypers and Nick Fuentes don’t like. Which includes me and everyone else on Counter-Currents, apparently.
Believe it or not, I’ve listened to Nick Fuentes since before the Groyper Wars. I defended him against charges of cuckery: he’s got all the relevant information, as he used to say back then. I’ve written in support of America First when they were fighting against Turning Point USA and disrupting their attempts at corralling Right-wing youth into the Conservative Inc. establishment. I’ve spoken in support of Fuentes when others were ready to denounce him for his aesthetics, for his support of Donald Trump in 2020, or for his agitation against the 2020 election theft, which ultimately led to the disastrous January 6 Stop the Steal rally.
It took some truly egregious behavior from Baked Alaska and Beardson Beardly, which went unsanctioned and tacitly supported by Fuentes, in order for the America First movement to lose its luster for me. Even so, I still gave it a fair hearing on The Writers’ Bloc, even pulling out all the stops to get notorious recluse Travis LeBlanc to appear on the show, just so there would be an America First sympathizer there to make the case for them. After that episode, I was done with the groypers. To them, I’ll always be a wignat.
You can buy The Alternative Right, ed. Greg Johnson, here
But hey, if they normalize pro-white talking points, who cares? Let them make their noises. Let them trot out their based Jews and negroes. Maybe some of these kids will level up from mestizo incel edgelordism and start on the road to white identitarianism. Even their hysterical woman-hatred can be forged and tempered into a red pill on the woman question, something which is sorely lacking even in hardcore White Nationalist circles. (The trick is to be indifferent to or bemused by female antics rather than shaking with anger at women in general, but that’s a story for another day.)
About a month ago, AF-related accounts, led by Fuentes himself, tried to “take over” Gab, generally by being obnoxious to the already-established community by calling everyone wignats and declaring themselves “in charge” of the place. Hence the outrage on Gab over Andrew Torba’s decision to now give company money to the very group which tried to disrupt the website and insulted many of the people paying for it. Still, even within the context of this immoral act, the fierceness of the reaction surprised me. The degree to which people despise Nick Fuentes and America First was astounding.
It could be a case of many enemies, much honor, or genuine distaste for Fuentes’ habit of picking fights with other Dissident Right people over trivialities, or maybe fears that his particular brand of he-man woman-hating mestizo conservatism serves as a deradicalization agent, bringing young radical men back to supporting the GOP and other anti-white cuckservative organizations. His support for Donald Trump in 2020 and participation in the Stop the Steal grift certainly makes the last allegation believable, but then again, it is entirely possible that he serves as a gateway rather than as a gatekeeper — or at least did up to a certain point. A massive percentage of AF’s resources and attention are directed at fighting “wignats” — which I will remind the reader also includes everyone on this website by their definition (yes, even you, Mr. LeBlanc, no matter how much you defend them). Thus, all I can conclude is that at this point, Fuentes and the AF higher-ups are more concerned that people will accidentally stumble onto explicit white identitarianism than with scoring tangible victories against the anti-white forces.
This is all well and good, but ultimately it’s about Gab. If it remains a free speech website where the Dissident Right can have its message heard, all is well. However, this comes on the heels of prominent black AF member Philip Anderson publicly asking for ways to sanitize Gab and “filter out the most intensely racist and anti-Semitic posts that wignats make.” This gab, posted before Torba’s announcement about sponsoring AFPAC, caused no end of controversy in itself, considering that this self-proclaimed free speech king was apparently upset at the idea that newcomers might encounter racist and anti-Semitic content (it could be argued that this is the point of a free speech website), especially considering that he’s part of an organization which attempted to disrupt Gab.
This has some of the most prominent users on Gab worried that the alliance between Gab and AFPAC will lead to the introduction of censorship on the platform which would favor not only AFPAC but also elements of Populist Inc., such as federal agent and known grifter Wendy Rogers (currently running for the State Senate in Arizona) or unreconstructed adulteress Marjorie Taylor Greene. Gab users, myself included, have questions. Many groypers were indeed celebrating their “victory” by proclaiming that soon, Torba will be purging “wignats” from the platform. If Gab’s free speech credentials are now to be called into question, then it is no longer just a question of immoral conduct on Torba’s part, it’s whether there will be a space for White Nationalists even on alternative tech platforms.
On January 26, the groypers mass-reported longtime Gab user Joe Prich while he was streaming on Dlive, and his Dlive account was terminated mid-stream. Joe is among the biggest critics of Torba’s donation to AFPAC and his promotion of the AF/groyper brand on Gab. This for me is the final piece of evidence I need that AF and the groypers are dangerous and hurtful to the Dissident Right and our cause.
Torba has since come out defending his decisions as “generating controversy.” He has also written that it’s his website and he can do with it as he wishes, and I agree. Gab depends on our traffic and donations to keep going, however. Since there’s now a real chance that money donated to Gab will end up in America First’s coffers, I will not be upgrading to GabPro, joining GabTV, or donating any money to Gab. I will also discourage anyone who’ll listen to me from doing any of those things.
I had high hopes for Gab, and Torba may yet change my mind, but the Dissident Right must learn to walk away from people who hate us. Sadly, in the year 2022, this includes the fellow Right-wingers of America First.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
92 comments
A right-wing figure wasn’t perfect? Time to BURN THIS BRIDGE.
That Phillip Anderson character when confronted by White Nationalists reverted to his negro state, making jokes about easily killing White men and getting away with it and screwing White women. I don’t know if Fuentes actually supports these kinds of individuals, I haven’t kept up with him and his crowd in a while, but recently all I have been seeing on my gab timeline is people I follow being attacked and called “wignats” – which at this point should be considered an antiwhite slur – by AF supporters and black-loving homosexuals like Milo.
I also would like to point out how ironic it is that these AF faggots call us WN “wiggers and wignats” but joke about raping White women like deranged negroes.
Where to begin…
Let’s start with the Joe Prich thing.
First of all, there is no evidence that he was banned as a result of mass groyper flagging. He was getting 1,300 live viewers, more than the number of his actual followers. 1,300 live viewers would make him near the top of live streams on DLive and someone at DLive probably would started listening in, Especially if a channel is getting a unusually large number of live viewer. Azzmador used to talk all the time about people from DLive messaging him in the middle of streams telling him not to use certain words.
So I don’t know if he was taken off due to groypers snitching on him and neither do you.
But what I do know is this. I listened to a bit of Joe Prich’s stream and there was some guy on there telling groypers to kill themselves. I quote from memory “Just put a shotgun into your mouth and lights out”.
In the state of California where DLive is based, it is a MOTHERFUCKING FELONY to encourage someone to kill themselves.
401. (a) Any person who deliberately aids, advises, or encourages another to commit suicide is guilty of a felony.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/401/
Now, this guy probably thought he was being cute like “See, I’m not technically advocating violence. I’m not saying groypers should be killed. I’m saying they should kill themseves. Look at how I am cleverly dancing up to the line but never quite stepping over!”
But actually, no. Encouraging suicide is also against the law.
So, the groypers bragging about having mass-flagged Joe Prich, that’s just nothing, isn’t it.
You’re just a wignat to them, Trav. You don’t have to do this.
I’m from Missouri. You’re gonna have to link me.
If you could just mass flag someone off DLive, how did Nick Fuentes last as long as he did? If all it took to get someone banned on DLive is organizing a large enough number of people, then why did it take until January 6 to for Nick to get kicked off? Do you think Nick does not enough haters? They just couldn’t get a sufficient number of them together?
Use some common sense.
Might as well be. The groypers are notoriously braggadocios and it won’t be the first time a political org took credit for something they might have had no influence in.
What does it matter if they were The thing that got this guy banned, if that was their intention ?
“In the state of California where DLive is based, it is a MOTHERFUCKING FELONY to encourage someone to kill themselves.”
Was it really encouraging someone to do that or just the edgy language we see all the time on Twitter ?
It appears a very thin defense.
Until the bad things that Nick thinks might come to pass actually come to pass, I’ll take a wait-and-see attitude. This is an occasion that makes we wish WIN had more organization than it does. The Fuentes and the Gropyers have an advantage over WINs because they have some kind of organization, some kind of representation. Fuentes and the Groypers are giving ‘wignats’ the same kind of treatment they gave TPUSA. But TPUSA survived the Groypers because (a) while organized, they don’t have much attention-span and (b) TPUSA is organized and could (however ineffectively) attempt to counter the Groyper Army.
The Groypers are looking for an easy kill to prove how powerful they are. But they’re not powerful, and their targets aren’t powerful either. We’re just a bunch of mice snuffling for crumbs from the Jews’ table at this point (but I see things getting more serious and better).
The Groyper/Torba/Gab/WIN struggle might have unfolded differently if WIN had ‘representation’ in some form, no matter how mild. If Torba wants to take the measure of the WIN community, who would he call? If he wanted to sponsor a Counter-Currents-sponsored event, who would he call?
For all the talk in Racial Right circles about tradition and hierarchy, we don’t have a council of elders up to the task of providing guidance and representation to WIN. At least not yet.
The Groypers aren’t going to dictate policy to Torba. He’s not going to back down from his resistance to Jewish power (because to him that would be un-Christian). You can say a lot of stuff on Gab that you cannot say (and likely wouldn’t want to say) anywhere else. That’s the value-proposition of Gab and until that changes, Gab is the social media home of WIN.
It just is.
I’d also like to point out that the Groypers are very careful not to respond to reasonable WINs and only respond to those who they see as feeding the drama that they makes their movement thrive. If the WINs on Gab just organized a little bit and agreed to let someone represent them to Torba, WINs wouldn’t have to be reading tea leaves. Our rep would call Torba (or Torba’s rep) and we’d clear the air. Like adults do.
As for whether the groypers would consider me a wignat, I disagree. A couple weeks ago, a superchatter specifically asked Nick about me and Nick described me as “good” and “very fair”. So I am officially Groper Approved™.
But even if the groypers did call me a wignat. I wouldn’t care. Unlike some people, I am actually capable of keeping my emotions in check. To me the only relevant question is “Do they get results or do they not get results?” and there is nothing in the world you can tell me that could convince me that there is anything more important than that. Are they growing? Are they bringing in new people? Are they reaching new audiences? Are they inspiring other people to become content creators and activist? These are the terms I think in.
If someone gets results, they have my permission to call me a wignat. I’ll survive. I’ve have had groypers accuse me of being a fed to my face in person. So what? Everyone likes to say “I don’t care what anyone calls me” but I mean it. You can call me a wignat. I don’t care. I know I’m not one. That’s just another of an infinite number of incorrect opinions in the universe. Who cares?
I believe that we are fighting a war that we very well may lose. I don’t blackpill but I am under no illusion that it is a real possibility that we will lose and we won’t get a second chance. Therefore, every step must be calculated with a million different variables considered. One variable that I do not to take into consideration is my personal feelings because they aren’t very important in the grand scheme of things.
Some people I think just don’t want to win. They don’t want to go mainstream. They got into the Dissident Right as a refuge from the normie world and they are terrified that someone will open the doors, let the normies in and then they’ll no longer have their refuge. Like when your favorite indie band goes mainstream, suddenly your connection to them is less intimate. The movement would lose something if it got too big. And other people are just in love with the romanticism of being an outsider (which I get). Or some might have an image in their head of what victory will look and feel like and stubbornly resist methods that don’t look like the image in their head which includes all this badass imagery. But I don’t care about that shit. I want to win. I don’t want to go extinct.
If you want to reclaim “wignat”, I can’t stop you but I will not be joining you. His name was Ricky Vaughn.
His name was Douglas Mackey and he was a snake gathering young white men’s data on behalf of his paymasters in military intel and the military-industrial complex.
That’s not why they doxed him.
He nevertheless did it and was an enemy asset. So are a lot of people oy veying about white identity politics and throwing the “wignat” slur around.
I would rather avoid getting into e-drama between e-celebs, but that second-last paragraph is such a howl that I cannot restrain myself this time.
Providing a refuge from the normies is Fuentes’ business model. There is no end to the kind of (both online and public) behaviour that Fuentes will not only tolerate but excuse from his Groypers, except for questioning the Great Leader. Do you think that white women deserve to be raped by blacks? Do you think that the little girls in the Christmas parade murdered in an antiwhite terrorist attack in Waukesha had it coming? Are you a self-described incel that has made resentment of women the central pillar of his personal identity? There is a place for you in America First.
One wonders if Fuentes’ fans even believe in the politics they espouse. They claim to be devoutly religious, yet show total nihilistic irreverence towards everything. Irony-poisoned is an understatement. They claim that they are not white nationalists, yet they talk about white interests and deplore demographic change and racial mixing. They talk about white interests and deplore demographic change and racial mixing yet eagerly welcome blacks that talk about raping white women and want to censor ‘racism’ on Gab into their midst. They claim the legacy of paleoconservatism, but are eager to play Bill Buckley with the ‘wignats.’ It all seems more like a well-concocted ploy to keep the normies as far away from America First as possible. Fuentes deserves credit. Instead of a mass audience whose interest in his program is dependent on his performance, Fuentes has built a personality cult that will never abandon him.
It is worrying that you even bring up Eli Mosley and Richard Spencer while defending similar behaviour from AF. You obviously learned all the wrong lessons from Spencer’s decline. Covering that should have made you extremely wary of narcissists, personality cults and deeply flawed individuals in public positions. Stop trying to hide in the smoke of Spencer’s dumpster fire when defending AF.
Fuentes in no way resembles Mosely or Spencer by virtue of the fact that he is not parasitic. He’s an asshole, sure. I won’t argue against someone who wants to say he’s an asshole. A case for that can definitely be made but he’s not parasitic enough to be a sociopath.
Eli Mosely managed to rise to an extremely high level of influence in the Alt Right despite not really having any accomplishments. He never made any content. He organized one rally. He didn’t really do anything but he befriended all the right people and had all the right opinions. It’s like he jumped straight from being a message board shitposter to being Spencer’s #2 despite not actually having done anything. He was purely parasitic. Spencer likewise tried to ride on the accomplishments of others.
If they were to ever have their way, wignats will knowingly or unknowingly create an environment in which people like them can thrive and that is why I will always oppose them.
Fuentes got to where he is by putting out a high quality show five nights a week for four years. He didn’t network his way to where he is. Fuentes can be accused of a lot of things but you can’t accuse of him of not having paid his dues. He built his reputation off the strength of his work, by doing something well. That can not be said about Spencer or Mosely. Those guys achieved positions of great influence despite not really having done anything.
So no, I do not see any validity to comparison between Spencer and Fuentes or Mosely and Fuentes.
So you would rather support an environment where Fuentes types can thrive because he creates content, even though the content is bizarre shit?
I think fence-riders are the worst types of all. John McCain 2.0. No thanks. Fuentes little black sidekick says it all.
I support people who get results.
You admitted he’s an “asshole,” in which case the debate should end there. The movement should not have a recognized “asshole” as a leader, end of story.
You say you like his “results,” but, by definition, an “asshole” can’t be trusted to follow through on promises to get results.
The moment you admitted Fuentes is an “asshole,” you lost this debate.
Yeah, someone should redpill Jeb Bush. 0% asshole. He’ll take us to the promised land.
“Yeah, someone should redpill Jeb Bush. 0% asshole. He’ll take us to the promised land.”
That’s a red herring.
It looks like, in addition to a primer on how to judge the human character, you need an elementary course in logic.
I was around the same age as most of Fuentes’ fanboys when the altright was taking off in 2015-16, and I have the benefit of vivid memories and bitter disappointment.
Spencer was not a nobody that took over through parasitic networking and riding on the accomplishments of others. He had been editor of multiple magazines, like the American Conservative and Taki’s Mag. He founded Radix, which at the time was publishing excellent books. He had started the original Alternative Right blog with Collin Liddell.
He presented incredibly well. He was a lot closer to opening the gates to the normies than Fuentes ever could be. Breitbart was giving him puff pieces. Spencer showed excellent judgement and discretion in banning TWP from NPI. His haircut and style were cool. It seemed like half of the altright was imitating the former.
He started out with a lot more under his wing than a glorified podcast, which is the only thing that Fuentes could brag about when he started proclaiming himself leader of America First. It wasn’t until HeilGate that there was any reason to doubt him.
Fuentes is looking a lot worse than Spencer was in 2018 right now. Eli Mosley wasn’t still in charge after he was exposed as a fraud. Baked Alaska is still Fuentes’ right hand man. Spencer had shown better judgement in the past and I and many others still hoped that he would return to his senses and reverse the self-destructive course he was headed down. But Spencer turned out to be a narcissist. He cared for nothing but his own notoriety.
If there is one thing that Fuentes has succeeded at where Spencer failed, it is building a personality cult. No one, apart from maybe Hyphen-Report, had the kind of personal attachment to Spencer that the Nickers have for their Leader. We looked up to Spencer in 2016 because we expected that he would lead us victory. Spencer lost his luster as it became clear that that was never happening.
Fuentes’ attraction is that he provides a safe space from normies and girls. For all his he-man women hating, he is an overindulgent surrogate mother to his followers. He lets them get away with anything and everything, so long as they stay within his warm nest and nuzzle their heads (and Superchats) in his maternal busom.
The Z generation is very nihilistic in general.
I watch nicks show maybe once a week and the negative claims are heavily embellished here. It stings more of jealousy than true criticism. Ill concede there are some annoying, low IQ followers in his movement, but Young Dissidents want to know that someone will give them real news, and nick is there 5 days a week providing that, showing his face, and being entertaining in the process. All we have for ourselves are older guys who do a faceless audio podcast about once a week. As long as nick talks about black crime and jewish nepotism, he’s a good gateway to jared taylor and gregg johnson in my book. Just like he is trying to influence the gop, we should be trying to influence him. I think he knows an ethnostate is the end necessity, but he’s getting robbed by feds and having bank accounts shut down with basic christian nationalism topics. Once he gets older, we probably see him evolve.
I used to have the same stance on Fuentes, that he would mature and grow with time. However, if anything his personality has changed for the worse. Last year he had a clear opportunity to be mentored by the likes of Michelle Malkin, Paul Gosar and Steve King. He instead choose to hang out with dysgenic losers such as Beardson and Baked, who only reinforced his immaturity. Not only do we not have spare time now for Fuentes to grow up and leave his Neverland gamer streamer antics behind, he is heading in the opposite direction.
Maybe that’s why Glenn Beck lost his way so violently: two asshole yes-men sidekicks with a sum total of two brain cells each.
This needs to be an article.
AF and the groypers have become unrecognizable. My first article for CC was a positive first hand account of Groyper War UCLA, but Fuentes has made most of the original guys like myself want nothing to do with him while attracting a bunch of new immature incel zealots.
Along with what was discussed, Fuentes also launched a ‘thot wars’ campaign to pressure Torba into banning women from his platform, ironically when Gab is one of the few online places that are a healthy environment for women.
A lot of AF problems are driven by religious issues, mainly the zeal of the newly converted, a sense of Fuentes having the political equivalent of papal infallibility, and blindness towards the flaws of others so long as they loudly profess to be Catholic, even if their actions are not. I still believe that Torba is acting in good faith, but has been blinded by Fuente’s performative piety.
Part of Torba’s decision might be driven by the J6 committee’s subpoena of Fuentes. However, in the long term the subpoena will be a major net positive for Fuentes, and solidarity against the regime does not require financial sponsorship.
‘Part of Torba’s decision might be driven by the J6 committee’s subpoena of Fuentes.’
This is an interesting point.
One of Torba’s defenses of his action was that he regularly does ‘controversy marketing’ and backing Fuentes and AFPAC3 could spill over into the J6 hearings in a way that drives more interest in Gab.
There is no question Fuentes is a “deradicalizing agent” whose purpose is to steer people away from white nationalism. After all, he had a coveted blue check in Twitter forever. And only when his handlers decided to yank him off the platform did he start posting Jew-critical content as a cover for why he was “banned.”
I guess Torba was fishing around for something to attach Gab’s name to, he wanted to make a point, put his money on something *based* as he sees it to stick it to those failed stuffy old conservative groups and he’s blundered into a mistake.
But I’m still puzzled by AF or Fuentes, other than it has made some noise, got some publicity and made other conservatives look foolish and corrupt. It seemed to garner a lot of cash at one point. I assume AF is more of less entirely fueled by Fuentes’ strange personality.
The picture I have pieced together from articles and short video clips (because the dose of Fuentes I can tolerate is very low) is that Fuentes is a nominally Catholic teenager yet a self-professed incel and gamer. I don’t read him as a he man, but more like Kermit the Frog as a human but he some skills at making public speeches and creating publicity.
I’m old enough to remember when even young guys would brag about their sexual conquests whether true or not. I find it very strange and icky for a young guy to embrace this incel/gamer thing, and in such public way. I find it even stranger and ickier that others applaud him for it.
I’ve only seen a tiny interview on this topic with him, but Fuentes’ political positions on women seem indistinguishable from immature resentment and inexperience with women.
But I suppose the main political impression I got is Fuentes is critical of Jews and Israel and foreign interventionism , I think he wants to control immigration, but wants to have his black music or something. Is that right ?
The term wignat is just a cheap way of dividing an audience just like White Sharia, Liberal racist, gamma/betas/omegas.
It’s a way of splitting and stealing audiences out of the pool of weaker psyches of the group towards whoever that personality is. Some of the weaker ones will follow. All these terms are dishonest and cheap and mean nothing but they provoke a reaction.
I was surprised to see some of our people adopt the term wignat, I suppose in a kind ironic way, or a vague way to distance themselves from what they perceived as insane elements in our ranks, but that soon slips and I think it was a mistake to embrace that.
In the end politics comes down to ‘what do you believe in’. I know what I believe in. I don’t really know what Fuentes believes in. It seems fluid, querky and somewhat about how he feels on the day. I find the guy difficult to watch and very much a product of the modern age and all its problems, but he’s had some success, as much this sort of activism does. Yet if a key part of his work is him and his followers trying to undermine or deplatform us I can’t see a reason to any time for him.
Hope Torba will reconsider but it looks like he’s doubling down from that link.
Agreed. This all sounds like an episode of the real housewives of the dissident right. Juvenile at best and totally distracting and divisive in the least. Not a big fan at all of these terms and labels like wignat and I cannot comprehend how any self respecting man can call himself a “groyper.”
It’s too bad that NF seems to be pulling a William F. Buckley here. I hope he’ll back away from the ledge and get serious. One thing our side has needed to learn from the beginning is to focus our rhetorical firepower on the right targets, not each other.
Here is Torba’s most recent comment on the matter. I tend to agree. At the very least Gab offers a (free) platform for “wignats.” If he starts kicking us off I will reevaluate.
“I don’t like it when anyone is deplatformed for legal 1A protected speech. I don’t endorse or support reporting raids to get people banned from things.
It’s time to deescalate and move forward. We don’t all need to agree on everything or even like one another, but we must realize that we have a shared enemy who is smiling right now at all of this. Regroup. Focus. Let’s get back to work.”
I was able to stomach about five minutes of this Joe Prich character’s stream last night. As far as I can tell, his “argument” boiled down to, “Milo is a pedophile, and I’m not, although he called me a pedophile.” One of his cohosts, who appeared only via audio, kept fulminating about how he’d fucking kill those fucking kid-fuckers if he fucking had a chance.
How did things get this stupid?
This is what happens when young people are at the forefront of a movement.
From BLM to America First, young dullards have done whatever they can to appeal to no one but their own age cohort.
I’ve read your Takimag article on “Generational Astrology” and I agree with the premise. Blaming generations for what happens is stupid as people within a generation share little in common and are at the mercy of an elite few.
The relevant factor is age. The lack of maturity from someone like Fuentes would never be displayed by a wise old man like Jared Taylor.
My new post-Alt Right motto is “Don’t trust anyone under 30.” We would have been spared a lot of tears if we had followed that beginning in 2015.
GJ wrote:
My new post-Alt Right motto is “Don’t trust anyone under 30.” We would have been spared a lot of tears if we had followed that beginning in 2015.
Preach it! I would add that it is the wisdom of experience that helps shape men over 30 years into good leaders.
You don’t have to be a Christian to read Paul’s qualifications to be a deacon/elder/leader and think, “Yep, that is some solid advice for a growing organization under pressure from a more powerful and hostile ruling class.”
FYI, for those unfamiliar:
1 Timothy 3:1–7 (ESV): “Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.”
In other words, as leaders we need serious, sober-minded family men who have demonstrated they can keep their house in order. Two men that pop into my mind as examples are Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow.
Nicholas Fuentes is not such a man. Maybe, given time, he will become such, but I think any who invest in him will be disappointed when his lack of wisdom and experience leads him and his into disaster. Hopefully Andrew Torba will, one way or another, realize AF/NF are a poor investment.
I do not counsel hostility to NF/AF (outside of a few heinous & evil personalities) any more than I would counsel hostility toward a knuckle-headed teenaged boy who thinks he has discovered comedy by way of fart jokes or romance by way of pornography.
The younger generation needs the guidance of the older and wiser, but instead we’ve been subjected to an unending, torrential stream of narcissists and wannabe Führer. It is much more exciting when you are eighteen or twenty to get involved in e-drama, try and make it as an e-celeb and watch the likes pour in on twitter than it is to spend your time reading and writing.
At least some of us are getting tired of it. After Spencer’s embarassing self-destruction and the endless drama between wignats and amnats that could put an all female highschool to shame, Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson and all the others that kept out of the muck are looking more appealing than ever.
Let me add that there is a narrative that wignats are just minding their own business and then groypers start launching these completely unproved attacks on them. Or the groypers are obsessed with destroying the wignats and that the groypers consider wignats a threat.
If you want to talk about who obsesses over whom more, the Kiwi Farms page for Mike Enoch is 74 pages and the one for Nick Fuentes is 715. (granted, not all wignats but there are a lot of them). The Hyphen-Report did a 9 part series on Nick Fuentes and another on Anglin.
Wignats will spend all day talking about how America First are a bunch of catboi-loving closet homosexual controlled opposition crypto neocon feds but if Nick says anything negative about wignats in passing in response to asuperchat, it’s “WTF? Why are you punching right? We’re all on the same side! Why would you criticize people who basically believe all the same things as you?”
I really can’t take any of this seriously. These are people who four years ago were defending sending journalist pictures of themselves inside gas chambers are now they are like “Oh my God. These things the groypers are saying is beyond the pale. What kind of twisted mind would think such a thing?” There’s a lot of bad faith going on.
I really have no sympathy for those people. I remember what things were like people like them were running the show and I know what would happen if they ever came back. “Don’t punch Right” gets you people like Eli Mosely and Sacco Vandal. One’s a psychopathic pathological liar and the other is a drunk who legally changed his name so he could larp harder but you can’t say anything negative about them because that would be “punching right”.
I will never make peace with the wignats. NEVER!!
What’s the deal with the whole catboi thing? Is it just a meme or is Fuentes… you know? Fuentes seemed to have a lot of things going for him. Credit where credit is due, he does have a big following and spoke at an Amren conference. But this catboi thing is a big red flag and bragging about being all about incel gamers has a sort of synergistic effect. I just can’t take Fuentes and the groypers seriously as a movement.
Does it make me a “wignat” to object to the AF supporters joking about raping White women?
https://gab.com/VolkischWoman/posts/107691340142572072
https://gab.com/Nature_and_Race/posts/107691169478169265
You’re a wignat for thinking I don’t have better things to do with my finite time on earth than litigate tweets by people no one has ever head of.
Log off and go redpill a normie.
All you do is litigate tweets about people nobody has heard of as well as people that are known in certain circles. I see you as the Harvey Levin of the dissident right, no?? I have never read any of your pieces where you actually have something informative to say other than “he said this” or “she said that.” Kind of a bummer that you and others have attracted Nicholas Jeelvy into this morbid fantasy world that you seem to have immersed yourself in. He usually has substantive pieces. Just my observations of course.
I consider this a substantive piece. Fuentes has become an abscess upon the dissident right and so, it is important to me that as many people as possible disassociate from that dumpster fire as soon as possible.
“Log off and go redpill a normie”
You act like is Nick Fuentes is a good mode for doing that and that’s a lot of people’s issue. He is toxic to normal people. Fuentes is grating at best. The dude is not a leader of any kind. You keep talking about results like the guy has done anything other than trolling. But yea, keep on defending a guy because you don’t want to admit your cheerleading for him was a mistake.
Whatever. People told me I was picking the wrong side in 2018 and I’m still feeling pretty good about that decision.
First of all, Nick is not toxic to normal people. I’ve been to four groyper rallies and I’ve seen how normal people react to him.
Second, since when is being “toxic to normal people” something wignats care about? Hardcore Nick haters tend to be the same people how stan Patriot Front. If you want to talk about “toxic to normal people”, Patriot Front are the dictionary definition of it. Every time they are in the news, the reaction is universally negative reaction across the board. Normal people are on their knees begging Patriot Front to stop doing their stupid larp marches and Patriot Front keeps doing them and wignats keep supporting them. These are people who just don’t want to win.
And then when they don’t get the response they wanted from normal people, wignats fall back on the granddaddy of white nationalist copes: “We’re taking a quality over quantity approach”. You know. “Normal people were never our target audience and in fact, their response was to be expected. See, we’re a revolutionary group and such, we’re only looking for real radicals. People we can truly count on when things get rough.” And then they will regale you with the tale of how the Mensheviks vastly outnumbered the Bolsheviks but the Bolsheviks prevailed because, while smaller, their membership was more committed. Pure cope.
So why do wignats continue supporting Patriot Front’s larp marches despite the overwhelmingly negative response they get? Because watching people march through streets with fashy-looking banners gives wignats warm fuzzies in their tummy. That’s all the Dissident Right is to some people. It’s the Warm Fuzzy in Your Tummy store.
Wignats are people who don’t want to win. They want warm fuzzies in their tummy. I have zero compassion, sympathy, or empathy for them. I reject the notion that “Well, they are just taking a different strategy to win.” No, they are not. They are actively trying to lose. I will not ally with them under any circumstances. If they want warm fuzzies in their tummy, they should start taking drugs and stay away from politics.
I ain’t here for the warm fuzzies in my tummy and I ain’t here to make friend. I want to win.
Speaking of the alt-right era, I forgot to add that Fuentes’ ego and arrogance have convinced me that he’s nothing but a dumber, gayer and browner Richard Spencer.
Couldn’t agree more. Kudos for putting that in print.
No one should put much stock, or any energy for that matter in anything someone under the age of 35 says or “tweets”.
Yes, I don’t know why we’re supposed to consider a guy who’s barely old enough to have finished an undergraduate degree, and who at his age and level of experience would probably be running a cash register or answering phones somewhere if he hadn’t become a social media star, as some kind of leader of world-historical significance.
If Torba bans white nationalists, we should divest ourselves of Gab, but if he grants equal free speech, we should keep our money in it.
https://gab.com/a/posts/107687221383441793
“I want to clear one thing up: Gab’s marketing and advertising budget does not come from PRO sub’s/merch/donations. It comes from advertising revenue. We never had a marketing budget for five years until we launched Gab Ads and could finally start experimenting. Last quarter we ran some ads on Christian websites. This quarter we are sponsoring a conference where banned dissidents will be speaking. I want to be clear and transparent about the source of our marketing budget. The revenue from Gab Ads is being used to grow Gab. We have always been great stewards of the capital this community provides. PRO subs, donations, and shop revenue all go to operations and infrastructure costs, as they have for five and a half years.”
Money is fungible
If he didn’t have the donation money, he would have spent the ad revenue on infrastructure and had none for Fuentes
I don’t know all the details of the palace intrigue lads all I’ll say is this. Speculate to your hearts content Nicholas, I’m not gonna try and shut you up, and hey, maybe it’ll turn out as you say.
But very, very, very few people have put as much money and their balls on the table for this movement as much as Andrew Torba has. The case you present is laughably thin, and while of course you are entitled to your view, I personally find pretty abstract, by-association attacks on this man standing up against the machine distasteful.
Think he deserves a lot more respect than that.
Nichols Fuentes seems to me to be a social media “star” put out there to distract from the so-called wignats, which were your blue collar, working class white folks that were truly gaining white racial consciousness. GAB was a way of making this available. I think Fuentes is MAGA rebranded. I read an article about the differences between the alt-right and the Groypers. I will call them the Groypers because America First belongs to Coughlin, Lindbergh, and the Protestant preacher. I can’t think of his name at the moment. The Groypers, I haven’t met one, are not going to help white identity. They appear to be chaos creators. This makes me suspicious. A wise man once said, “they give you the opposition”. He also said, they subvert the opposition. Be wary of following leaders ready made, pre-packaged and created. Fuentes is good at rhetoric for a young man. He is almost to good.
naturaly, I am suspicious. But GAB does not need to fund this movement. They had a good thing going without it. The political system is not going to secure anything. Wise people understand.
I apologize for my grammar in the previous post…had a little wine.
You ain’t a wignat Mr. Jeelvy.
You’re Rad-Right!
“Come on man, ain’t isn’t a real word!!” Hahaha
-puts wig away in embarrassment-
The problem here is that White Nationalists in america actually consider the GOYpers right wing. They are not! Like all in the conservative spectrum they are CENTRISTS! At best they are sterile cuckservatives at worst stagnant trads. Only those who accept that heredity is the main pillar of civilization which was created by White People should be considered “Right Wing”. Not surprisingly the GOYpers are only interested in destroying the Right so they and there half breed herald Fuentes can get high off the fumes of a rotting corpse of a Empire.
Fuentes, LeBlanc and the rest of the centrists are the same ilk that put the great Corneliu Codreanu in a ditch with a bullet for his “wignat” beliefs. Thankfully more and more are realizing that these conservative GOYper centrists are the true enemy of reinvigorating civilization aka Nationalism aka Fascism aka white supremacy aka “wignats”. Ending Conservatism aka Centrists is as much a duty of the Right as eternally combating the Left.
I admittedly don’t follow content outside CC terribly close, much less social media drama, but Nick you put too much stock in differences. Fuentes, as far as I can tell, has consistently espoused “white majoritarianism” and named the Jew. In terms of winning, is the distinction between Fuentes and “White Identitarianism” meaningful if the former is more effective? I don’t see that it is. I too have serious ideological disagreements with Groypers, specifically the notion of “God first and foremost,” but from where whites currently stand it doesn’t matter. For all their goofy flaws, Groypers are still clearly moving the survival and interests of whites forward. It is a mistake to wed yourself to any particular approach with what is at stake.
There’s no substantive ideological difference between Nick Fuentes and the “wignats”. My issue is with his arrogance, his habit of fighting everyone else on the right and encouraging his followers to be shut-ins, incels and abrasive.
Nick has an ego reminiscent of Richard Spencer. And I agree with what Greg Johnson said in the comments that we shouldn’t trust anyone under 30 to be in a leadership position. That being said, I strongly disagree that Torba’s donation is sufficient grounds to boycott GAB. The platform has weathered through incredible assaults from the anti-white ruling class. Torba could have capitulated to the Trump teams demand that he ban discussion of the JQ as a condition for Trump to sign on. I don’t think we should minimize the personal financial costs Torba endured defending the ability of people like us to freely disseminate our ideas.
And by Nick I am of course referring to Fuentes not you Jeelvy.
Any information on Wendy Rogers acting for the feds?
She’s a member of the Oath Keepers as well as the notorious honeypot known as the Republican Party of Arizona.
My two cents:
1, White Identitarian Nationalism (WIN) is very unpopular with Centrists, while the AF/Groypers make these issues seem more easily acceptable (I honestly have not seen much of Fuentes) and palatable to people online.
2, Despite the accusations and suspicions of NF being a sodomite, I would caution any action against a loud, rowdy and young man and his peers; they will fight back like wild dogs if they get accused of anything from the “wignats”.
3, IMHO, we have to be careful who we make our enemies and who we make our friends. This problem is endemic to the Right more so than the Left–purity spiraling. If the person who is to your left but lies within the Dissident sphere is making some annoying accusations or noise, you should exercise the tradition of Whites: patience. (Being a young man, I can fully attest to the phenomenon of old men beating down on the younger men who both look up to them and want to succeed them; being older means wisdom and patience, please exercise these virtues!)
4, Our goals are bigger than merely AF and the groypers; ours is necessarily long-term and will take decades. Rather than ostracizing each other and behaving like rabid dogs, we should take the younger men under our wing and show them how to be more proper and appealing to the broader demographics of white working-class people.
As always, thanks for the article, Nick!
I don’t think it would be fair to magnify, in particular, all the asinine and evidently anti-White/anti-American statements made by negro grifters like Philip Anderson–who claims to be a member/follower of the AF movement–and pass judgement on the leader. How would you feel if Fuentes blamed Counter Currents for someone who claimed to be its avid reader and then later showed up at some Republican rally to do a Roman salute while shouting “Sieg Heil”?
However, I would strongly advocate for people like this Philip Anderson feller to be categorically denounced and ostracized by the AF. After all, the mere existence of ideologically confused negroes like him within the movement to salvage whatever is left of the United States as their White Anglo-Saxon Founders had created are just bad optics for the Dissident Right–if you know what I mean.
Just days before the story came out that Torba had given AFPAC 20k, I renewed my Gab Pro membership. I was horrified and disgusted funds were being donated to a group who had been en masse advocating for the rape of White women, removing women from the platform altogether, disparaging traditional male and female relationships through marriage, using a black figurehead like Philip Anderson to brag about having sex with White women, calling users of the platform idiots, etc.
I just couldn’t conceive how a family man like Torba, with a new baby btw, could possibly give money to those people.
I was relieved about an hour ago to discover my Gab Pro payment didn’t process. Best outcome ever.
Gab will never get another quid from me if this is the type of activity Gab is funding. I had assumed money received by Gab would be funneled back into equipment or, at the very least, fixing one of the many annoying bugs on that platform – something I’m sure 20k could’ve easily addressed.
As someone who’s been regularly smeared as a “wignat” since the original “Optics War”, I am delighted to read this conclusion about Nick Fuentes’s subversive movement.
As I mentioned in a previous article, I regret supporting people like Spencer, Parrott, and other “wignat” figures. And yet I do not regret opposing people like Anglin, Weev, and Beardson, whose arguments, while mostly fixated on “optics”, snuck in suggestions that paved the way for the modern groyper movement as we see today. I saw as a red flag the idea that we should distance ourselves from overt White Nationalism and rebrand as MAGA conservatives. While AmNats were correct to call for working with conservatives and building bridges, I always believed that there needed to be an explicitly pro-White movement to act as beacon for redpilled people who gradually become too jaded with mainstream conservatism. Instead, people like Ricky Vaughn and Beardson attacked not only “goon marchers”, but White Nationalism itself. I saw Ricky himself do it on Gab all the time, even going as far to denounce ethnonationalism as “feminine”. And Beardson regularly boasted of having successfully “deradicalized the AltRight” on Twitter alongside “Prince Hubris” and his other Weekly Sweat cohosts. “Deradicalization” and “optics” are two completely different things, and one served as cover for the other.
And yes, the rabid hatred of White women also repulsed me. While I can agree with the need for male leadership, our movement is as much cultural as it is political. White women are needed to help bring our people together and they provide talents that men do not possess. Women can also be very persuasive, and that’s why I did not understand why the early AmNats wanted to silence effective communicators like Lana Lokteff and Lauren Rose. Lauren’s legendary 2017 video on rejecting civic nationalism still makes the rounds today. Who knows how many have been influenced by that clip. And yet she was one of the people targeted by these proto-groypers, including Nick Fuentes and his “irony bro” buddies.
With the groypers alienating themselves from the broader pro-White movement, and the leftist traitors within the former “wignat” faction also denouncing the movement, I hope the reasonable members from both camps can now come together and build something superior to both the AltRight and the “groyper” movement that sought to replace it. I can agree to a baseline level of optics so long as race remains the focus, and the desire to secure land for our people is never cloaked in a paleoconservative cover. Optics and explicit White advocacy are not mutually exclusive. The idea that they were was a farce that hopefully can be corrected in the years to come.
What bothers me the most is that these people are supported and endorsed by antiwhite degenerates like Milo and that Anderson character. AF doesn’t seem to mind hostility to White nationalism, they keep calling us “wignats” for objecting to their deranged antics, which is why I’m perplexed that some people in our circles think these fools are on our side. However on a positive note, I have noticed based on my interactions with them how “Original” Groypers are starting to disavow these multi-racial Negroyper lunatics who constantly make jokes about raping and brutalising White women.
The original Groypers are mostly Meme War veterans who just want to be cozy and left alone. They’re cool and way more funny than the creepy weirdos who think rape jokes are optical and hilarious. (And for people who still think AF is “optical”, they should read the comments from MAGA normies on Gab. They’re repulsed by the rape jokes. There are no bridges being built between them and AF, which goes against the very promise that Ricky Vaughn made of bridging the AltRight to MAGA. For Nick and his people, rape humor trumps optics. Isn’t that strange?)
As for why some pro-Whites support Nick, a lot of it derives from the mistaken belief that Nick Fuentes is a young Jared Taylor. He isn’t, and his constant “lmao I’m not white” tweets should illustrate the dangers in anointing a mixed race person to be the “leader” of a supposedly pro-White movement. If one can identify as either White or some other race, then they have an escape hatch that us full-blooded Whites do not possess. I’m sure Nick’s racial background is part of why he attracts non-White supporters and favors paleocon-style civic nationalism over blood and soil White Nationalism.
And then there are people who think Nick is fine as a gateway. I held that position for a while. Up until recent events, I had surmised that Nick had matured, as his Twitter and Telegram posts avoided drama and he ceased bashing “wignats”. And his followers generally avoided crossing swords with WNs for a good amount of time. I interpreted that as a possible chance of cooperation, and figured it was best to sit back and let the “groypers” do their thing.
And yet Nick’s “BranFlakes5000” sock made it perfectly clear that he was the same Nick that I remember from 2017/2018, and he hadn’t changed, other than possessing a Spencer-sized ego now. And the rhetoric coming from his supporters showed nothing but venom for WNs, even those who used to support Trump back in the day. That is not a gateway. That’s a gatekeeping operation.
Unlike the Optics War of the past, which was largely confined to the TRS forum and a few Gab pages, this flame war spread across all of pro-White Gab, which is much bigger now than it was 4 years ago. Nearly every open WN on Gab was targeted by these sickos who had antifa-style avatars like the one where Hitler is pointing a gun at his head and it says “FOLLOW YOUR LEADER”. No one in the “DR” is going to forget that. AF has burned its bridges with the more moderate wing of the pro-White movement. For pro-Whites hoping for a moderate gateway, it’s going to have to be someone else. Nick’s movement is now dedicated to destroying WN and driving it away from Gab and other platforms. They are no different than antifa now. Anyone still denying that needs to take off their rose-colored glasses just I like I took mine off in regards to Spencer’s AltRight.
His branflakes5000 sock account was a pretty big turning point. His neurotic reaction to losing his main Twitter account was what I would expect from a teenage girl. He seemed to think that he had plausible deniability with that sock account (a ridiculous notion when all his followers venerated it as a holy oracle) and went completely mask off. He even bad mouthed 2A enthusiasts which is, or at least should be, suicide in right wing politics.
This is why Gab will never be relevant. It will only become more and more niche than it already is.
To quote Racial Consciousness on Gab:
“If it was only one or two groypers making rape posts, you might have an argument about them not representing “America First” in any way.
But it’s not one or two. It’s literally many hundreds, and perhaps even thousands.
When hundreds, and even thousands, of people who support an organization all make the same disgusting and unforgiveable rape remarks, then that 100% IS a reflection on that organization.”
Here’s a condensed version of what it’s like to debate a Fuentes supporter:
Question: You claim Fuentes has the winning strategy. How can you be sure about that?
Answer: Because he’s going to win.
Question: What precise reason you have for believing he’s going to win?
Answer: Because he’s got the winning strategy.
I try to avoid getting involved in “extremely online” spaces, but from what I can tell, most of the Canadian groypers (speaking as a Canuck) seem to be right-wing young Chinese and Indian Subcon men mad that White women won’t date or sleep with them (when Canadian White women’s total lack of interest in dating the hoards of Asians the government is letting in, in spite of intense interracial dating cultural propaganda, is one of the few whitepilling aspects of modern Canada and is something the Right should continue to encourage) and Catholic White men looking to justify why they’re incels or have miscegenated with a “based” Filipina or Indian woman. “Based non-whites” need to realize that no one wants you in White countries just because you hate gays and feminism. After all, if traditional views like that were all it took to build a First World country, sub-Saharan Africa would be a paradise.
There’s a good deal of paranoid ideation about all white women being mudsharks among the groypers, whereas empirical reality shows us that white women are the population cohort least likely to miscegenate.
However, in medialand, no white woman ever goes for the white man. This tells me that the groyper sphere has allowed the enemy to inform their picture of white women. If they’ve allowed this bit of enemy propaganda to colour their worldview, what other mindworms are they harboring?
It would be bad enough if groypers were all White men determined to denigrate White women and stay celibate forever, but what takes it to another level, in my view, is that a fair number of them advocate for miscegenation and continued mass non-white immigration (as long as the non-white immigrants are “based anti-communists”). Even worse, a significant percentage of them appear to be degenerate non-whites who think some future authoritarian government will assign them all Aryan brides. They’re ultimately just civnats who think traditional conservative ideology (particularly on contemporary culture war issues) trumps race/blood when it comes to the quality of the country. By that logic, you’re better off living in a village in sub-Saharan Africa where they stone gays/trannies than some sleepy all-White New England hamlet where they vote Democrat – but we know that’s just not true.
Why should we have to choose? I want to live in a sleepy all-White New England hamlet where they stone trannies.
Haha, I don’t disagree with you. I just think believing that socially conservative non-white immigrants are more pleasant to live around than your average centrist to liberal White, and we should therefore encourage right-wing non-whites to immigrate to White countries (as the groypers seem to believe), is true only when you’re comparing the highest IQ, lowest crime/corruption non-whites to the most degenerate of leftist Whites. I’ll give it to the groypers that it is correct that most of us would rather live in Japan than a White tranny commune, but that’s rarely what the actual option is. Thinking a flood of immigration from socially conservative Indians/Pakistanis and Africans will fix our civilization is the conservative equivalent of the left thinking mass Third World immigration will result in the U.S. becoming a Scandinavian-style social democratic paradise.
“…a significant percentage of them appear to be degenerate non-whites who think some future authoritarian government will assign them all Aryan brides.”
Could you provide a quick reference-point online to that subculture so that we could see it ourselves? I don’t deny your claim, I simply hadn’t heard of this before.
If you stumble across any Canadian groyper twitter account where the user spends all of their time whining about White women (or “wahmen” as they like to say), “wignats”, and normie conservative issues like wanting to cut red tape for businesses, and never says anything negative about non-whites or immigration (beyond maybe complaining about blacks once in a blue moon), they’re almost always a South Asian (usually Hindu Indian) or East Asian (usually Chinese) male.
To give one specific example, there’s one Toronto-based groyper, who is a Chinese man, who has been active lately in commenting on the Canadian trucker convoy stuff who is exactly from this mould. He tweets under what might be his real name (which is an English first name and a Chinese last name), so while I may ideologically disagree with him, I’m hesitant to post a link to his account here and direct a mob his way, but you can easily find him.
Indian Bronson would also be a fairly prominent example of this general way of thinking among non-whites involved in the “dissident right”. He’s not a groyper but is an Indian man who believes in establishing some sort of authoritarian/traditionalist government in the U.S., which would be rooted in a right-wing form of civic nationalism where right-wing non-whites would still be welcome. He’s fixated on blaming White women for the fall of the West because he can’t find a White woman to marry and have kids with (which is a positive thing in my view). While White people, including White women, are not above criticism for our own role in our downfall, a lot of his generalizations about White women are clearly rooted in his own personal experiences of White women consistently rejecting him on dating apps, which can’t be fully extrapolated to how all White women will treat White men (i.e., data from dating apps shows that White women are the least interested in Indian men out of all types of men so his own struggles with women aren’t exactly universal).
This is the most commented-upon post I have yet seen on this site, and the most contentious and over-all useless amount of word soup I’ve ever read. So, I would like to ask the lot of you — 1) are you working at a decent, well-paying job with a steady income; 2) are you married; 3) do you have, or plan to have, 3+ children? Mr. Jeelvy has self-identified to a ‘yes’ on the first two, and I have high hopes for his intelligent forthcoming fatherhood. And for everyone else, I certainly hope you are not forgetting the basics of White Nationalism as you get wound up on ‘wiggers’ and ‘wignats’, which I still cannot understand the meaning of. But I guess I’m catching Dementia from watching too many comments by Biden which make up the nightly news in our fast-failing U.S.
Unless Gab actually starts actively censoring white nationalists from its platform, don’t jump ship. This purity spiraling needs to stop. We have enough enemies as it is. The dissident right does not have a codified ideology so there is a wide range of opinions. We are all united by a common enemy so let’s focus on the bigger picture.
I have not read this post, and only skimmed the comments (this solely because I noticed that a heated discussion was taking place here, and wondered what the fuss was about). I don’t know what the issues are, nor do I care. Sectarian infighting, and especially power and personality conflicts, are always plagues upon dissident movements. I do seem to recall that someone rather famous in history (Lenin? Hitler?) once said something to the effect that revolutionaries needed to beware of excessive both sectarianism and deviationism. This is why movements ultimately need leaders, one hopes wise ones, around whom ‘normals’ (in this context, the modal person comprising the movement at issue – but with an eye kept on staying plausible to persuadable others yet further from the movement’s ideology) can rally. Someone needs to be the gatekeeper tasked with removing, at least from positions of influence or power, the mentally unstable or morally questionable types that get attracted to radical, anti-system politics.
Many serious rightists over the decades justifiably criticized the late W.F. Buckley, Jr., for anointing himself the “keeper of the tablets” for postwar American conservatism, but I think those criticisms were only valid insofar as they were directed at Buckley’s performance in this role – the poor selection criteria by which he determined who should be “excommunicated”, which, more often than not, consisted of the authentically rightist, especially those who either or both understood that a) “the revolution was” (ie, that by the end of WW2, the Real American (Constitutional) Republic had been displaced); and b) that white Americans had become a dispossessed majority (ie, that already by the 1960s, the Real Ameif still numerically preponderant) – rather than the more fundamental idea that dissidentrican people were no longer the ‘shotcallers’ of the political direction of the nation, even movements periodically need to be purged of weirdoes in order to present a relatively normal ‘face’ to the larger body politic.
I think the White Identitarian Right badly needs such a gatekeeper now, someone (perhaps chosen by a council of leading prowhite activists) who has earned Grand Old Man status in the white preservationist cause, and who can decide who may speak for us, and who should be ‘canceled’ (ie, about whom it should be made clear to normal, conservative, “not-yet-but-potential-WPs” is not the “voice”, or representative, of the prowhite movement). The obvious choice for this role is Jared Taylor (whether he would want it is another matter).
We also need formal organization, not our own political party (like, eg, the Libertarian Party), a view I reject (we should rather seek to become a prominent ‘player’ within the GOP, forcing the party to accommodate us and bend to our will, as the already do wrt the porlifers, and as Democrats must do wrt blacks {“I will only appoint a black female as the next SCOTUS Justice”}), but some Institute for White Preservation, with a formal leadership structure (eg, people like Greg Johnson on its Board of Directors), and dues paying members. David Duke obviously had this idea 40 years ago with his National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), but it went nowhere (though it still exists), probably due in part to Duke’s own excessively outside the mainstream (Klan) background (along with it having been too far ahead of its time). This Institute could become the intellectual and organizational nucleus for much of our people’s “internal nation-re-building” agenda.
Perhaps I’m going senile, but rereading what I wrote above I find an uncharacteristically large portion of sheer unintelligibility (pretty sure I did not write it the way it now appears).
Paragraph #2 should read as follows (I think):
Many serious rightists over the decades justifiably criticized the late W.F. Buckley, Jr., for anointing himself the “keeper of the tablets” for postwar American conservatism, but I think those criticisms were only valid insofar as they were directed at Buckley’s performance in this role – the poor selection criteria by which he determined who should be “excommunicated”, which, more often than not, consisted of the authentically rightist, especially those who either or both understood that a) “the revolution was” (ie, that by the end of WW2, the Real American (Constitutional) Republic had been displaced); and b) that white Americans had become a dispossessed majority (ie, that already by the 1960s, the Real American people were no longer the ‘shotcallers’ of the political direction of the nation, even if still numerically preponderant) – rather than the more fundamental idea that dissident movements periodically need to be purged of weirdoes in order to present a relatively normal ‘face’ to the larger body politic.
Paragraph # 4, first sentence, should read (corrections in bold):
We also need formal organization, not our own political party (like, eg, the Libertarian Party), a view I reject (we should rather seek to become a prominent ‘player’ within the GOP, forcing the party to accommodate us and bend to our will, as they already do wrt the prolifers,
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment