1,315 words
Author’s Note: On last Saturday’s Counter-Currents Radio livestream, a listener named Natalie sent in the question, “What are your thoughts on the Coach ‘Dead-Shill’ saga?” Hyacinth Bouquet transcribed my answer, and I have cleaned it up some. I want to thank Natalie for her question and Hyacinth for her transcription.
Well, from your question, I already can guess what your thoughts are on the Coach “Dead-Shill” saga. This is a reference to Coach Red Pill, who is not a dead shill, but he is a shill. He’s a Red Shill — a shill for Russia and the Red Army who are making war on Ukraine.
Coach Red Pill, AKA Gonzalo Lira, went missing for a while. He said that if he went quiet on social media, we could assume that the Ukrainians had assassinated him and gave a list of people who had allegedly been taken out the same way. Then he went silent.
The people in the broad Dissident Right who have been supporting Russia in the Ukraine War were deeply concerned. As with the Ukraine War itself, once again they were all repeating the same talking points. They were all “praying” for Gonzalo Lira.
I think Andrew Anglin was praying for him. I think Mike Enoch was praying for him. He’s not the praying kind of guy, but he was praying for Gonzalo Lira. Who else? Brittany Sellner was praying for Gonzalo Lira. Hunter Wallace was praying for Gonzalo Lira. Personally, if I were the praying kind of guy, I’d be saving my prayers for the people of Ukraine.
The reaction to Gonzalo Lira’s disappearance is an interesting litmus test issue. Some people were praying for him. Others — people like Morgoth, Thuletide, Nick Jeelvy, Jared Howe, Hapaperspective, and me — saw it differently.
Basically, the reaction was: Gonzalo Lira was a Chilean who did not appear entirely white. He was a vulgar manosphere vlogger with a strong grifter/attention whore vibe. He ended up in Ukraine basically as a sex tourist. Then, when the country was invaded, he had the bad taste to ally with the invaders and promote their propaganda while pretending to be an objective observer. Then he set up the idea that he might be disappeared. Then he disappeared.
Isn’t there an interesting moral here? Did Gonzalo Lira think this was just a game? What did he think was going to happen? Apparently, this isn’t just an online game for the people in Ukraine, whose country is getting bombed. It’s not just a way of scoring points online. It is not just “owning” your enemies online. It’s not just a way of getting clicks and likes online. It is somewhat more serious than, say, Lauren Southern sitting on a bed, showing cleavage, and slowly reading her 23 and Me results to thirsty orbiters. It is somewhat more serious than an unboxing video.
The Ukrainians might actually take a person encouraging their troops to desert in wartime — a capital offense — seriously enough to have a conversation with him, to take him aside for a moment of quiet prayer, even to make him disappear.
There’s a distinction between “justice justice” and “poetic justice,” and it would have been poetic justice if the reality of the war and death he was grifting off of came bursting into Lira’s online game, because none of this, ultimately, is a game. Halting white genocide is no game. But our movement is plagued by grifters and egomaniacs who treat it as just an online game.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
That said, it would have been bad taste to actually hope that Lira was dead. I should note, however, that Lira wishes death on ethnonationalists. He’s not one of us. He’s not a friend. He’s an enemy. As our friend HapaPerspective has laid out, if Gonzalo Lira were dictator of America, he’d enforce the melting-pot. He’s an authoritarian multiracial civic nationalist. Sort of like Putin, for that matter. He’s an authoritarian civic nationalist who would make different peoples jump into the melting pot and come out uniform — 56% brown goo — and then give them little American flags to wave. One Volk, one Reich, through miscegenation. He’s opposed to ethnonationalism. He’s opposed to white identity politics, probably because his own identity is not fully white.
Politics is all about friends and enemies, and if you can’t tell that someone like Gonzalo Lira is an enemy of whites, you don’t have the judgment for politics. The same is true of Putin, for the same reasons.
I first encountered Lira a couple of years ago. A friend of mine sent me a link and said, “Here’s a guy giving advice to young men, like he wished he had gotten from his dad.” I clicked the link. The lesson was “Don’t fuck crazy.” Utterly vulgar manosphere stuff. I smelled a rat right there. After about five minutes, I turned it off and thought, “Okay, that’s five minutes of my life I’m never going to get back.” I hoped to never hear of him again.
Then he started leveraging his position in Ukraine for views, passing along Russian propaganda as if he were a neutral observer. I just rolled my eyes, because I knew this guy is our enemy. He’s not so terribly different, though, from Putin, so his position came as no surprise. Putin is a race-blind, authoritarian, civic nationalist who makes life for ethnonationalists like me absolute hell in his country.
Yet we have idiots on the Right who say that we’d be better off under Russian rule. No, we’re actually better off under liberal democracy than we would be under an authoritarian, civic-nationalist, race-mixing regime, because under liberal democracy, we still have more freedom to speak out and organize.
The idea that we’d be better off under an authoritarian, Christian-branded, conservative-branded, multiracial civic nationalism is the dumbest take on the planet. But thousands of people on the broader Dissident Right are willing to buy this message because they put Christianity, conservatism, and indulging their own authoritarian personalities above the survival of the white race.
When Lira disappeared one of the most revealing reactions came from Scott Ritter, who in an earlier life actually did some good things. Now Scott Ritter is the guy offering here’s-how-Bernie-can-still-win mental gymnastics to spin Russia’s failed assault on Kiev as a tactically brilliant feint. This clown was also “praying” for “Gonzo,” as he calls him.
Ritter said “reports are emerging” — I shudder to think from where — that Lira had been kidnapped, tortured, and executed by Ukrainians. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but Lira wasn’t kidnapped, tortured, or executed by Ukrainians. He’s back. He says he was detained and then released. Nothing that wouldn’t happen in any liberal democracy, frankly, if he were encouraging soldiers to desert in times of war and passing along enemy propaganda. But I don’t trust anything that comes out of Lira’s mouth. I’ll believe him when I see the Ukrainian arrest warrant.
I thought this really showed Ritter’s true colors. If he were a neutral commentator, he would have entertained various possibilities. Instead, he went right to the narrative that was maximally anti-Ukrainian. The Ukrainians are Nazis committing genocide! They have secret police who kidnap and torture people! The best explanation for why Ritter did this is that he’s just a contemptible shill. He might even like “Gonzo,” but that wasn’t going to stop him from exploiting his presumed death for maximum propaganda value. It is sad that Lira chose friends like this.
I hope that I won’t be hearing any more about Coach “Red Shill,” but, like herpes, he will probably never go away. The guy is an online narcissist. He’s an attention whore. As our friend Gaddius Maximus said, there is a strong Tawana Brawley vibe about this whole thing. This might just be an anti-Ukrainian hate crime hoax. Lira could have disappeared himself for attention — in which case, even saying this much about him is too much.
* * *
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.
14 comments
I’d love to see Greg debate someone like Nick Fuentes on this Russia Ukraine issue.
What would be the point? How would any outcome of the debate further a single positive policy objective of White Identitarian Nationalism?
We don’t need debate salon ‘blood sports’.
We need serious thinkers and prudent doers positioning WIN and the race that depends on us for a future worth having.
I honestly doubt that Fuentes has the balls. Going on the street and yelling at / getting yelled at by Antifa goons is one thing, holding your own in a fair debate against someone like Greg is another, especially for a guy like Nick.
Fuentes is juvenile and debating him would be largely pointless. That said, I would do it for a good cause.
Angling’s glee at the destruction of Ukraine shows he really is a soulless sociopath.
Anglin is a mentally unstable individual who, according to some sources, has a history of out-of-control drug use and manic self-injurious behavior. He has a tendency towards infighting and burning bridges and does not handle disagreement or personal conflict constructively.
While his writing style can be engaging and entertaining, it is ultimately the product of a disordered mind.
As our movement matures, we have to be more wary about these types of personalities, as they can cause immense problems if they are given too much credence/authority.
And he is a huge fan of China, a diehard China eulogist and panda-hugger, who was so clueless as to confuse means with ends, and mistake an object we can learn some useful lessons from or even emulate in certain areas for an object of loyalty and devotion, and profuse and profound admiration and veneration. He’s way too over-the-top and overboard when it comes to China, that is unwise and inadvisable to say the least, and most certainly deleterious and detrimental to the cause of White Nationalism.
I read Daily Stormer every day, but have found the DS take on Russia / Ukraine to be somewhat ridiculous. Imagine seriously hoping someone gets nuked and it causes a WWIII scenario with nuclear warheads getting deployed all over – that’s what Anglin is wishing for. Anglin can wave that off as cynical commentary, but that appears to be his honest feelings on the situation. In that respect, he’s no better than any of the ‘conservative’ shills salivating over the possibility of getting involved in a war. Irresponsible and ignorant.
The grifter cries out in pain, as he shills for the army invading your country.
Good takedown of someone I’d never heard of. White preservationists (serious ones, like most of us here are) really need to spread the word to the broad prowhite community that they need to narrow and deepen their reading. I understand the “let 100 flowers bloom” theory, but I also get that “too many cooks spoil the broth”. We don’t need hundreds of different “opinionators”, especially ones (like some of those this post mentions) whose grasp of the issues is unsound.
I don’t spend time promiscuously across the prowhite sphere. Rather, I read a considerable portion of what appears here; I read a not inconsiderable portion of what is posted at American Renaissance (the commentary, not so much the news) and The Occidental Observer; and I read The Occidental Quarterly. Beyond these sites, which contain immense educational resources, I would rather my prowhite reading consist of actual books (and I prefer reading other well-written books, from academic works to classic literature). Life is short; free time is limited; and reading the best our cause has produced is ultimately more useful anyway.
Basically the same with me.
The idea that we’d be better off under an authoritarian, Christian-branded, conservative-branded, multiracial civic nationalism is the dumbest take on the planet. But thousands of people on the broader Dissident Right are willing to buy this message because they put Christianity, conservatism, and indulging their own authoritarian personalities above the survival of the white race. (Greg Johnson)
I agree with this in part. A multiracial civic nationalism, including a “conservative” variant, is absolutely not our goal. We wish to preserve our race because we are “conservatives” in the deepest, transcendent sense. Dr. Johnson makes this point well, you might recall (or should!), in his White Nationalist Manifesto. It would be hard to care about anything of extra-personal significance if you knew humanity was guaranteed to go extinct within a decade. We white preservationists feel this way about the relation between politics and our race’s biological perpetuity. Why care if our race is headed to extinction (as it guaranteedly is, absent conscious [and successful] acts of white racial will and resistance)?
So race comes first to genuine prowhites (seems pretty obvious, right?). Now, for me, “an authoritarian, Christian-branded, conservative-branded, multiracial civic nationalism” would indeed be preferable to many other regimes: communist, Islamist, authoritarian ‘wokeist’, and multiracial liberal social democratist, to name the worst (from my prowhite but also conservative perspective). But that doesn’t mean such a regime is one we should advocate or defend. Indeed, in some ways, it might even be more dangerous than some of the others just mentioned, if only because it more substantially risks diverting racio-ideologically marginal whites, ones attracted to the White Right more because they see the Left attacking them as whites than because they intrinsically care about white preservation, away from real prowhite politics (which I believe, against some here, I think, also offer the best long term chance for the realization and maintenance of Christian traditionalist, conservative, and/or libertarian societies).
Obviously, we don’t want this – especially in light of the “long duration” of our essential concerns. Political affiliation waxes and wanes along different time scales. What I care about immediately (cracking down on locally spiking crime, and the Fed raising interest rates and reducing the money supply to combat inflation) is quite different from what I care about ultimately. The problem with a conservative, Christianist, multiracial civnat politics is that it could actually be fairly successful at improving white lives in the short run. But in its successes precisely lay its dangers, because in the long run, without radical resistance, our race is doomed (I also think pragmatically that, as mentioned, Christian/conservative/libertarian politics will also be doomed, as I believe all of these rightist ideologies, at least to the extent they ever enjoy widespread support, are epiphenomenal products of white racial psychology; when our numbers sufficiently diminish, they will disappear even before we have). I’m not an “accelerationist”, as that term is commonly used, but I also don’t want to see whites pacified and anaesthetized by racially irrelevant political improvements which are ultimately detrimental to racial perpetuity.
What concerns me, however, about the quote above is the manner in which Dr. Johnson expressed himself. It seems to suggest implicitly that there might be some conflict between Christianity and/or conservatism and white racial survival. I reject that implication. I don’t think one can be a Christian and a really committed Nazi (or, even more obviously, communist or Islamist), but Nazism is hardly synonymous with “white preservationism”. One can be a Christian and a WP. “Diversity” is a liberal cult, not a Christian commandment. Indeed, I argue that, in light of the obvious War on White Existence that has been waged against us at least since 1945, as well as the (ahem) even more obvious superiority (in the moral virtues as well as across the entire arena of human civilized accomplishment) of our race, it is morally imperative for a Christian (and of whatever color!) to be a WP; at a minimum, it is morally allowable for us to resist our persecutors and would-be destroyers.
Christianity and WP should never be rhetorically set in antagonistic juxtaposition (not that Dr. Johnson has necessarily or intentionally done so above, only that he could be superficially interpreted to have done so). Real Christians will always put their Faith above their race. There is no theological reason, however, they cannot embrace both, and it is a tactical (as well as intellectual) mistake to imply that there is.
Re: Anglin. I didn’t follow him before he got unpersoned (worse than anyone here) but I’m not surprised at all that he wants to burn it all down. What does he have to live for? Can’t even get a bank account, can’t ever hold a respectable job, under constant surveillance. Idk many men who wouldn’t turn a little dark after that.
This is the reason I take online privacy quite seriously. I don’t want my metadata turned against me in the future for simply disagreeing with the status quo. We’re not quite to this point, but it’s not far off I think.
If you have a Subscriber 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.