Dangerous clowns inside the alt-right big tent

Are they ok with Jews, are they not ok with Jews? the alternative right reveals through glaring contradictions - saliently now between Colin Liddell and Greg Johnson - that their big tent cannot be entrusted as the platform to uphold the interests of European peoples.

Its big tent includes people who are enemies of each other already and people who are, and will remain, our enemies ultimately.

The inadequacy of the alternative right big tent came into high relief in arguments on recent threads at the site directly named Alternative Right, specifically under articles by Colin Liddell in which he not only argues against The Daily Stormer platform and approach (well and good to argue against that), but also in favor of including Jews in White advocacy.

That is nothing new generally speaking, coming from “Alternative Right”, and that is why they are placed in MR’s controlled opposition section. What is different is the explicitness and vehemence with which Liddell has argued for the inclusion of Jews. But still more revealing of the folly of trying to play along and keep the alternative right’s big tent together, was Greg Johnson coming across to lend support to Colin Liddell, whose argument to include Jews was virtually synonymous with the commentator Uh, who was banned from commenting at Counter-Currents by Greg Johnson for that reason.

That is, Johnson takes a categorical position that Jews and those who would argue for their inclusion in our nations and in entrusted positions with our advocacy are not to be accepted (Majorityrights agrees with that completely). However, in an apparent move to maintain participation with the alternative right big tent, Johnson has turned around to support Liddell despite Liddell’s argument to include Jews in our advocacy.

From TradYouth to Daily Stormer (anti-Jewish Christian sites who are tight with one another) to TradYouth who work with Alt Right (while Alt Right hates Daily Stormer), connecting with Alt Right’s Christian element in Andy Nowicki, who, along with Colin Liddell, is inclusive of Jews and relatively ok with “manosphere” types such as Forney and the White people be damned, lets mix and rape them away Muslim Roosh, who are welcome in the Regnery-Gottfried Circus with Radix-NPI (which Alt Right supports as upstanding) - which banned TradYouth from its recent conference for the sake of good appearances - though both TradYouth and Richard Spencer traffic in ‘radical traditionalism’; they had been standing with Greg Johnson until he defected upon the failed conference with anti-racist, “Eurasianist”, Dugin. While again, Johnson has done an about face on his categorical position against Uh (though the occasion of Uh’s being banned provided very eloquent commentary and conclusive arguments for his exclusion), and against others who would argue for the inclusion of Jews in White advocacy - all waffled, apparently to maintain the big tent of the right, despite its inherent instability. If you think that is confusing, the list of the alternative right’s contradictions to coherent White interests can go on…

Despite its many glaring contradictions to the interests of European peoples, they try to maintain their right wing big tent and they try to bury and make redundant our White Left Nationalism.

The reason for that attempted obfuscation by the alternative right big tent is likely to be that most of its members feel (with good reason) that their positions cannot survive without the camouflage and facile coalitions of their big, incoherent tent.

By contrast to the alternative right’s overly inclusive big tent, Majorityrights shows itself and will continue to show itself the solid platform for the advocacy of European peoples, our ethno-national discretion and regional cooperation.

1. It does not include Jews - on the contrary, it recognizes their pattern and their seven niche control points as arrayed against European interests in particular and ethnonationalism generally.

2. It neither views Hitler as perfect nor a figure to be redeemed and upheld for WN.

3.  It is not a Christian site; it is working within and developing a better moral order.

4. It has post modern bearings, which allow for the management of social groups both through necessarily reconstructing forms/traditions and necessary modernizations; it is not scientistic or right-wing - with all the attendant instability that you are witnessing in the alternative right. Rather it can and does take the social group, its well being and defense, as its unit of analysis, maintaining accountability of its rank and file and elite positions.

These are the first reasons why MR has the sound platform - because we are solid in our theoretical platform we are able to be clear, consistent and explicit - ultimately able then, to bring our resource to our people to help them transform this hyperbolic liberal milieu into our ethnonationalist and regional alliance.

............................

Here are some of the central comments under critical attention.

Greg Johnson’s offering in support of Collin Liddell and the alternative right big tent: “Well I’m relieved. I took your last article as in earnest and regarded it as a serious lapse by an otherwise sound writer, not as a parody of Anglin himself.”

EricStriker in response to Greg Johnson: “That’s because it wasn’t a parody, he’s just a backpedaling coward. He is subtly reaffirming most of his stupid accusations in this piece.”

Greg Johnson: “So your position is that he is not changing anything that he said AND he is backpedaling. That’s pretty stupid. You really have no credibility at this point.”

Colin Liddell in turn, supports Johnson in the alternative right big tent, despite Johnson’s contradiction to Liddell’s position:

“I want to keep you around, Striker, as I like you as a punchbag, but if you address Dr. Johnson in that crude manner, I will be forced to remove you.”

 
Along with his ill-advised argument to include Jews in our advocacy, Colin Liddell has made the extremely unfair argument that we at MR are “simplistic.”

He renders that poor and inaccurate argument against Kumiko and MR here:

“I can tell you like simplicity, but things may be a little more complex than your mental comfort zone allows.

Many Jews are ethnocentric and paranoid against Whites. These are our enemies. Other Jews are more ambivalent and in Europe especially don’t relish the rising Islamic tide.

Also there is a argument that Jews are actually White or at least mainly White and that therefore their “anti-Whiteness” is a paradoxical result of confusion, past-experience, and present paranoia.

Furthermore many Whites have some degree of Jewish blood. One estimate I head was that around 30,000,000 Americans have some Ashkenazi blood.

Considering all this, it would be a mistake to push all these elements to unite against us in a solid bloc, while also dividing Whites with unacceptable Nazist positions and rhetoric - which is more or less what WN in America has done. If some Jews are inclined to support WN we should allow that without obviously dropping our guard.”

In addition to being wrong, that was quite unfair as MR is understood to be careful in not looking at issues from a monocausalist perspective, but rather from a hermeneutic survey - an ongoing process of looking at various problems and concerns.

More, while Kumiko made rebuttals which I fully endorse, I added this argument regarding our position on Jews, showing that it is reasonable, nuanced, not overly simplistic:

Of course we can refer to and even use some ideas put forth by Jews. We just can’t trust them as people to function as a reliable part of our advocacy group. They can take care of themselves, among their own. If some of their people have ideas and ways that coincide with us, fine, but we don’t have to embrace them, place them under our tent - as intergenerationally, their interests will emerge in conflict with ours. If it is not our purpose to exterminate them, there is no reason why they should be able to insist on holding citizenship to our White nations. They can take care of themselves. They don’t need us and we don’t need them.

The realm of ideas is a different matter; we can look at and borrow ideas from all kinds of people, including Jews. But of course we should take into account the source of the ideas and their potential motives

Regarding “friendly” and mixed-with-White Jews, I have elborated here and here.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:00 | #

Ryan, in essence, both Atzmon and Shamir promote liberalism, which is the mindset most destructive to Whites and the mindset that has been called “suicidal” while having been promoted all along by Jews.

They fool the Whites that they do fool by being anti-Israel (anti-Zionist), i.e., by being liberal and against some of the more outrageous examples of Jewish ethnocentrism - e.g., abuse of Palestinians and extortion through holocaustianity.

With their enculturated insights into Jewish use and abuse of texts and ways they can provide clues to the essence of some significant argumentation against Jews, as Atzmon has in his observation of how Jews use the book of Esther to pre-emptively justify genocide of non-Jews.

But these arguments must be retooled if they are to serve our purposes because his aim with his argument is liberalism and liberalism for Whites, only a little more “fair” - i.e., a slower death.

Along with promoting what is worst for us (liberalism) one of the more egregious things that Atzmon does is pander to Nazi advocates, whether holocaust deniers or liberals who will pander to them, such as Dieudonné with his stupid “quenelle” - a dog whistle assimilation of the Nazi salute.

This is supposed to be liberating to Whites? It is not.

It keeps our voice marginal, side-tracked, divided and conquered.

Atzmon and Shamir are still operating in their Jewish interests, just trying not to over-do the Jewish ethno-centrism; but in effect, they fool people like David Duke and get him to promote a liberalism wherein Jews can get lost among the rest of the world’s peoples and start the parasitic cycle again.

If you look behind Paul Gottfried’s motives you will see that he is operating in Jewish interests as well.

He is one of the more clear examples of those who would argue that the problem is “THE Left.”

Like Atzmon and Shamir he knows that Jews have overdone it and is doing his best to control the opposition and mitigate their response with regard to Jews.

You need to read and take to heart the analogy of Eustace Mullins “biological Jew.” It describes by accurate analogy why individual Jews cannot be trusted and absolutely not with power and influence over our peoples. Though there are some Jews who are more virulent and ethnocentric than others, who are disseminating directives from above and compelling compliance, the rank and file Jews are a part of the same biological system. Even where Jews are better camouflaged to appear White in this instantiation, as their biology can be well camouflaged in its infamous crypsis, it will express itself as destructive to Whites, even if only more-so, in a subsequent generation. Being “liberals” and anti-Zionist are some of the guises that rank and file Jews will use to disguise themselves to ease their way and furtively engraft themselves upon the White host.

But there is no excuse to be fooled by their liberalism, as Duke and other right wingers are. When they argue against Jewish ethnocentrism they are arguing against our ethnocentrism and for our liberalism as well. That is probably the worst thing that they can do - it is the opposite of the “worse is better” scenario that we have been discussing.

Jews are not only a rule structure which is top down (though they are that too), they are also a biological system that operates from its genetics outward, functioning inter-generationally.

In that way they could potentially fool people to infiltrate our systems and destroy them.

Ryan, don’t be fooled. Take the biological Jew to heart. Look at them, experience them and watch it confirmed as truth, but they must have no citizenship or legal power among nor over us.

Note that as I write, Brother Nathanael Kapner is talking with James Edwards at “The Political Cesspool” trying to advance the idea that he has been converted from being a biological Jew (“his father and Rabbi told him as a child that he was born a Jew and will die a Jew, but he fell in love with Christianity”), that he has become “one of us” by having become a Christian (he is an Orthodox Christian) and promoting the idea that we should be Christians - i.e., liberals, universal, “undifferentiated gentile others” (as GW says), unlike the Jewish, ethnocentric ways.

...................
Regarding where they should be among us, the only question for any White who understands Jews is where the 1/4 Jews and the 1/8 Jews should stand. Even with them, we need to be very careful and that is a policy discussion we need to have.

And

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:03 | #

whitty, see my answer just above.

Jews are not only a part of a hostile top down rule structure, they are also a part of a hostile biological system (the biological Jew) that can express itself more or less intergeneratonally, but will express itself to White destruction as an overall pattern.

They must be quarantined, so to speak - in effect, they must not have citizen’s rights in White nations.

Liberalism and anti-ethnocentrism are what Atzmon and Shamir promote - i.e., they are for what is killing us and against what we need.

Paul Gottfried wants us to argue against “The Left” - in arguing against “the left” he is distracting from what we need (a social classification and unionization of Whites), distracting with the misrepresented, Jewish, Red Left promoted as “the left”; but the Red Left is very un-left and hyperbolic-liberal for Whites as it does not allow for our unionization, we are conceived in its terms as the perennial elite exploiters, valued only for compliant, relative liberalism - i.e. against a proper regulation of European ethnocentrism.