The other day, Paul Ramsey had an amusing take on Gavin McInnes dramatically quitting his fan club, the Proud Boys. Everyone is assuming this was in response to the FBI using the word “extremist” when describing the McInnes fan club in a bulletin they issued to the Portland Oregon police department. The assumption is that the FBI is now going to treat Proud Boys as a criminal organization or a terrorist group. McInnes is disavowing them in order to avoid legal guilt by association or any financial culpability stemming from lawsuits.
Maybe that’s what motivated McInnes, but the more likely answer is something I pointed out a year ago with him and other edgytarians. For right-wing edgytarians, the game is always to keep an eye on where the Left is drawing the line. To be edgy on the Right means always staying just inside that line. When the line moves, make sure you move with it, maybe do so reluctantly, while lecturing those to your Right about the need to play nice or be civil. A good discourse on principles and “who we are” always helps.
It is a tough life and many trip up and fall into the void. That’s what’s happening with McInnes and his fan club. Let’s not kid ourselves about the Proud Boys. It was never intended to be anything but a fan club for McInnes. He got the idea from hanging out with alt-right people in the run-up to the presidential election. He saw that guys like Mike Enoch and Richard Spencer had built an audience around a personal brand, so McInnes created what he thought was a mom-safe version for himself. Proud Boys is alt-right-lite.
Now, the assumption that the FBI is about to RICO the Proud Boys is way off base. The use of the term “extremist group” is meaningless. There is no such formal designation in the law or with the FBI. It is as meaningful as saying the Proud Boys are a drinking club or they like wearing polo shirts. The FBI is a corrupt and broken organization, but they are not about to RICO a TV clown’s fan club. The dramatic reading of his resignation was about getting inside that line again, so McInnes can keep his career alive.
It’s why it is always wise to think about the motivation of popular figures who dabble in dissident politics. A guy like McInnes is primarily a performer. He has spent his life feeling around for a vehicle that will get him a big audience. He’s tried edgy magazine writer, edgy polemicist, TV clown, YouTube clown, jokey political analyst, cheeky ad-man and now he is the hipster gadfly. His instincts, with regards to politics, are conventional white guy politics, but they have always been a a decoration for his performing career.
Another example is Stefan Molyneux, who built his career being a dramatic, somewhat edgy, anarcho-libertarian YouTube performer. His edginess was to flirt with things like biological realism, by posting available data on things like race, sex and IQ. Molyneux is a trained stage actor, who has developed an act that works well on YouTube. As soon as he got some heat from the Left, he has quickly retreated into generic libertarianism, which is completely safe, because it is completely harmless. The show must go on.
On the surface, the right-edgytarian feels like a good thing, because through humor (McInnes) and dramatic presentation (Molyneux) they can help normalize and popularize heretical ideas. Lots of alt-right people love Moly, because his videos are useful in making clever social media memes. The trouble is these guys can just as quickly vilify dissident ideas, when they are sprinting to catch up with the new line Lefty has drawn. Effectively what McInnes is doing is throwing his own fans into the gaping maw of Lefty outrage.
The trouble, of course, is that in an age of extreme intolerance, like we see today, the ideological enforcers are less tolerant of edgy clowns like McInnes than the serious dissidents. They see the edgy clowns as mocking their identity and that can never be tolerated, so they go after these otherwise harmless performers. It’s why a relatively safe performer like Molyneux gets mass reported and protested. The ideological enforcers know they are defending a dead and brittle orthodoxy, so there is no room for tolerance.
It’s why edgy guy is doomed, at least for now. As I pointed out a year ago, in an ideological age, you pick one side and only one side. There’s no bridging the gap or performing on both sides of the street. The edgytarians, if they are to exist at all, will have to operate on this side of the great divide. That requires a new type of performer with a grounding in dissident ideas. None of the edgy guys today have that, so they will eventually end up on the other side, singing to an audience of true believers.
Should we really expect anything other than betrayal and abandonment of his followers by someone willing to ram a dildo up his own ass on youTube?
The problem with libertarians like Molyneux is identical with the problem with socialists, just one step removed.
Socialists think wealth is generated spontaneously so only some unfair force distributes it, but no matter their policies (and incentives), the wealth will continue.
But Wealth, peace and prosperity, are the product of freedom – free markets, property rights, contract law, rule of law, and entreprenuers and workers.
The reason there is a pipeline to (and ultimately beyond) the alt-right through libertarianism is because libertarians realize you need liberty.
But they stop there, assuming that liberty is generated spontaneously and only ignorance or malice interferes with it, so with enough “peaceful parenting” and Rothbard, and the same kind of privitized policies (DRO insurance-security-arbitration as an example), everything will just happen.
What happened – I think 2012 Ron Paul showed it – was that what was to become the Trumpian alt-right realized that just as wealth was an effect of liberty, liberty was an effect of culture, hence the alt-lite civic nationalists, and the alt-white ethno-nationalists, and others somewhere in the middle.
I think the next, albeit uncomfortable, step up the causality chain (becuse it has been broken too) is the Nonconformiist Christianity that includes the 10 Commandments and Sermon on the mount, but also the Puritan work ethic, thrift and savings, large families, and leaving wealth to your children (instead of debt, even public debt). There are more details and the next step is can you have this strain of Christendom without Christ.
We maybe should be praying for a new revival, pentecost, and third Great Awakening.
Groups like the Proud Boys serve a useful purpose: they draw enemy fire which allows groups using Leaderless Resistance principles to thrive:
Successful Leaderless Resistance by Louis Beam
1. Avoid conspiracy plots
2. Reject feeble minded malcontents
3. Insist upon quality of the participants
4. Avoid all contact with the news media
All good advice.
Where would the Z man place Ann Coulter? I love Ann, but she seems very careful about approaching the line and not crossing it. I also notice she is very careful when talking about blacks, whom she is sympathetic to, much more careful than when she speaks about Hispanics.
She may think American Blacks have a right to be here (while being a separate nation – like NAs), but that the glut of central and south Americans and carribbeans do not.
Ann Coulter retweeted Jazzhands McFeels of Fash the Nation today so I would say that she hangs out on the rightmost edge of the Overton Window. I suspect Coulter, like Carlson, are avid consumers of alt right/dissident right media like TDS, FTN, and Steve Sailer. Besides obvious signs like retweeting, the ideas are too sympatico to think that it is coincidental.
Tucker would never click on anything like TRS or FTN, knowing he could be exposed for it. Immediate career killer. But, yeah, agree with you.
On the issues concerning the “Proud Boys” and rightist groups generally, I want to recommend this talk, from earlier today, between Richard Spencer and another (quite intelligent) man here:
I’m not a fan of podcasts and live-streams and such, but I’ve been watching recent ones featuring Spencer, and I’ve developed a new level of respect for him. He’s very intelligent, perceptive, well-read, thoughtful, he’s clearly deeply thought over the many issues confronting us, and constantly touches on “big-picture” matters when he’s discussing things. I wish he’d write more (a lot more).
McInnes is UK/Canadian and as such is going in the door more than a bit cucked. He’s also married to an Amerind/1st Nations woman with three kids my her.
This kind of person is not going to have the foundation for anything implicitly White much less anything explicitly so
And as for the Proud Boys, the org is fine but it has what has to be the faggiest name out there. Proud Boys sounds like some kind of out of the closest queer thing from the 80’s or 90’s
And as for Molyneaux another damned Canadian
My general gist is that anyone from Canada including Jordan Peterson involved in anything .alt right is to be ignored even that dude who used to smoke cigars and sip whiskey and yak whose name I’ve forgotten.
Between Canadian lack of free speech and more importantly Canadian culture and temperament they are all at best distractions.
The real .alt right while it needs a common ideology doesn’t need leaders and while McInnis or any of the others aren’t enemies, they are at best training wheels
The real .alt right while it needs a common ideology doesn’t need leaders.
I’d even question if a common ideology is desirable. The game is to not give them a target, that goes for persons as well as dogma. A multitude of right wing ideologies provides for a multitude of entry points for questioning normies and doubting regressives.
This is the Internet Age and the internet always wins, because the internet is comprised of individuals, not organisations.
I’m not entirely sure on the matter so I’m fine with debating it
Reaction is well and good but nature abhors a vacuum and if you don’t fill it someone else will.
Also assuming the Internet will even be open to reactionaries is a gamble
Now don’t get me wrong, leaderless resistance is righteous but if you want me and mine to aid you we need a reason to do it “Not them” and “They hate Y/T” is not enough to run even a small country
Also as we saw with Hillary Clinton , the Left can triangulate quickly and they could easily move away from mass immigration to slow cooking or to no immigration at all.
In order to get power from them you must stand for something especially with Conservatives and Normies who must have a base line. You know the old saw If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything
And yes this adds some degree of risk, it is IMO anyway the only way to win.
US is better than the UK in terms of explicit state regulation of speech but when you look at private sector thought policing the US corporations seeem to be more aggressive.
US is more celebratory of diversity than the UK and the media are much more aggressive when it comes to anti-white racism. The US is also more demographically diverse, and less hostile to open-borders ideology. The UK is, in terms of domestic policy, much more dhimmi.
Americans talk about how right wing they are but it hasn’t manifested in terms of real world effects.
Canada is worse on everything.
Problem is that with male groups and movements ultimately you will need strong leaders. Sad fact is that even among collections of the most committed adherents, there is a great amount of factional, fractious and foolish behavior. Comes with the construct of male groups — struggling for primacy and just general disagreeable or stupid thoughts, words and actions.
Strong masculine leadership is needed to banish the crazies, put down destructive internal conflicts, effectively squelch foolish or ill-considered plans, ops etc, drive focus on objectives and hammer the whole thing into an effective organization.
Yes, you can work a decentralized swarming phase off common drives and shared objectives. But at a certain point, to effectively engage a foe like this elite/LEFTIST/Post-modern/Anti-western beast, there will have to be leaders.
Apologies for the self reply, the Canadian guy I was thinking of is Davis M. J. Aurini
A good guy, not an enemy but also not the go to guy for ideas.
McInnes is a fraud but the Proud Boys are a real threat to globohomo and must be destroyed no matter how mixed up ideologically they may be.
The traditional role of men has been to safeguard society. Consequently, the non subtle war on men and masculinity. Globohomo tries to prevent men from bonding and celebrating masculinity and now even simple male identity is increasingly verboten. Thus girls in the boy scouts and male only clubs on campuses and beyond being banned. This war on males and masculinity also brings us a transgender and female military. Nothing can be allowed to be male and traditionally masculine.
When you add in a celebration of Western culture and the feeling that at least some of the Proud Boys must be alt right, there is no way they can stand until they fully embrace all the ideology of globohomo and are admitting trannies and women.
However, the more male groups are persecuted, the more men will crave them and the more masculine they will seem.
Spot-on commentary regarding McInnes. Self-promotion appears to be his sole cause. Inadvertently, however, he may help those of us on this side of the divide by demonstrating how useless it is to go soft. The demonization of the Proud Boys shows that ethnomasochism is the only philosophy a white guy can take up without drawing fire from progressives. There simply is no compromise position at this juncture.
As more people respond to being de-platformed and fired from their jobs with replies of “Fuck You” we will know that we are seeing the beginnings of a real movement.
Disenfranchising angry, smart, determined men by getting them fired from their jobs (the main link the alt-right has with Normieville) won’t have the effect normies were hoping for.
In Medieval times, court jesters and buffoons were of some value to society because they brought forth mirth and good cheer among the populace. A measure of edginess was also permitted; as only the jester could tease the King if done with good taste. And the cure for too much edginess was beheading. Even in the modern era, the proper response to buffoonery and clownishness is hearty laughter. In fairness to McInnes, persistent obsequiousness is a talent.
Is Molyneaux really backtracking to stay on the “good” side of the divide? Or is he simply maintaining his flawed lolbertarian view that an unfettered free market is always best?
If Molyneaux ever backtracks on his race realism, then I’ll be upset. But for now, I just think of him as having not yet reached the correct conclusion on the need for government to favorable regulate the economy in a manner that helps the working class.
Could be. I don’t follow him closely, but i thought he had junked the libertarian nonsense at some point. I could be wrong. Still, it’s important to keep in mind that he is first and foremost a performer. His politics are a prop in the show.
Nah, he never let go of the libertarian nonsense. Never yielded an inch on free trade and had to “hack in” borders. His solution to every problem is to eliminate the state. He’s an ancap with some biorealism thrown in, and that gave/gives him a big-tent audience.
It’s easy to fall into that trap if you haven’t read pre-liberal history or philosophy. Most people get stuck in either the Communist-Fascist binary (Spencer, Jones) or the Authoritarian-Libertarian binary (Molyneux, Styx, etc.). Both dichotomies cause inconsistency and incoherence over time, which is why the content from these guys is sometimes amazing but often crap.
As recently as a couple of months ago, when he was on the Australian/New Zealand tour with Lauren Southern, he was asked about racial differences in an interview. As Stefan answered his question, the interviewer suddenly cut him off, which pissed off Stefan, who attempted to finish his reply. Stefan kept saying, “you asked the question, and now you won’t let me finish?” Stefan was very eager to talk about it.
So the answer is no, Stefan has not backtracked on race realism. In my opinion he doesn’t deserve a lot of the criticism he gets around here, since he’s introduced race realism to vast numbers of viewers. He’s interviewed Helmuth Nyborg, Jared Taylor, Linda Gottfredson, Jason Richwine, Steven Hsu, Peter Brimelow and Charles Murray. Maybe some others I’m forgetting. He also announced he’s an ethno-nationalist about a year ago.
I’m also not saying he’s above criticism, since I wish he would stress the importance of race much more, and lose a lot of that libertarian talk. Also the interviews I listed were all over a year ago, except for the Australian/NZ one which is very recent. At this point I consider him as mostly an ally, and think he straddles that line, not because he’s trying to stay edgy, but because he doesn’t want his youtube channel shut down.
Good post. I can’t stand Molyneux myself, but that’s because of his style, not his content.
I’ve watched a few of his videos, and the funny thing is, that while I find his style to be pretty intolerable when he is just speaking alone, the interviews he does are pretty good. So Molyneux can create good content, but he needs someone else to balance his idiosyncratic way of performing.
the interviews he does are pretty good.
Well…. he speaks an awful lot, even when he interviews people.
Of course, a large facet of libertarianism involves facing racial differences in outcome. Murray rothbard was really forward on this. If you limit state intervention, racial inequality will spike sharply, if you live in a diverse society. To defend the libertarian approach, it’s pundits must get the followers to understand that there will be differences in racial outcome based on genetics. A major engine of the current progressive state expansion is the uplift of NAMs. My point is that race realism is a necessary condition for practical libertarianism.
Actually, i would posit that libertarianism is all about race. Do you see significant libertarian movements in any Asian or European nation? No bc they are racially homogenous more or less. I’m not really informed on this, but I think libertarianism as a coherent political philosophy is really a child of the United States, spawned in response to expansion of state power during the civil rights movement. I realize many of the economic gurus have been European from the Austrian school, but sound money can go with any political system, and it may be that the American monetarists like friedman are the more correct. American libertarians espoused the strict gold standard advocated by the Austrian school as a panacea to the inflationary monetary expansion of LBJs great society, which was a massive welfare expansion to quell the urban riots of the late 60s. So this has racial origins as well. (I realize that sounded ridiculously wonky.)
Race relations and disparate racial outcomes has always been the subtext of libertarianism, even if it has been greatly distorted and obscured by joiners in certain cases. Hence Ron paulism is the most pure form of libertarianism.
His “race realism” has a big Star of David sized hole in it.
It’s embarrassingly clear in his video about the “Pittsburgh Massacre”
It’s so bad he’s roundly excoriated for it in the comments.
Molyneux isn’t your guy if you’re looking for criticism of Jews. But let’s be real, here; it was a video about a mass shooting in a synagogue, and several of those replies were wildly inappropriate and clearly written/voted up by alt-retards. He’s not being excoriated, he’s being brigaded.
Just so nobody’s confused: I’m NOT saying don’t criticize. I’m saying there’s a time and a place. “Discretion is the better part of valor.” Those who can’t understand that will eventually be left behind.
Enjoyed all your comments today Lance_E.
Sure, many of the comments were inappropriate. It’s YouTube. I feel dumber every time I read the comments there, but there were also many comments with good points.
I disagree with the “a time and a place” idea. It wasn’t as if these people we’re speaking out in the middle of the memorial service. They were commenting on a video by someone who prides himself on tough, fact-based argumentation.
If you found Stefan’s video obsequious, misleading, or faulty in some other way, then criticism is justified.
Those comments did not make substantive points about the video. They were of the form “your video sucks, why don’t you talk more about how Jews are bad?”, despite the clear fact that Stefan never discusses that, and was then covering violence against individual Jews who were innocent.
I sympathize with their frustration, seeing the world come apart around them, but they need to broaden their horizons and learn self-control before they can have any impact.
Lance, you seem to be up on the players in our game. Can you name some lesser-known YouTubers or Podcasts to check out?
Stefan Molyneux just tweeted about DNA differences among races. He must have been reading the Z blog and wanted to reassure us that he’s not backtracking on race!
Z – an argument I always use that I think is edgy but still with enough plausible deniability is this – “what if the differences between whites and POC are no one’s fault. Just like how blacks are better at basketball and men are taller than women. The more you realize this, the more you’ll be at peace.”
I think Z nails it. It was unwise for Mcguiness to attach his name to such a group because these organizations by nature attract confrontational people, and he will be held accountable for things that happen. He may be in the right and may win in court, but who needs that?
Molyneux’s video’s were always too long. I don’t really care that the guy clearly loves hearing the sound of his own voice, but normies don’t have the time after working a real job 12 hours a day to devote that kind of time to spoken word philosophy. I can’t get 5 times as much information from reading in the same amount of time.
This is a serious problem with a lot of the video personalities on the right. Frame Games has some great Twitter threads and could probably write a good blog, but his videos are unwatchable. Even Owen Benjamin is a challenge.
Livestreaming and superchats are cancer. People who want to do video need to learn about PROGRAMMING (as in content, not code) and not just stand there blathering for two hours. Although it seems to pay their bills, so who am I to judge…
Frame Games is gone, dude. He wiped his videos from his YT channel and shut down his Twitter.
Obviously, he got too close to being exposed in his real life as a NY Jewish lawyer and dipped out of this whole movement because of it.
I’ve seen this happen to a number of ppl who did GREAT work that was building our numbers. Ppl like the queer, Naked Ape, another, like the half white/half Iranian, Braving Ruin, and still another, the mestizo, LA Werewolf.
Boom. All gone now, due to real life pressure from leftists.
That’s a shame, but we all saw this coming. It’s probably no big deal for those of us shouting from the peanut gallery, but if you’re going to be somebody of repute on the right then you have three choices: be anonymous (with good opsec), be anti-fragile, or be a cuck.
These aren’t absolutes; e.g. some people aren’t 100% anti-fragile so they cuck the rest of the way. But it’s got to be some combination. Gavin went full cuck to try to protect himself, other people went dark.
But he was never under cover (that I was aware of anyway) about being Jewish, he was a Jewish dissident and called his own people out for some of their more egregious BS. I really respected him for doing so. Why would he wipe it all?
I can’t remember who it was, but fairly recently somebody was accused of being racist for something or another, and my wife vehemently disagreed, saying, “What he said isn’t racist!” I replied to her, “you’re right, but the bigger point is who cares? We need to stop accepting their frame of constantly being on the lookout for racism.”
When you’re at the point where some cuck like Charlie Kirk, who virtue-signals constantly about not being racist, even to the point of always having a black woman (Candace Owens) by his side, but is still called a Nazi, then it’s time to stop playing by their rules.
I’d like to take this moment to give a big shout out to the left for being our best recruiting force by calling everyone not on their side a Nazi.
We need to stop accepting their frame of constantly being on the lookout for racism.”
Yes. The correct reply is a mildly surprised, mildly curious “what’s wrong with being a racist?”
My reply is, “By your standards, I probably am, but who cares about your standards?”
All very possible Z. I don’t know how that man thinks, I don’t WANT to know.
But some of your explanation doesn’t exactly square with what I ‘think’ I know: he’s gotta know that he’s done. Lefty will never abide him, he burned his own franchise – and say what you will of these clowns… their audiences don’t forget stuff like that. You ask me, I think he is getting set to disappear and retire. His particular show is over.
I know if this had happened to another alt-right fag like, say – Vox Day – he’d be bragging about it from the rooftops and screaming ‘Look at me! Buy my comic books!!!’ I can see the RICO thing being a big marketing tool.
The operative word in Proud Boys is ‘boys’. They strike me as young men whose futures have been pished away before they ever had a say in them, and they aren’t mature enough yet to control the anger and channel it.
Further I think the Feds believe their own bullshit. I think they lie awake at night dreading that a group like the Proud Boys will morph into something like the Brown Shirts. Coming from a family of liberal progressives I can tell you that they all will believe something like that without a second thought.
Additionally – I think the lines are moving again. Hillary was bloviating recently about how the Donks were now against illegal immigration and always were. Captain Butt Plug must have seen that and would have known that he didn’t have to fall on his own sword – but did so anyway.
What attracts me to your ‘dissident right’ is that there are no lines. We face real problems, and we can resolve them all painlessly and peacefully if we go at it with the intent to solve the problem. The issue though, are the folks that want to politicize those problems for fun and profit and stick their enemies with the bill. The second the normies realize that THEY are the ones that will pay the bills and suffer the consequences – the show is over for them. Could that have been what Captain Butt Plug saw?
On an unrelated topic – I have had sporadic troubles getting to your site on occasion, Z. Have you noticed any efforts at de-platforming yet?
alt-right fag like, say – Vox Day –
I don’t think Molyneux is an Edgytarian. He’s just a paleoliberal; the Pat Buchanan of liberals. He clings to Whig History and a strange anti-authority but pacifistic ideology. Everything must be about “reason and evidence”. That must sound like a breath of fresh air to individuals trapped in SJW asylums and having postmodernism and intersectionality blasted at them all day, but it is also the genesis of those ideas.
His role now seems to be primarily as a right-wing outrage generator. His videos go on at length about the hypocrisy of the left-establishment and he does a pretty good job of exposing it, which I guess is useful if you’ve been asleep for the last 3 years. I assume that most of us here came to terms with the left’s hypocrisy a long time ago; it’s simply their nature, and complaining or getting mad about left-wing hypocrisy is about as useful as getting angry at dogs sniffing other dogs’ butts.
Anyway, the more real power accrues to the political right, the less relevant people like Molyneux will become, because they refuse to deal honestly with the mechanics and implications of power. All they know how to do is question authority; when it comes to wielding it, they think it can be made to just disappear somehow, and we’ll reach some utopia where no man desires or is able to acquire power over other men. You can call that anarcho-whatever, but it’s actually just liberalism, and is as ludicrous today as it was in the 1670s when Stefan’s personal hero John Locke was first pushing it.
As for Gavin, I never found him interesting. The angry crotchety grampa act is funny in small doses, but a deep thinker he ain’t, and a great leader he definitely ain’t.
His video a few weeks ago on the JQ was the last straw for me. I wouldn’t call myself very invested in the whole thing, but it was a biased, butt-kissing rant so filled with rhetorical fallacies and deception and divorced from his vaunted “reason & evidence” that I walked away from it disgusted.
Don’t see any indication of such a video on his upload page, but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s buried in one of those ridiculous 7-hour videos (wish I was exaggerating).
Personally, I tire of the hysteria on both sides of the “JQ”. It’s not that complicated: market-dominant minority that leans liberal and will soon be replaced by Tamil Brahmins and Chinese.
It was “The Truth About the Pittsburgh Massacre”
As the top commenter says, “Stef analyzes other groups “in aggregate” based on their IQs, immigration impact etc, but Jews are exempt from being viewed “in aggregate”, because Stef wants to keep his channel”
Also if rumors are to be believed, and I am quite frankly too lazy and too busy to research it for myself, he is of Jewish ancestry.
The Proud Boys? Weren’t they a ska band from back in the 1980s, who had that one hit about “our house, in the middle of the street” or something?
If you don’t have the horse sense to pick a name less stuptarded than that, you shouldn’t be playing public media spotlight games to begin with.
That song was from the ska band “Madness.” Good name for describing politics today.
No, you’re probably thinking of The Proud Goys.
I always thought they should call themselves “Plowed Boys” for their affinity for homosexuality.
What’s with the bearded, lumber-jackass, steam-punkish look? It’s not “edgy.” It’s “douche-baggy.”
He’s 48 years old, no less!
A very important post.
Need to study and see how these ideas relate to other edgers.
The worst part is that by trying to stay in the left’s Overton Window, it somehow gives the window legitimacy. To merely want the approval of such shitty people, and make it suggest that their malicious, degenerate cultural Marxism is legitimate, it’s pathetic. Wrong, even.
Zman mentioned Paul Ramsay (aka RamZPaul). You know, he could be one of the our-side-of-the-line “entertainment guys.” He’s funny, he’s smart, he’s got hair. But a big problem with our guys who do audio and video is the frankly appalling production values. Crappy microphones and cameras, echo-ey rooms, stupid little droopy smartphone earpieces. It just isn’t that hard, or expensive, to set up a decent recording system. It speaks poorly of our side that we can’t be bothered to do it.
I think RamZPaul is firmly on our side. He’s actually what I had in mind by edgy guys on our side.
“Paul Ramsay…could be one of the our-side-of-the-line “entertainment guys.” I don’t know, he has a peculiar manner.
From Sir Richard Dimbleby, narrator of the BBC’s “Planet Earth (probably the finest TV series ever produced) we have just learned the indisputable fact that “Female asses are mysterious creatures”
Do you mean Sir David Attenborough?
Maybe I’m just an old fart Boomer shouting “You kids get off my lawn!” but I can’t help mocking the Proud Boys as some grotesque hipster version of the Knights of Columbus, with its distinct polo shirt garb and four degrees of membership. It is one thing to endure an amped up slap fight until you’ve blurted out the names of five cereals; but I suspect several of these idiots are going to regret the tattoo required by the third degree. It will be amusing to see what McInnes has inked to cover his, since he has disavowed all association in perpetuity.
The biggest challenge I struggle with in striving for unity and a sense of shared purpose in the D-right movement is my disgust, boardering on contempt, for these so-called allies. I don’t see them as edgy. I see them as useful only as cannon fodder, which isn’t much since we’re fighting a guerrilla war.
Be disgusted by the leaders and charlatans, sure, but remember that the rank and file has a lot of human capital that would be valuable if channeled in the right direction. Be a recruiter and not just a hater.
Agreed. There are a lot of good dudes in the PBs, many who are pretty far right, but have learned to keep it on the down low in order to keep Gavin from booting them out.
I’ve met GM IRL a few times and know ppl who know him fairly well.
I’ve never considered him to be anything more than a coke snorting drunk opportunist.
What Moldbug called “passivism” seems to look better and better after viewing the last two years of carnage. No matter how many elections the GOP wins, it matters not as the levers of cultural and economic power are not in the hands of conservatives. Indeed even the Jim Crow South allowed blacks to maintain HBCUs. That courtesy has never been extended to the Right in modern times.
Doesn’t he have four children and a wife to support. This is going to be a time for single people with no attachments.
Even for alt-right single people who go public it will be hell for them unless they’re wealthy and smart enough to handle the shit storm that going public will generate.
The very idea of being edgy is a pathetic and weak-minded way to think, because you are, as you said, dancing just at the edge of a line of moral acceptability that was drawn by someone else.
Someone truly worthy of being a leader in a countercultural movement doesn’t play the edgy game because they rightly judge the opposition as morally bankrupt and socially corrosive agents and don’t give a fuck what they think about anything. All the edgelords and the tradthots on the Right should make you sick. They don’t care about you. They don’t care about the truth. They care about their brand, or selling their book, and when they publicly denounce and sell out their own followers to save that brand, they’ll relax behind their piles of YOUR money while YOU get attacked by street communists and YOU get thrown in prison for fighting back.
If you want a real leader, start with yourself and your own way of thinking, and publicly shame the edgelords and the tradthots as the cowards that they are.
Indeed, the most influential dissident right people–VDare, Jared Taylor, maybe now Zman, too–have simply stood their ground, spoke their piece, and let people come to them. And even though they have never had a big “audience,” or, apparently, a lot of funding, their cultural influence has been very big indeed.
Easier said than done. I don’t see any of the alt-right types stepping out from the shadows to get economically and socially curb-stomped.
The point that our tough guy repeatedly miss is that unless you’re independently wealthy or wickedly smart like Peterson, the Left will Dox and smash you if you come out in the open.
It’s true. It’s going to be difficult. And maybe it won’t be necessary. This kind of rhetoric on the left doesn’t always lead to genocide… but genocide always starts with this kind of rhetoric
“As I pointed out a year ago, in an ideological age, you pick one side and only one side. There’s no bridging the gap or performing on both sides of the street.”
There is no “common ground” (geez, I hate that phrase) between us and them, there is only the river or the divide or whatever you want to call it. Pick a side and then dig in.
Z: “As I pointed out a year ago, in an ideological age, you pick one side and only one side.” Anyone have a link to that post? Or recall the month? Would be a good read I’m sure.
The link is in the post.
Maybe this (Feb. 21, 2017)?
The people in charge of the stage have strict rules about who gets on and what they say while on the stage. You either submit to these rules or they toss you from the stage. Conservatives in the 80’s made this blunder. They truly thought they would be accepted into the club if the public embraced them. The people in charge don’t give a damn about the public’s opinion. They care about controlling the message and the media stage is the platform from which the message is broadcast. If you want onto the stage, it means signing a blood oath to promote the message and there is no room for compromise. There are two sides in this, pick one and live with the choice.
Ha, my link’s earlier!
Don’t dig in, attack, attack then attack some more.
In McInnes’ quit speech, he says he and The Proud Boys have no connection to, and disavow, “all forms of the Alt-Right, White Nationalism, White Supremesy etc.” Boy he went all in on the beg for mercy thing. Isn’t he always bragging about being a crazy tough Scotsman? If he had real crazy balls like he fronts, he would have just distanced himself from “White Supremecy” and stopped there. But “ALL forms of the Alt Right…and White Nationalism”? The term “White Nationalism” is for good reason approaching some kind of legitimacy. So when he trashes it too, that’s really not cool. The thing is, he’s one of the few “Right” types who can monetarily afford to truly commit to our side. But at the final hour he chose Left.
Well, Z said it all with his post, and this: “The trouble is these guys can just as quickly vilify dissident ideas, when they are sprinting to catch up with the new line Lefty has drawn. Effectively what McInnes is doing is throwing his own fans into the gaping maw of Lefty outrage.”
Well said, Sir.
McInnes also kept saying that there was not the slightest political about Proud Boys, it was simply a club for people working to restore good ole American values like marriage, apple pie and decent pay for decent work.
Except, of course, that the Proud Boys were militantly “pro-gay and pro-Jew,” as he put it, but that doesn’t count as political, does it?
Maybe it’s my age (X’er) but I was never fooled by the likes of Gavin McCuck, Molybux, or Milo Greekname. They’re a gateway drug for the more intelligent, but they’re gatekeepers for the dumbed down MAGAtards. “Wow. I’m so edgy! I just watched Gavin BTFO a feminist.” That’s like kicking a puppy.
Every normal man hates feminists. Channel dissent into harmless directions. That’s the purpose of outfits like Rabbi Media. If our rulers were diabolical geniuses they would let these clowns alone. They do the other side more good than ours.
It’s funny because he literally bend over backwards to virtue signal.
The ideological enforcers don’t understand our arguments and don’t even care. They’re not going to take the time to watch Molyneux videos and try to figure out how he differs from Richard Spencer or Mike Enoch or Jared Taylor. We’re all Nazis and Fascists now and must be destroyed.
The establishment has always needed a controlled opposition. It’s almost common knowledge that any group calling itself “KKK” is a law enforcement front. But it goes further than that. Dissident politics attracts those with a few screws loose, and that makes them vulnerable to bribery and intimidation. You aren’t anti-establishment if you work for Mark Levin, as Gavin does. But to the same accord, you aren’t serious or moral if you wave the Swastika.
“The ideological enforcers don’t understand our arguments and don’t even care. ”
This is about being a true believer in being a true believer. Any dissenting is evil and cannot be tolerated. It is amusing to watch the alt light point out how irrational the left is while thinking that the left can appreciate (or even wants to appreciate) the differences between the various factions of the right. This is like expecting a jihadist to sort through the various strands Christianity to determine which ones to persecuted in the caliphate.
It’s a panic move, the ideological enforcers were nomen klatura they have never spent months or years as NEETs losing themselves in internet culture with nothing but alcohol and angst to fuel them.
The ideological enforcers were always too busy succeeding at life.
McInnes and the like are snake oil salesmen trying to leverage a Zietgeist that is fundementally antithetical to any sort of leadership. The closest shit posters and their ilk will come to a leader is some savage who innovates a new way of goring society’s sacred cows.
Observe the latest trend of thot patrollers reporting snapchat premium content producers to the IRS. A guy came forward with an idea, it went viral, and the campaign began.
Any “leader” who comes forward is as Emperor Tiberius said “holding a wolf by the ears.”
Just imagine… going to the lengths of French kissing Milo and sodomizing oneself on air. Even then, Lefty won’t permit Gavin to stand on solid ground. It is well to remember most political talking heads remain mere play-actors, singing for their supper. The people paying call the tune.
I see McInnes as only being a step or two removed from comedians like Joe Rogan and other similarly styled comedians in Rogan’s orbit. They too exist on the edge of edginess (on the one hand proclaiming their support for globohomo, but on the other hand using language throughout their programs that betray such support). I wonder if soon there will be a campaign against them.
Faceberg has put me in the penalty box twice. Both times for posts about the alphabet people.
This is not an argument.
Or something to that effect.