Support Glen Allen and Other Items

In der news.

MacDonald and I are in perfect accord here.

Let’s see.  You can donate to support Allen’s suit, a fight against pure evil:

Beirich, Potok, et al. don’t even pretend to engage in honest debate and the free flow of ideas. Atty. Allen quotes Potok: “We see this [as a] political struggle, right? … I mean, we’re not trying to change anybody’s mind. We’re trying to wreck the groups, and we are very clear in our head, … we are trying to destroy them.” And in this case, the attempt to destroy Allen goes far beyond ethical and legal norms — not surprising given the SPLC’s sordid history of using smear tactics and hypocrisy (Section 31) as well as their dedication to fund-raising far beyond what they actually use to further their causes (Section 27).

Or you can support this.

Your choice.

The current crop of Counter-Currents writers are so bad, so superficial, so mediocre, that they make John Morgan sound like the voice of reason and maturity in comparison. 

Note also how the site is converging onto an Amren-VDARE HBD conservatism position.  Derb snug in his hobbit hole – with Madame “Rosie” throwing him some crumbs if he behaves.  “White advocates” and their “sweet business deals.”  The Brimelows and their tin cup poster children. What a shame.

More on this.

KMacD admits the Trump cheerleading – but where is the accountability?  Spencer is correct that the Republican Party is the major enemy and must be destroyed in order to break the logjam of cul-de-sac stagnation politics.  He is dishonest, or ignorant, when he says we were ALL on the Trump bandwagon, as readers of this blog know full well.  But, his overall instinct here is better than GOP-lover Quinn (see above) at the HBD-Conservative mainstreaming Counter-Currents site. The Sallis Strategy – destroy the cuckservative GOP. I laugh at the delusion of these Alt Righters that they are somehow responsible for Trump’s victory.  It’s exactly the opposite – the Trump campaign energized the idiotic Pepe-Kek brigade.

On the one hand, I agree with some of what Spencer said about optics.  But, on the other hand, his arrogance about his critics is just too much.  Yes, Rich, you are taller and a more successful womanizer than Anglin, better-looking than Weev, and more heroic than Vaughn.  Now, please concentrate on wisdom, maturity, judgment, and persistence, to complete the picture. Also a better understanding of the link between prominence and responsibility/accountability would help as well.

Another thing – according to Greg Johnson, Spencer is a terrible human being, unethical, destructive to the “movement,” etc., and he has no patience for supporters and enablers of Spencer.  So, what does he have to say about Edwards and MacDonald positively engaging Spencer in this podcast?

This is not “Sallis being a troublemaker.”  This is an important question of character and moral ethics.  Consider a group of prominent dissidents.  Person A publicly and repeatedly reviles Person B, attacking B’s morals, character, behavior, and contributions to the cause; Person A also accuses Person B of being involved in personal smears against A.  Thus, A is 100% against B.  Very well.  But then Persons C, D, etc. come in, freely associate with B, give B a platform, and take B seriously as a leader, fully enabling B and what B stands for. Now, what is going to be Person A’s position vis-à-vis Persons C and D, etc.?  Consider further Person A establishing a record of being intolerant of criticism, even from third parties who have no connection whatsoever to Person B.  Is A going to look the other way regarding the B-C-D association?  Is it all “politics” with no ethical considerations involved?  I realize that I may be an overly idealistic, and non-pragmatically apolitical moralpath, but how can anyone take A and his attitude toward B seriously if A ignores all of the above?

I see this as an important issue.  

Sallis right gain: I’ve been saying for years that Trump needs to stop the jackass tweets and do televised addresses.  The good news is that he did it and, surprisingly, didn’t make a total fool of himself.  The bad news is that he, expectedly, did a mediocre job of it.  

A very true statement:

China, for example, doesn’t develop weapons; it copies designs stolen from others.

Copy, copy, copy, steal, steal, and steal.  Steal and copy, copy and steal.

But the Chinese can do a lot with that stolen and copied technology, particularly as the West collapses under the weight of “diversity” and moral qualms about using the technology. Further, the West is hobbled by the attitudes of Luddite freaks like Tolkien and all those who fetishize “traditionalism.”

The Zman:

Eric Hoffer made the observation that people involved in causes never reach a point where they say the cause has achieved its goals and therefore can disband and cease its activities. For example, anti-smoking zealots have accomplished all that can be accomplished, yet they persist.

Yes, because as we know, no one smokes any more.  As we know, no one is ever again going to die of smoking-affected disease.  As we know, you can never again have that wonderful experience of walking down the street after someone smoking and be asphyxiated by their noxious fumes.