Plymouth Rocked

Counter-Currents again.

Laugh at this.

“Conservative” part-Jew and 100% philo-Semite Michael Lind is a Yankee-hater of the first water. He’s made a lucrative living peddling crack-brained narratives designed to destroy white America and advance Jewish and other non-white racial interests.

In other words, Lind speaks the truth against “movement” lies and thus must be defamed. Of course, no actual evidence is presented that Lind’s America’s Tribes hypothesis is wrong. Just label it a “crack-brained narrative” coupled to ethnic ad hominem (“part-Jew”), right?

How about this recent quote from a Counter-Currents writer:

The WASPs who did engage in politics after World War II were some of the greatest traitors to this nation. Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay, and George Romney were all fierce advocates of the Civil Rights revolution and promoted white dispossession. There was no blue-blood reactionary in the political arena at this time. Rockefeller, Lindsay, and Romney were accurate representatives of their class.

I suppose that is another example of “peddling crack-brained narratives designed to destroy white America and advance Jewish and other non-white racial interests.”

Back to "Hamilton" - 

I think it’s fair to say that Andrew Fraser (Anglo-Saxon), quoted at the outset of this article, and Kevin MacDonald (three-quarters German, one-quarter Scottish), fundamentally agree that “the devilish nature of that New Englander, Anglo-Saxon type known as the Yankee” has “plagued America (and the world) ever since the Pilgrims landed.”

When even a rabid Anglo-Saxonist like Fraser, and a HBD-Nordicist like MacDonald, are castigated for being “anti-Yankee,” you know you’re dealing with a rare bird with this “Andrew Hamilton”- and I don’t mean that in a good way.

This really isn’t a topic that interests me that much. I never saw the value of Puritan-bashing, something that I never saw from the Right until the 2000s; I believe the first time I saw anything like that it was Gottfried and MacDonald. The former may want to shift blame from the Jews; MacDonald’s arguments, like with all he does (and with HBD in general), has some truth to it, but he goes too far in the analysis.

Then others went too far with the narrative as well. The New England founding stock – the “Yankee” – was a fundamental pillar of America. Neither bashing nor hagiography (what Counter-Currents is doing now) is the approach to take; instead, just speak the truth. Lind’s analysis – which may go too far at times as well perhaps - has much truth to it. To dismiss it with childish insults is not analysis. Evil men like John Lindsay (himself of Anglo-Dutch founding stock) were real, not a figment of anyone’s imagination. They sided with Blacks (and Jews) against Whites. That was a fact and he was not an isolated phenomenon.

Can you believe this hypocrisy?  If you want to see someone who trots out refuted arguments time and again, it’s Johnson. The only difference is that Johnson is inconsistent with his refuted arguments, sometimes saying one wrong thing on a subject, and then, later, something different, but still wrong or mendacious. 

And the question should not be who Johnson hates, but who he doesn’t hate (a much smaller list).  And vice versa.

I agree more with Wallace than Johnson here, although both are off target. Trump’s Presidency – for all of his flaws – did create chaos and balkanization – because of the Left’s perception of him rather than from anything he actually did, but the Far Right failed to take advantage of it.  So, while I agree with Wallace that the past four years have been an utter disaster for the “movement” – and we are worse off now than before – it is more the fault of the likes of Johnson, Spencer, Wallace, et al. than it is the fault of Trump.  The Quota Queens were handed a golden opportunity, and, as usual, they muffed it.

He’s a Jew, isn’t he?  Then not all Jews are hostile to their host people?