A Real Moral Hazard

Gaslighting Greg rides again.

Laugh at this.

Race-conscious whites believe that our race as a whole is too individualistic compared to other races. We would do well to cultivate a feeling of white solidarity and brotherhood. This sentiment should be even stronger among race-conscious whites, lest we offer the world the absurd spectacle of a movement that preaches white solidarity but in practice is polarized by sectarian wedge issues…

Like questioning, every ten minutes, whether certain European-derived people are “White.”

…and petty personal rivalries.

Johnson vs. Spencer, Friberg, Griffin, Sallis, Parrott, Heimbach, etc.

But we have to be careful here. Too much solidarity can be a bad thing. 

Time for Johnson to now justify all of his bad behavior.

If you make wrongdoing safer, you’ll get more of it. 

Like sexual harassment at Alt Right meetings?

This is the meaning of “moral hazard.” Usually, moral hazards involve forcing other people to pay the costs of an individual’s bad decisions. For instance, if the government bails out lenders, they will take more risks. 

Or, if the “movement” rank-and-file keep on bailing out Quota Queen bad judgment and utter incompetence, they’ll just get more of it.

Obviously, a well-run society creates incentives to reduce rather than increase bad decisions. The same is true of a well-run movement. 

Which does not exist.

This is why we have to be careful of appeals to solidarity.

Therefore, we must tolerate Johnson’s eternal feuding.

Unconditional solidarity with the wrongdoers among us is a moral hazard.

I agree. That is why I have no solidarity with “movement” liars, gaslighters, morons, grifters, and frauds.

We should not extend unconditional solidarity to race-conscious whites who harm other members of our movement. 

Like Greg Johnson?

These harms can range from promoting bad ideas…

The entire ideological content of the recent version of Counter-Currents.

…and having bad manners…

Like defaming critics as suffering from “insanity” and calling one of your past writers a “paranoid piece of crap” on a livestream?

…— which should be called out and criticized, preferably with better ideas and better manners — to treasonous behaviors like doxing and snitching to our enemies, to outright criminal behavior. 

Does “criminal behavior” include sexual harassment or cocaine use?

If solidarity is important to us, then we should feel solidarity with the victims. 

Oh, indeed. 

Nor should we extend unconditional solidarity to whites — whether movement members or “normies” — who harm other members of our race at large. There are misanthropes in our cause who don’t “love white people.” They look upon white “normies” merely as raw material for their megalomaniac fantasies. 

Is he talking about himself here?

But they’ll still appeal to normies for white solidarity when it is convenient. Even a whiff of such sociopathic elitism is deadly for a populist movement. 

By “sociopathic elitism” do you mean gibbering about Yogi Bear, The Age of Aluminum, and The Men Who Can’t Tell Time?  Is an obsession with “Savitri Devi” any part of “sociopathic elitism?”

If solidarity is important to us, then we should reserve it for the vast majority of decent white people, not anti-social misfits who prey upon them. 

How about folks who use their children as props for fundraising?  Do they fit into that negative category?

Finally, we should not extend unconditional solidarity to whites who commit crimes against our racial enemies, for instance, terrorists like Brenton Tarrant. Even our racial enemies have basic human rights. 

Huh?

But even if you deny that — even if you profess to care only about white people….

Yes.

… — whites like Tarrant also harm our movement and our race as a whole. 

I agree, but your “movement,” in aggregate, over the many decades of failure, harms the race more.

...And when a conflict emerges between members of our cause and white well-being as a whole, solidarity with our race as a whole should win out. We must always choose the greater good. 

Yes. That is why I oppose Counter-Currents.

Now let’s apply this to some concrete questions from readers...All three of these issues are related to the question of solidarity and moral hazards.

As is the question of donating money to Counter-Currents, VDARE, American Renaissance, etc.

Let’s deal with the Fuentes question first. Nobody in the movement is above criticism for bad ideas, bad decisions, or bad character. 

Including Greg Johnson.

Suppressing criticism in the name of solidarity creates a moral hazard. It creates an atmosphere in which bad ideas, bad decisions, and bad characters flourish. But we can’t afford that. Our cause is too important, our enemies are too powerful, our ranks are too small, and our time is too short.

Indeed. That’s why Johnson is a hypocrite when he bans people from his blog who have the temerity to criticize him. But, hey. it’s just a “brand,” after all.

However, when people like Fuentes are attacked by our enemies for being courageous and effective in advocating sound ideas…

“...for being courageous and effective in advocating sound ideas." - Let me know when that occurs.

There were plenty of problems with Unite the Right. There were some terrible people, terrible ideas, and terrible optics. I know what is coming in the trial. I know that we will cringe with embarrassment at the testimony, depositions, emails, forum posts, and text messages that will be offered as evidence and broadcast to the entire world.

Johnson’s “big tent.”

The same is true of the post-Charlottesville lawfare directed at the march’s organizers and participants...we should set aside our differences — since those don’t really matter here, anyway — and we should offer them moral support, at the very least.

Hey, we could be offering them financial support, but all dem dere “D’Nations” are flowing in other directions, eh?

...It is not illegal to be evil-minded fantasists and foul-mouthed jerks. 

Yes, we know that Counter-Currents is not illegal.

It is not illegal to be an asshole. 

After all, Greg Johnson is still walking around free.

All the defendants, good and bad, are on trial simply for being white advocates. Make very clear that your support is not a blanket endorsement of the marchers — how could it be? — but simply a defense of their constitutional rights, as well as the basic principles of white racial activism, namely that white people are under attack, and we have the right to take our own side. On these points, at least, Unite the Right did nothing wrong.

All of this lip service is meaningless. Real support would have come from a sound legal infrastructure and proper finances, both of which do not exist because of the ineptness of "movement" “leaders.”

Just as solidarity with wrongdoers within our ranks creates a moral hazard, so does a lack of solidarity...Thus I wish the Charlottesville defendants the best. If they win, our cause will be a bit safer from lawfare. If they lose, we can only expect more of the same.

OK, then, if you believe that, then take all of your fundraising proceeds for the year 2021 and donate it to their legal defense. Talk is cheap. After all, it’s only money, right? Or is supporting Quota Queen financial greed a real moral hazard?