Nutzi Sunday

Type I filth killing racial activism.

Typical Type I activity.

“Screw your optics.”

Guess who the “your” describes, eh?  All the rest of the quota queens and their enablers, with their wink, wink, nod, nod toward dysfunctionals (because they are dysfunctional themselves).

It’s hard for me to express how much I loathe these Type I retards – whatever little memetic progress Der Movement makes, tiny baby steps, can be ruined, set back, by one thoughtless act.  So, Instead of “screw your optics,” how about “screw your juvenile acting out?”  Can this specimen explain to us – from his jail cell – exactly what he thinks he has accomplished with his little steel city escapade?

Is it fair to blame Der Movement for this?  After all, they’ll say, anyone can assert adherence to a cause and do stupid things.  Fair enough.  However, I make two points.

First, the Type I core of Der Movement, with its crudity, stupidity, quota systems, rigid dogma, etc. attracts and nurtures trash like Mr. Screw Your Optics

Second, the constant failure of Der Movement, its ineptness, its utter lack of any hope of real progress, induces despair in its followers, leading some to act out in frustration. They have no outlet for pent-up activist energies, because there is “no there there” in Der Movement, it is all sound and fury signifying nothing. So, some unbalanced Nutzis create their own sound and fury in response.

So, yes, indirectly, Der Movement is responsible.  And note I am not whining about Christian morality here or, worse, “mourning the victims.”  My concern is with White racial activism, and the constant harm done to said activism by Der Movement and its retarded followers.

And thanks a lot, Type I scum, for giving Mama Merkel, the Queen of Auto-Genocide, the chance to engage in international moral posturing.

Der Movement will NEVER make ANY progress as long as Type I trash are running the show.  The Type Is need to sit down, shut up, and let Type II adults grab the reigns for once.

Johnson and I sort of agree in one sense and disagree in another:

Counter-Currents

‏@NewRightAmerica

 37m37 minutes ago

More Counter-Currents Retweeted Joyce

Disavowing is too weak. We need to morally condemn cranks who go on shooting sprees. Since when does condemning evil NOT help you maintain your moral legitimacy? Doing good and shunning evil is pretty much the essence of a moral life. It doesn't matter what our enemies think.

Moral condemnation – but only in the sense described below.  Not in an absolute sense.  I don’t consider the shooter “evil” – merely incredibly stupid, reckless, and asinine.  I’m not concerned about how the broader society views my moral legitimacy other than how it affects White racial activism.  So, yes, I am concerned, but only in a utilitarian sense.  My morality is different from that of the broader society, and while I am currently forced to adhere to the latter (most of the time), I do not grant it an inherent legitimacy.  I maintain authenticity by following, in a moral sense, my own inner directives.

Now, how do I judge the morality of a racially relevant action?  Adapting Salter’s “mixed ethic” I propose a two part scheme:

First, does the action advance or harm White racial interests?  If it harms those interests, it is immoral.  If it advances those interests, then –

Second, does the action reasonably, and to the extent practically possible, minimize the harm done to the individual rights of Whites and to the individual and group rights of non-Whites?  After all, one could think of many actions that could in theory advance White interests but do so at costs that would offend most people’s innate sense of objective (aracial and disinterested) morality and human decency - even (possibly) offend my own sense of morality that is different from that of the broader society. If such an action was truly necessary, then the costs would have to be accepted; however, if significant moral cost is incurred for some marginal gain in White racial interest, a cost that would offend the inherent moral sense of Whites, then I argue that marginal advantage – something not existential, not required for racial survival and reasonable racial prosperity – can be foregone.

This idiotic attack on the Synagogue fails test one, and would fail test two even if it did not fail test one. 

At this point people looking to trap me in an inconsistency will say: “hey, I thought you were a Moralpath and such people will accept even war and genocide to do what they feel is right – so why do you reject this action?”  The point is – doing what’s right.  The underlying basis for moralpathy is pursuing one’s moral path regardless of where it leads. That does not have to be the most extreme choice in every instance. In some cases, restraint is deemed right, in other cases, war and genocide. It depends upon context. Shooting up a Pittsburgh synagogue achieves nothing positive that I can see, and instead is a net negative for White racial activism. Thus, it is not “right” as I define it, so I oppose the action.  On the other hand, if White survival in another context required war and genocide, then war and genocide it must be.  Further, if Whites become extinct I say let the world burn and I do not want “high IQ Asians” to rule and prosper; in my view, any human world that allows White extinction does not deserve to survive and prosper.  Context, my friends, context.

I recently critiqued Greg Johnson when he implied that he and his site do not obsessively criticize Richard Spencer. It would seem others share that view.  A partially censored comment by Andrew Joyce:

Greg Johnson…His fixation on Spencer appears almost Biblical, and is inexplicable unless one assumes Spencer occupies a massive role in his psyche. Strange…

I censored part of the comment because I’m not interested in personal ad hominem against Johnson or anyone else; I’m concerned with ideas and actions.  The issue here is the Johnson-Spencer feud, and what I termed the “ugliness” of Johnson kicking Spencer when the latter is at a low point, both “professionally” and personally.  Let it go, Greg.  How about a moratorium on Spencer comments at Counter-Currents?

And this humorous aside from Joyce:

My goal for 2019 is to think about my wife at least half as often as Greg Johnson seems to think about Richard Spencer.

Note carefully the comments to this essay, focusing particularly on those by miguel70, minsc, and, of course, O’Meara.

West Coast White nationalism, I suppose.  The “big tent” (of the circus freak show).

More O’Meara:

The Right of course promotes extermination of the homo; the Left originally promoted promiscuity and hedonism, but when AIDS made this impractical, pivoted to a modified version of the Right’s “family values” — contrary to all historical evidence, the gays always wanted to marry and raise children!

In both cases, society loses the important contributions of the homo to culture and statecraft…

Extermination?  How about not making Far Right activism a front for pushing a homosexual agenda?  This has been going on a long time.  I remember the early days of online Yahoo groups, with “gay National Socialist” groups. What was that?  An intellectual discussion of sexuality and politics?  No, instead it was a disgusting hook-up site with adverts such as “U Piss, I Drink.”  

Contributions to “culture and statecraft?”  How come those contributions were more legitimate in past centuries, when (religious) intolerance to homosexuality was greater?  Sublimation was the real outcome of “The Right,” not “extermination.”  It’s today’s tolerance that brings degeneration. Historically speaking, the evidence is that homosexual contributions to society are maximized in situations far more restrictive than in today’s society…or on certain WN blogs.

Greg Johnson

Posted October 25, 2018 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

I’m approving this comment because I am a connoisseur of jaundiced rants by paranoids. I love it when lunatics act patronizing.

A self-referential “meta” comment if there ever was one.

Pure delusion:

The Cultural Renaissance began more than eight years ago at Counter-Currents. Why not lend your shoulder to the wheel?

If Trump as not a retarded fraud, and if Sessions was not a far-left cuck, this here is all the “legal justification” they need to refuse entry of the Invasion Caravan. The “refugees” were offered “refuge” in Mexico.  They refused.  The want the USA.  They are economic migrants, they are invaders, and they are no different from the Wehrmacht marching through Paris in 1940.  This is a test for Trump.  Put down the Big Mac and act.

Der Movement marches on.

They’re …HuWhite.  Meyer Lansky, Antifa…what’s the difference?

I agree with much of what Strom says about the Jews, although we disagree on other issues.  For the most part, I agree with Joyce’s writings at TOO.  But for the sake of consistency, both men need to take on the Alt Wrong.  Why should certain people be sacrosanct and above criticism?  If both Joyce and Strom view Jews as a particularly pernicious influence, then why “hold your fire” against those who bring Jews into the heart of pro-White activism?