October 29, 2017
On Saturday, the Nationalist Front, along with members of TRS, carried out a “White Lives Matter” demonstration in Tennessee, intended to draw attention to the the problem of refugees in the area and “the Black Dylan’s Roof,” a Sudanese refugee who shot up a church as revenge on white people.
The Nationalist Front is a coalition of racialist groups including the National Socialist Movement (NSM) and Matthew Heimbach’s Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP). The Ku Klux Klan was also at the rally, with a man in a KKK patch saying that there were 70 Klansmen there (which would be at least a third of attendants).
Two events were scheduled in two separate towns, but only Shelbyville actually happened. The second one in Murfreesboro was canceled due to the potential for conflict with antifa.
One guy held the ground there against the mob.
He actually did a pretty good job on the stream I was watching.
The media is of course acting like the protesters “backed down” by not going to the second one, however, I am glad that decision was made. We don’t need more violence.
The event has created a whole lot of conflict in the Alt-Right, due to the fact that the march was decidedly following a 1980s Neo-Nazi style, with the majority attendees wearing field jackets or bomber jackets, boots and plastic stahlhelms, as well as armbands and patches featuring symbols used by Neo-Nazis.
The three arguments I’ve seen are these:
- This event was negative and does not help the cause of the white people
- It doesn’t really look great but hey at least it got media attention and got a twitter hashtag trending, and
- No one should ever criticize anything anyone pro-white ever does under any circumstances
I have not seen anyone, on social media or forums or anywhere else, saying that they think this looked good.
I have already made it clear that I don’t endorse this 1980s Neo-Nazism, however, given that we’ve just had our first fully Neo-Nazi rally that got labeled Alt-Right and was attended by prominent Alt-Right personas, I feel obligated to comment.
Ironically, the most controversial thing about criticism of this type of event is whether or not you have a right to criticize it. So I’ve got a lot of lead-up here before the actual arguments.
I’m not just inserting caveats here because they’re obligatory. I genuinely like Hunter Wallace and Matt Heimbach, the organizers of this march, and I am absolutely not trying to attack them by saying what I will say here.
I fully believe they are genuine people who are genuinely doing what they think is best.
I also want to make it clear that I don’t presume to have any right to tell them what to do. That is absurd and clearly one looks like an asshole doing so.
I do not want some kind of personality conflict or some sort of name calling attack thing.
The point that I want to make here is that what you saw matching in Tennessee is not at all close to the vision I have for the movement that I have contributed to. And in order to do that, I am forced to criticize. There is no other way to make these points.
The levels of shilling going on right now are incomprehensible. Because of the levels of shilling going on, I have to break this down to pre-school levels. People are simply lying about what I’m saying, lying about what others are saying, lying about their own arguments, in order to create confusion.
I have seen shills on the internet disingenuously claiming that I have previously promoted 1980s Neo-Nazism. I have never promoted that. I have promoted using Nazi symbols online for the purpose of demystifying these symbols, and I have jokingly accepted the media label of “Neo-Nazi White Supremacist” because they use it so often, associating it with guys who joke around and want to have fun is something I view positively.
I have also promoted the idea that pro-white figures should not apologize for Hitler and not accept the narrative on the holocaust.
And of course I have, on an intellectual level, promoted the ideas of Hitler and The Third Reich.
None of that amounts to saying that people should go out and dress up like 1980s skinheads and march through the street. And all of my regular readers are aware of that, I would assume most casual readers are as well. I explained all of it just before Charlottesville, and there is record of me explaining it going way back.
I have likewise seen the disingenuous/shill argument that I expect the media to stop calling us Nazis if we don’t dress up like actual skinhead caricatures. This is false. The media will continue calling us Nazis for however long that works for them. However, they also now call Trump and his supporters Nazis.
“Optics” is not about cucking to the media. It is about looking like something normal people can get behind. The first step in doing that is to not look repulsive.
Shills have also said that I have no right to comment on this because I’m not staging marches. Well, guys – if you think doing a Neo-Nazi street march with 200 people makes you more qualified to comment on effective activism than running a site viewed by millions of people a month, okay. But it strikes me that this is simply a way to shut down a conversation that needs to take place. What I’m doing right now is reaching millions of people and I’m not going to stop doing that in order to organize marches. You’re allowed to read what you want and to believe what you want – “you can’t say that because [X REASON]” is not an argument.
On the topic of the debate itself, it’s my opinion that Nick Fuentes is going way too far in attacking this rally. To some extent Ricky Vaughn is going too far. But everyone is basically saying the same thing.
We’re saying the same thing that William Pierce said in the early 90s at the height of the Neo-Nazi movement.
Except we’re not being that nasty and curmudgeony like Pierce. But as old as our position is, as clear as it is, no one on the other side is presenting a real counter-argument.
Finally, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to condescend to the participants, most of whom I assume are more working class type people. I understand and respect that they view this as a valid way to make their grievances known.
Why Say Anything?
Look at this from my perspective: I have spent five years working hours that you cannot imagine, every single day, to build the foundations of a political movement.
I am now in a position where everything I’ve worked for becomes something I do not believe will work, something I feel very strongly will fail.
Please note that I have never said this before.
Matthew Heimbach and I have been around for about the same amount of time. We’ve communicated on and off, and I think he’s a great guy.
I’ve never thought much of the communist style rhetoric he uses, but I just assumed he would switch it up when he found that people in general we’re not into it. About two years ago, it became clear he was attempting to revive an 80s type Neo-Nazi movement when he began meeting with Neo-Nazis and the KKK. Then, in October of 2016, he appeared in a Jorge Ramos documentary with the NSM where they went and burned crosses in a field.
At some point in that process, I decided that it would be best for me to not promote his material. I never thought of disavowing. And I still haven’t thought of disavowing.
All I am doing is making clear – for anyone who needs it made clear – that this is not the type of movement that I want to be involved in. The Alt-Right should not become 1980s KKK Neo-Nazism.
This Does Not Represent the Movement We’ve Created
As I’ve said, I have not found anyone on the internet saying that they thought this event looked good.
I am personally very turned off by the look of the march. And I would just assume that if I am, most other people are too.
We have built a movement of mostly normal middle class young guys who simply want to have their nation back. To have families back. To have a future.
We did that with outrageous memes. That was at the root of it. Humor.
Normal middle class people tend to be repulsed by goon marches by men in tacky military outfits and garish regalia. It is a very specific type of person that this appeals to, which is going to be decidedly working class and of a specific personality type.
I do not propose to tell working class people what to do. But given that they are only 10% of the American white population and are – just as a general rule – going to have less agency and more substance abuse problems than the middle classes, I am not going to make appealing to them my prime goal.
It is fine that Heimbach is doing that, and this is apparently his plan.
Which is why we should exist as two separate, distinct groups, as we have for a long time already.
That is the answer here for all of the people going on about this. It isn’t that complicated. Heimbach can march with NSM and the Klan and the Alt-Right can do its own thing.
What more do you need?
No Reason to be United
This rally, in itself, was not that big of a deal. Even if it was a net negative, it was a small negative.
The singular reason that everyone is getting so emotional and outraged over this rally is that we feel that it is representing us – so naturally, we all feel we have a right to have a say in it, and to tell people to stop doing it. However, if we draw a clear line, and say that we are something different than this, we no longer have the feeling that we need to somehow control what these people are doing.
There is no reason that every single pro-white group has to be combined, especially when there is such a massive gap in technique and agenda.
Separating cleans up issues that go well beyond optics. I was flipping out about the gun issue in Tennessee before the state told the marchers all weapons would be banned. It appears that this debate over guns at events is only taking place between people associated with the Heimbach section and people like me associated with the Alt-Right (although Matt Parrot, a member of Heimbach’s Trad Worker Party, says he is against guns and they are trying to remove guns from their rallies).
There are also huge ideological gaps here. As mentioned above, I am not a fan of the communist rhetoric of Heimbach or his plan to destroy America in order to replace it with a new fascist state. I and most of the Alt-Right are pro-America.
Richard Spencer has at times signaled support for the Heimbach plan to destroy America, but I don’t think he’s especially committed to it. Spencer acknowledges that America was founded as and intended to be a white nationalist nation, whereas Heimbach believes it was founded as a part of a Masonic conspiracy.
Furthermore, I am not interested in talking about economics. I think that everyone agrees that we need to make changes to the economy, but I am of the view that the necessary changes will be obvious as soon as we remove Jews, and thus I believe discussion of Jews is much more important than discussion of economic programs.
And here’s the key: we weren’t ever united before. As I mentioned above, I stopped promoting Heimbach when he started into the whole alliance with the KKK and Neo-Nazis. That was a long time ago. Spencer and TRS have been against him for years (I think they were way too negative before, it makes sense to simply agree to disagree and do your own thing, but the point stands). This never came up until the organizers of the Charlottesville rally decided to invite the Nationalist Front.
The option other than splitting is to combine, in which case we are making the decision to allow the people we saw marching yesterday to define the movement we built online. Because I guarantee you, you’re not going to convince them to do something different than what they’re doing right now.
Matt Parrot, a ranking member of the TWP, commented on my article about the march the day before, and offered to open a private communication line, which I have agreed to do. I think as two groups doing our own things, we can each be more successful. In that situation, no one feels like they need to explain anything to anyone else and no one needs to attack.
When the event was happening yesterday, I had already dissociated myself from it, so I just covered it normally. This is ideal.
Working Toward Clearly Established Goals
I think this is good that this rally happened yesterday, as now we are finally having a discussion. And I do want it to be a discussion. I want anyone who disagrees with me to present counter arguments, hopefully respectful and based on logic rather than emotions – in particular, I think we need to throw out the notion that no one can ever criticize any action by anyone as an all-around defense. The idea that we have to support anyone doing anything because it’s bad to question anything that is done is just nuts.
We need to have goals, and we need to find a technique to fulfill these goals. Everything we do, we need to ask: why are we doing this?
I was surprised that the Nationalist Front was invited to Charlottesville, as I didn’t see what purpose it served, as there is so much to lose and so little to gain by associating with Neo-Nazis. It turns out it was a good idea to invite them, because the whole thing was street fighting and those guys kicked ass.
But then that brings us to the next question: in light of what happened at Charlottesville, are large rallies the appropriate way to make ourselves visible?
What purpose do these rallies serve?
Are these rallies intended to gain us support or sympathy from the masses? If so, how does that work?
How does coming through and wrecking a town gain you support or sympathy?
Yes, the other side starts the violence, but no one knows that. All they see is people fighting on the streets. And here’s the other thing: we have some responsibility in starting this violence because we go to these places knowing that there will be violence.
Even if there isn’t violence, it creates chaos and disrupts people’s lives in a way they tend to dislike.
So the idea that a couple hundred people going to a rally is just point blank universally good, no questions asked, has to be wrong. Nothing is simply good of its own accord without any reasoning. If something is good, you must be able to explain why it is good.
Then if we decide that it is good, we have to ask if the goodness outweighs the negatives – and we have to factor in the risk. These big rallies contain in them the possibility of something going extremely wrong.
The only purpose of the rallies that I see is amplifying presence in the media, and it seems to me that small numbers are able to do this just as well as large numbers.
nb4 “ANGLIN WANTS US TO STOP DOING REAL LIFE ACTIVISM!!!111” – that is a lie, and most of you people saying this know you are lying and are saying it anyway.
I think we need smaller actions in the real world for the time being, where we focus on maximizing media attention in a way that presents us in the best light possible. AGAIN SHILLS, I’M NOT SAYING THE MEDIA WILL PRESENT US IN A GOOD LIGHT. What I am saying is that no one is forcing you to wear all black military gear with an armband and a plastic stahlhelm. You have an option of not doing that.
If you want to have a rally, have it on private property. Don’t do this goony street march thing. It is tantrum activism. No one likes this. You don’t like it. I don’t like it. How on earth do you expect that normal people will like it?
Even in our brainwashed white guilt society, Black Lives Matter has horrible approval ratings – with the media constantly talking about how great they are – because racial grievance marches that often result in violence are just unpopular with white people. So why would you copy that model of activism?
We are Confusing People
What we need to not do is continue what we are doing right now, which is arguing about all of this non-stop.
The arguing looks as bad or worse than yesterday’s march.
All of you commenting on this stuff on social media and forums need to understand that you and the people you’re arguing with are not the only people following and supporting this movement. Most people who follow and support do not make comments. And they are seeing all of what is happening right now – this chaos – and it is turning them off.
We need to focus here and come up with conclusions we can all agree on.
I am willing to work through all of this with anyone who wants to work through it, as long as the goal remains taking control of the state. If the goal is just to have fun and march around in the streets hoping to get in a fight, then I don’t have anything to say other than “okay, enjoy yourself.”
I believe that if we ignore divide and conquer shilling – and call that out for what it is – and focus on real arguments, supported by logic and data, we can come up with a basic outline of what we want this movement to be.
I have put forward American Nationalism, which is simply tying all of our pro-white, pro-family, anti-Semitic and futurist ideas to the symbols of America. This is easy, because it’s true. America was founded as a white nationalist country.
I think the aesthetic should be clean in every sense. Not all black military garb, not shields and aggressive flags.
I don’t see this position as one that should be controversial.
If I’m wrong, put forward counter-arguments, and we can come to conclusions.
The only thing I care about is winning, and I think I’ve made that 100% clear.