October 14, 2014
This week, the DramaQuest continues, as the forces of conferences and book reviews once again confront men of action and attempt to dissuade people from taking part in the ultimate agenda of total justice so as they may continue to circlejerk without looking like fools for never doing anything and not even having any form of a plan to ever do anything!
Andrew Anglin has finally decided that he has zero interest in being cordial, and has declared Total War.
Will the forces of doing things prevail, or will those who don’t want to look stupid for spending decades doing nothing succeed in their plot to stop anyone from ever doing anything????
Find out, as Infinite DramaQuest continues, right here on the Daily Stormer!
Cast of Characters
Previously on Infinite DramaQuest:
The heroic White warrior Robert Ransdell launched a full frontal assault on the Jews, garnering massive media attention
The YouTuber RamZPaul attacked Ransdell, accusing him of being a Jew and a secret agent
Daily Stormer Commander Andrew Anglin rushed to the defense of comrade Ransdell, stopping RamZPaul and silencing him on the issue
Colin Liddell, chief servant of Richard Spencer, clumsily attacked Anglin, accusing him of being a secret agent for talking about Jews
Commander Anglin responded to Liddell’s attack, crushing his inane arguments and mocking him for lacking the intellectual capacity to produce arguments which go beyond name calling
Jobbik pulled out of Spencerfest 2014 due to disgust at the American racism, and the Hungarian government banned the festival
Spencer held the festival anyway, was arrested and deported from the country for being an evil racist
Liddell responded to Anglin’s defensive repelling of his attack with exactly six million tears
Carolyn Yeager assessed the situation, rightfully crushing the Hitler-deniers and hoax-confirmers
Greg Johnson wrote a six million word essay, attacking everyone involved in this situation and claiming that he himself is the only person who matters
Anglin responded to Johnson’s assault, annihilating his forces entirely
Alex Linder joined the fray
A Jew in Salon Magazine attacked Philosemite Jared Taylor, accused him of Nazism
This week on Infinite DramaQuest: Colin Liddell Posts a Blog, Attempts to Outflank Us to Save His Ego, Which was Previously Put Through a Wood-Chipper
In a gross attempt to gain some traffic to his completely unread blog, Alt Right – now constantly referred to by people on the internet as “Altistic Right” – Colin Liddell has launched a third attack on yours truly, the Big Bad Wolf.
Foregoing his opportunity to present an intellectual defense for his position, Liddell went with insults, a silly tautology and an superfluous analogy.
He begins by repeating his previous insult that I am a secret agent, while once again demonstrating that no matter how many times I explain it, he will be incapable of understanding what is happening on this website.
In defense the way to win is to get your enemies to attack you at your strongest point. In offense the way to win is to attack your enemies at their weakest point.
Now, just supposing you were a White-hating, globalist shill – or a slap-headed moron who just acted like a White-hating, globalist shill – and wanted to sidetrack nationalism for as long as possible, then you would want to trick nationalists into attacking by the most bloody, dangerous, and fruitless route possible, the one where their efforts would reap the lowest possible return, and which would lead to their destruction.
In fact, you might even set up something like The Daily Stormer, a populist mix of 4chan Nazi porn, monster truck machismo, and juvenile racist trolling that serves to repel normal people from nationalism, while ghettoizing existing nationalists ever further from the mainstream.
And there you see again – we are hurting his movement by actually getting people involved in a real pro-White movement. I guess everyone needs someone to blame, but why not blame the people who are responsible? Why not blame the sneaking rat Jews, Colin?
Note you also see that Colin is opposed to the following things: populism, 4chan, masculinity and racism. Or at least, those are all the things he doesn’t like about the site, and the reasons he believes – or perhaps, merely claims to believe – I am a secret agent man.
Honestly, I was a bit shocked by the rehash of the secret agent accusations. It just seems so lowbrow, for such a highbrow intellectual figure as Liddell.
Liddell then goes on to address the recent Johnson attack and my response.
Following Greg Johnson’s thoughtful and precise article against such self-destructive Vantardism, which merely referred to The Daily Stormer in passing, that sites’s publisher Andrew Anglin was stung into writing a long, rambling, defensive, and idiotic article – Fortress Defense Saga: Greg Johnson Joins the Assault on Our Base – which, predictably, failed to address any of the pertinent criticisms made.
More obfuscation and outright lies. Johnson himself has not denied that the criticism was largely aimed at me, and the entire thing was framed in that context. Is Liddell incapable of grasping that, or is this merely another cheap shot, which he expects that his readers will not catch? Does it even matter, given that he has no readers, except when he writes about me, when all of his readers are my people?
And he says that I failed to address criticisms. He said that last time, without specifying which criticisms I had failed to address. In fact, my response was, as usual, thorough to the max. This is just another weak insult. If there were points that I failed to address, surely Liddell would have mentioned them explicitly – saying that some unknown points were not addressed is just Liddell taking advantage of the fact that this whole situation has been made extremely confusing by the refusal of the Right Whinge to engage in straight-talk, given that they apparently believe that saying it straight is only for coal miners and meth addicts.
Eventually, Liddell gets to his super-killer argument.
But, better than this, Anglin was flushed out by Johnson’s article into revealing his secret plan and the simplistic mechanism of his anti-nationalism. Halfway through his outpouring of butthurt flummery, there is a moment of unwitting clarity when he reveals his formula in a direct address to Johnson:
“You cannot preserve the White race without addressing the Jews.
You cannot address the Jews without addressing their hoax.
You cannot address their hoax without addressing Adolf Hitler.”
This is the article’s eureka moment – the cockroach caught in the kitchen light, so to speak – so, go back and have a good look at it again, and think deeply about what Anglin is actually saying.
What Anglin is unequivocally saying here is that before you can do anything at all about preserving and protecting the White race – stopping mass immigration, say, or encouraging White women to have at least 2.1 babies – you must first get everyone to love Hitler and hate the Jews, and if you can’t accomplish these supposed preconditions then you had best forget the whole shebang, So what he is really saying is simply:
“You cannot preserve the White race.”
Interesting that if he is trying to appeal to some sort of intellectual class, he would choose to use such a sloppy rhetorical tautology to explain his argument, huh?
I could, of course, simply flip it around to make my point:
But, better than this, Liddell was flushed out by Anglin’s article into revealing his secret plan and the simplistic mechanism of his anti-nationalism. Halfway through his outpouring of butthurt flummery, there is a moment of unwitting clarity when he reveals his formula in a direct address to Anglin:
“You cannot preserve the White race while addressing the Jews.
You cannot avoid addressing the Jews while addressing their hoax.
You cannot refuse to address their hoax without distancing yourself from Adolf Hitler.”
This is the article’s eureka moment – the cockroach caught in the kitchen light, so to speak – so, go back and have a good look at it again, and think deeply about what Liddell is actually saying.
What Liddell is unequivocally saying here is that before you can do anything at all about preserving and protecting the White race – stopping mass immigration, say, or encouraging White women to have at least 2.1 babies – you must first get everyone to ignore the thing you will constantly be equated to and get support from Jews, and if you can’t accomplish these supposed preconditions then you had best forget the whole shebang, So what he is really saying is simply:
“You cannot preserve the White race.”
But I wouldn’t ever do that, because I have this thing in my back called a “vertebral column” which physically prevents me from being capable of engaging in such base intellectual dishonesty.
Instead, I have offered detailed arguments as to why we should attack at the absolute weakest point of Jewish power, which is their idiot gas chamber hoax.
Ah, but Liddell claims that this is their strongest point! Without explanation. He just says it.
He gives us this super-cute analogy (apparently for no reason, as it does nothing to push what he is selling, it is just an arduous method of repeating his “the hoax is unbeatable” theory; but as he does not have arguments to support this theory, he resorts to pointless analogies).
Imagine, if you will, a fortress that has two approaches. One is from the West, over easy terrain, over which you can move your cannon easily, towards a point where the walls are quite low and weak. It is the obvious place to attack.
On the East, however, the approach is rather more difficult. Lets say it passes over a weak rope bridge, surrounded by enormous towers packed with enemy archers. Underneath a moat full of man-eating crocodiles awaits. Once across the bridge, it is a sheer climb up slippery rocks with the approach enfiladed on three sides by the enemy’s artillery, until you reach the gate of death, where any survivors can easily be drowned in boiling oil.
Now which way would you attack? Led by a sane, honest, and wise leader, you would of course attack from the West. But led by the likes of Anglin, you would be conned into attacking by the narrow tortuous route of certain death, the Hitler route.
If it is the strongest point of fortress defense, Mr. Supersmartintellectualguy, why are they making laws all across Europe to keep people from researching or talking about it? One would assume that this is a last-ditch effort to hold together a rapidly collapsing lie. Instead of recognizing this obvious weakness, Liddell says it is their strongest point, and we should simply forget about it. This is stupidly wrong on the face of it, but Liddell is now committed to it, and can’t back down.
I have an analogy too, buddy.
Imagine, if you will, a fortress that has a completely rotted-out front door. It is the only entrance to a stone castle with 10-foot thick walls. The door is so rotted-out, the soldiers in the fortress are literally using their own bodies to try and hold it up. It is the obvious place to attack.
On the East, however, there is a field containing a gigantic rock.
Now which way would you attack? Led by a sane, honest, and wise leader, you would of course attack the rotted-out front door and force your way into the fortress. But led by the likes of Liddell, you would be conned into going out into the field and repeatedly smashing your head against the gigantic rock, the Holocaust avoidance route.
I however, don’t require redundant analogies, as I have actual arguments.
The entire structure of Jewish dominance – which in agreeing with Johnson, maybe Liddell has pulled a kick-flip and now agrees is the main problem, but that remains unclear – is based upon the Holocaust. Without that, they stand naked as the singular destroyers of Western Civilization.
Liddell then, for reasons unclear, compares the Holocaust to Christianity, in the process apparently denying the Holocaust and also celebrating the Jewish-backed destruction of Christianity as a good thing.
No matter how long you persist, the great mass of the population is never going to start seeing Hitler through the same rose-tinted spectacles that Anglin pretends to wear; and even though there are plenty of flaws in the story of the Holocaust, most people are going to keep on seeing it in the way that the mainstream media present it. Harnessing ethnonationalism to that dead weight is the political equivalent of sinking its body in the lake.
It took hundreds of years for the equally mythic construct of Christianity to be partially overturned – and that was with most of the forces of modernity working in tandem towards that end. With that in mind, do really think that Anglin, from the depths of his internet hole, can persuade the world that Hitler was a saint and the Holocaust was a jolly good thing and didn’t happen?
Firstly, thank you for finally admitted the hoax is a hoax, Colin. Though you did it in the most spineless way possible, at least you did it.
Next – what are you talking about, that it took “hundreds of years” to destroy Christianity? In fact it took a single generation – the baby-boomers – when the Jews sold the forbidden fruit of free sex and drugs and unlimited money and no responsibility forever no matter what to a bunch of gullible goyim.
I don’t want to argue about Christianity, but pretending as if the majority of the West was not Christian at the time of the war and that it was nigh exclusively Jewish cultural manipulation through the entertainment media and the university system (along with the Jewish take-over of the churches themselves) which led to a collapse of the religion is simply stupid and factually wrong.
Here’s a graph for you, good buddy:
The comparison is idiotic in the first place, as Christianity is a religion, as such based on faith rather than facts, meaning it required a philosophical change of heart about something that can’t be proved either way, whereas the Holocaust is simply a lie which can be easily disproved with already meticulously documented facts.
Seriously, man. Why would you even say that? Do you like being made to look stupid? This whole thing you wrote seems to have been designed for easy ridicule, to the point where some of my readers are likely to suspect I’ve convinced you to work for me and launch the most benign possible attacks so as I can respond and make myself look smarter than I actually am.
Anyway, the fact that you would bring up the Jewish destruction of Christianity as a positive social change shows where you are coming from (I doubt you are much of a fan of Neo-Paganism either, which is generally the context of such statements in our little community). You are a liberal. You agree with Jewish agendas, which is why you would wish to obfuscate the fact that Jews are responsible for everything by claiming we shouldn’t blame the Jews for our problems. The sole issue you have is the invasion by these savages, and thus you try to separate that issue from the entirety of the Jew problem.
That is the real reason you don’t want to discuss the Hoax. If we directly attack the Jews, this whole system comes crashing down, and the balance of nature will be restored. All the Jew influence will be deleted. Masculinity will be restored, and all that comes with that. And that idea makes you very uncomfortable, I am quite certain.
What are These People Even Talking About?
One of the key questions in this entire DramaQuest is: what are those in the Right Whinge actually arguing for? They have made it clear they are against us and apparently all of our issues, and yet it is unclear what they want or how they plan to achieve it.
I think it is very telling that Liddell and Johnson both wrote essays against me and praised one another for their clever attacks on my person, when the reality is that they agree with each other about very little, ideologically.
Liddell has said that if you are going to talk about the Jews you have to be sneaky about it so that you don’t get called a Nazi, even though everyone gets called a Nazi anyway, while Johnson has said Jews are the number one enemy and that anyone who doesn’t address them is a coward, and he cited Le Pen as an example of such. Liddell cites Le Pen as an example of successful nationalism and what we need to aim for in America. Richard Spencer, who is the love object of Liddell, is apparently trying to model himself directly after the European “mainstreamers” that Johnson condemns as enemies.
The reason these two are on the same side against me is that they share the quality that they have no interest in a popular movement, and despise anyone who would attempt to take that route.
The ultimate idiocy here is that there is absolutely no need for “intellectual arguments” in our situation. Any single intellectual is capable of looking at the facts and determining his own conclusions. If he is incapable of that, then by definition he isn’t an intellectual, and thus needs to be appealed to on an emotional level. Kevin MacDonald has already laid out all of the needed facts for any true intellectual to consume and draw the obvious conclusions from. So the idea they are trying to convert the intelligentsia is silly because it is conceptually impossible.
Watch one of the presentations of Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor, and ask yourself: “who exactly it this supposed to appeal to?” Go peruse Counter-Currents – or any of these other “intellectual” blogs – and ask yourself the same thing.
The answer, obviously, is middle class White liberals over the age of 40 – precisely the most useless group of people on the face of the earth, as well as the group that is the least likely to have any interest whatsoever in issues of White survival.
That is why virtually no one at all cares about Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor or any of the rest of these people, and no one ever will.
So then, who am I targeting [in America]?
First, I am targeting all disenfranchised and angry White males under the age of thirty, which is where all of the real power lies. This site appeals to members of all socio-economic classes in that age bracket.
Second, I am targeting all age groups of traditional American conservatives, who generally come from the working and middle classes. This is still the core of America – people who are uninterested in Spencer’s purposeful avoidance of straight-talk and surely uninterested in Johnson’s promotion of homosexuality and Antichristism.
An added bonus is that any true intellectual is able to grasp what I am doing here (it isn’t particularly complicated). They are then surely able to gather their news from here daily, maybe having a laugh here and there while they’re at it.
Liddell is not an actual intellectual, just an upper-middle class liberal who sees subhuman hordes preparing to destroy everything he likes. Johnson is something closer to an actual intellectual, but apparently cares very little about getting anything done and just genuinely doesn’t like people who don’t read philosophy books and read and/or write reviews of them. Also, given that he doesn’t have children and presumably isn’t planning on producing any, he doesn’t have much of a dog in this fight, and views this as a hobby, as evidenced by the lack of a consistent ideology in his writings.
The one group I am not attempting to appeal to here is middle class liberals.
I am, unashamedly, a populist. Every successful revolutionary movement in history has been populist in nature, for what I would have to assume are obvious reasons, but will go ahead and state anyway: a ruling minority can only ever be ousted by a disenfranchised or otherwise enraged majority; if a minority is overthrown by another minority, it is simply a power-transfer and the existing system doesn’t change in any noticeable fashion.
If this rule is wrong, give me an historical example of when something different happened.
What’s the Plan?
What these people need to explain – in real terms, rather than wordy gibberish (I won’t hold my breath) – is why, if their plan works, they have gained absolutely no traction in the many, many years they’ve been attempting this, and why, when the people are in a state of extreme need, and looking around for a solution, their popularity has not increased at all.
If Richard Spencer is the savior of the White race he has been marketed as, why does no one care about him?
And finally, if I am going about this in exactly the wrong way, why is the Daily Stormer the number one pro-White site in the United States?
You know why I don’t promote Richard Spencer? Because no one cares. No matter how many conferences he has in historic European cities, no matter how many essays he writes, no matter how many podcasts he does, no more than a handful of people are ever going to care about anything he has to say. There is absolutely nothing inspiring about this man. He is inoffensive to the point of lifelessness, he purposefully employs a form of politician-speak that isn’t even used by real politicians anymore given that it is so widely recognized as fundamentally dishonest and has thus been abandoned by professional public speaking coaches and he refuses to offer clear solutions.
I don’t usually say these things, because I believe in solidarity, and have no beef with you people. But at some point – I can’t pinpoint it – this debate got so ridiculous that it became necessary to inject a little bit of reality into the situation. The idea that it is easier to get Richard Spencer elected to office than to use the internet to expose the Jews as the open and public destroyers of society is so monumentally stupid that it is almost inconceivable that anyone would be capable of formulating such an idea.
But Spencer isn’t even running for office, is he? I guess he needed a conference in Budapest with a bunch of non-Americans before it made sense to run for office in this country.
If you people want to be in charge, then be in charge. You don’t need my permission. Start a movement that is more effective than the one I am presently involved in, and the people will join you. If it works, I’ll join it myself.
The fact that you attack me and blame me for your failures simply demonstrates how pathetic and incompetent you are.
How is that not obvious to you?
It is surely obvious to most everyone else.
These Attacks of Theirs
As we saw above with Liddell’s most recent flailing attack on this site – and saw with each of the other attacks as well – these people struggle, immensely, to explain what exactly it is they don’t like about us. Their arguments are obviously weak, based on nothing much, seemingly made of nothing they pulled out of nowhere and then expanded across dozens of paragraphs for the purpose of distorting the fact that there is no actual content.
First it was a general attack, then I responded and it was reduced, then I responded again and it was reduced again and now it is just “eh, too much Hitler – don’t do the Hitler.”
This is because they don’t actually know, consciously, why they are against us. But I do.
What we are actually dealing with is a dislike of the basic idea of populism by a group of people who despise working people.
I have read Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, I have been to probably fifty different countries. I am not Homer Simpson (a Jewish caricature mocking the traditional American White Man, the posting of which certainly says a bit about Colin’s general mindset), nor am I am obese basement troll. What I am, however, is post-liberal. I understand that the system of liberalism is unsustainable, that if Liddell and Spencer were to have their way the same exact situation would happen again, and that the only solution to the problems we face is radical Traditionalism in every sector of society.
Hitler was a populist. That is why Liddell dislikes him. Not because he actually believes in the hoax or believes this was some “dark part” of history. Johnson respects the aesthetic of National Socialism (as well as a lot of post-Hitler Nazi esoterica), so doesn’t condemn Hitler, but recognizes our use of this aesthetic is for populist purposes, and so condemns us for using it.
These people won’t ever change anything, because even if they claim to want to, they are unwilling to recognize the only way it could be done, which is through direct and unapologetic appeal to the masses.
The Sheer Idiocy of Pro-White Liberalism
The last point in the entire debate is that no matter what you do, if you are attempting to restore traditional European society, you are going to look and act basically exactly like Nazis. Because NS was the post-industrial revolution embodiment of traditional Europeanism. It was scientifically formulated as such.
What happens is that the further you try to get away from the label of “Nazi,” the more you necessarily have to compromise, because in fleeing the label, you abandon stances and doctrines with similarities to those of the NSDAP, and so are forced to abandon key aspects of a nationalist platform.
Basically, what the Right Whinge are trying to do is combine modern liberalism with a whites-only society. And though I want something very much more extreme than that, if I thought it was possible to achieve that, I might put aside my agenda and embrace it. After all, a whites-only society, whether based on liberal principles or not, would at least give us more radical folks the option of existing how we wish to exist, free from harassment by the system.
We would also end up voting our way into power anyway through the liberal democracy system that the pro-White liberals would doubtlessly leave in place, as conservatives are still the majority in America if you get rid of the Jews and non-Whites, at which point we could form a one-party system and end the vote.
However, this plan for a liberal White revolution can’t possibly work. Even if you could manage to combine liberal thought with the concept of a Whites-only society (that is, isolate racial identity from other forms of social conservatism) – and you couldn’t, as is evidenced by Johnson’s attempts to do so, which contain endless inconsistencies and outright contradictions (one of the most blatant being complaining about the White birthrate while celebrating homosexuality) – it would be incapable of achieving victory over the present system, largely due to the fact that liberals are weak and gutless cowards, as evidenced by Liddell and others continually speaking out against “hate” and defaming anyone who ever accomplished anything that mattered.
As I have said, they are also fundamentally incapable of rallying the masses.
What rallied the masses in the sixties, when liberalism began its conquest of the West, was seduction. They offered free sex, drugs and a general lack of any personal responsibility. Plus a lot of really good music. But the people now have all of these things. So what would you then rally them behind? Just “we need rid of these foreigners and Blacks, so we can have peace”?
It cannot work. Yes, of course people are fed up with foreigners and Blacks, but that idea alone cannot maintain a new Zeitgeist. It cannot stir the youth to revolution. What can stir the youth to revolution is a critique of the entire system of the Jews, and the way it has affected all of us on a personal level.
The fact that we can see all of these people invading our countries and feeding off of us like buzzards on a still breathing man is indeed powerfully upsetting, but at this point those who are inspired by liberal thought – who are definitively a part of a very specific socio-economic class – can still avoid them, for the most part, and it doesn’t much matter if in thirty years they are the majority, because who cares what happens in thirty years? Certainly childless middle class White liberals do not.
However, if we look at the entirety of the effects of Jew liberalism on us, the levels of alienation we’ve suffered in our individual lives, the way our families have been torn apart, the way we have been undermined by the fairer sex which was created by God to be our faithful companion, the way our masculinity has been stripped from us, the way our identity and sense of belonging has been crushed into powder and swept out into the sea – then we are left with material fit for Total Revolution.
We are vocalizing an idea which appeals to the masses, a full-on rebellion against modernity. Hitler is the ultimate symbol of that, because Hitler is Old Europe, and Old Europe is what our very bones are calling out for. National Socialism was the pinnacle of European civilization. In order to progress forward, we must first return to that point.
This is the only plan which can possibly work. Thus we should relish in extremism, not avoid it. It is all or nothing. There is no halfway. Halfway is impossible. The entire Jewish system must be removed.
Unlike Johnson, I won’t attack “mainstreamers” as useless, as I believe they ultimately move things in the right direction, even though they don’t go the whole way.
However, in the end, the only way we are going to fix society is through hardline National Socialism.
The Jew system doesn’t accept apologies for being White and I wouldn’t be willing to offer one anyway.
I am White.
I am a National Socialist.
And I am not sorry.