We all know each other in real life. I’ve read the threads at Radix and Hipster Racist. I know what is true and what is completely false.
No idea. But whoever it is, he/she was awfully interested in my marital status.
As a general Internet debate rule, it’s understood that an appeal to an opponent’s romantic situation or physical appearance is confirmation of having lost the actual argument.
They act like they’ve got this impressive case against Heimbach, toss out a few stale canards that are easily shot down, then lose their temper and start raving about how he’s fat.
Heimbach is into fascism, but not atheism, homosexuality, and bodybuilding.
I think he is reading this thread. I mentioned earlier that everyone is getting married and having kids and that you are one of the last bachelors standing. It just struck me as the biggest difference with the NPI crowd.
[…] you are one of the last bachelors standing.
How fortunate the single ladies in our movement are, that the two most handsome nationalists in the scene, Scott Terry and I, are single and ready to mingle!
Yeah, it is getting to the point where I will be counting my single friends on one hand.
“Fascism” means something different to everybody who uses the term. I suspect the historical folks most commonly accorded the label would be a little uncomfortable with much of its contemporary appropriation.
Actually, Parrott and I are competing for the affections of a lovely IHOP waitress. She was so dazzled by my biceps, she dropped all our plates. It was either that or Parrott’s wit. That’s up for debate, apparently.
You may have dazzled the adorable blonde waitress, but I had the senile bag lady wrapped around my finger.
Kyle needs a wingman.
I demanded we go to Waffle House, but Heimbach insisted we go to the Internationalist House of Pancakes.
Waffle House and Cracker Barrel both have special signs up in their restaurants promising that they won’t be racist and offering a hotline number to report it. That’s a sharp little confirmation that I’m enjoying my meal at an establishment which has enough racism going on to need a sign about it.
Hunter Wallace
‘Yeah, it is getting to the point where I will be counting my single friends on one hand.’
You have very tiny friends. yuk yuk yuk
I just noticed Radix censored about half a dozen intelligently written, non-trollish critical comments that were there last night.
Nikolaos Michaloliakos is overweight and far from handsome. He’s also the most successful authentic right-wing leader in the world.
I used to be very into bodybuilding, but then I got married and lost the habit. Couldn’t find the time. Now it is coming back.
I just noticed Radix censored about half a dozen intelligently written, non-trollish critical comments that were there last night.
I saw a lot of rambling and ad hominem attacks. They haven’t purged enough of the crap as far as I’m concerned.
I’m beginning to like Spencer & Co. the more I see the malcontents and misanthropes being put in their place and relegated to their natural Omega position of ankle biting and virtual slap fights.
You believe placing the alternative right in the service of a radical homosexual agenda is a good idea? Insane. There is a huge historical, anthropological and scientific case against normalizing homosexual behavior. I hope you’re not buying Radix’s false framing that only bible thumpers care about it.
“All this squabbling shows how people who believe that race is important are divided by culture and class.”
That’s what politics inside an ethnostate would be all about. Anyone pretending to leadership needs to unite classes, and Spencer just isn’t the one to do that.
Any organization that includes homosexuals within the leadership is an organization that will also cater to them. The narrative will also take on a pro homosexual stance. Any discussion about homosexuality will eventually be forbidden. I think that is why Matt was not allowed entry to the meeting. My quess is a wealthy donor threatened to withhold a sum of money if Matt were allowed to attend. Of course this is just speculation, but regardless, the same results would occur in an organization with homosexuals in the leadership.
It is almost akin to allowing Jews in pro-White groups. The results will be to the detriment of the group.
Although I initially believed Scott Terry’s claim that Heimbach was excluded because of the gay issue, Spencer’s statement and a number of commentators cast convincing doubts on that claim.
I don’t really get on well with Spencer, and I have no idea who works with him anymore. So it never occurred to me to just ask for the inside story. But purely by chance, I found myself chatting today with one of the people who made the case for excluding Heimbach to Richard Spencer. (None of them NPI donors, by the way.) According to this individual, the primary reasons were what can be inferred from Spencer’s statement: they did not wish to provide a “platform” to Heimbach to present a message and an image contrary to NPI’s message and image. They see Heimbach as a person with a record of courting media attention and saying stupid things that they find embarrassing. They did not want Heimbach talking to the media or debating antifa and protesters.
They also think he’s a slob who makes White Nationalists look like losers. They weren’t arguing that he’s too fat and ugly for their frat. If that were a criterion, Sam Dickson would not have been on the program. It has everything to do with dress, grooming, and public deportment.
Spencer was swayed and disinvited Heimbach. I certainly think it was within his rights to do so. I probably would have done the same thing, if I were in his position.
Why, then, are Scott Terry and Matt Parrott maintaining the false story that Heimbach was excluded by order of a “pink swastika clique”? Probably because they believed that it would cause maximum drama and infighting, the “movement” and the greater good be damned. And it has. Not your finest hour, guys, and it will probably do more harm to your project than NPI.
Greg Johnson
‘They weren’t arguing that he’s too fat and ugly for their frat. If that were a criterion, Sam Dickson would not have been on the program.’
Ouch!
Greg,
There’s a whole Rumsfeldian maze of unknowns, of course, and we both know that there’s far more afoot here than the gay thing. I certainly didn’t coordinate with Scott on his post and would have appealed to him to not post it at all. But there is a pink swastika clique. Within that clique, Heimbach is imagined as some sort of 1984 Goldberg-style villain, and it leapt on us with full force in the wake of the incident.
I object to the notion that we instigated anything. We played nice, kept our mouths shut, and controlled our behavior and official messaging to avoid infighting. Spencer responded to the SPLC’s response to the third party blog post with a direct and harsh attack on Heimbach, after having already been inappropriately rude to him, without provocation, in the private message cancelling his ticket a week after he secured it and made travel plans.
You’re acting like we started this in order to score some points or something. Everybody loses with this silly public feuding. We didn’t start this, and have been doing the bare minimum of defensive posturing in response to it. Had Spencer not been a dick to Heimbach while disinviting him in the first place, this wouldn’t have blown up. Had Spencer responded to Scott Terry instead of publicly attacking Heimbach in response to Scott, this wouldn’t have blown up.
When you strip away the superficial optics and aesthetics, it’s Spencer rather than Heimbach who showed bad judgment and poor manners throughout this incident. We’ll take a hint and steer clear of Spencer and his projects from now on. Being fully uninvolved in Spencer’s next episode of prickishness will absolve us of any guilt in it. The pink swastika clique is making at least as much of an error as anything we made last week in throwing in with him.
There is a pink swastika clique in White Nationalism and when it starts creating litmus tests on issues like homosexuality it is bound to blow up in their faces.
It wasn’t Heimbach who created a litmus test. Of all the people involved in White Nationalism, Heimbach has for whatever reason gone out of his way to seek out and build bridges between all the various subcultures. Heimbach is the “let a thousand flowers bloom” guy and tries to get along with everyone. At one point, he got kicked out of the League of the South for speaking at the NSM rally in KC.
It was Richard who told The Daily Beast that he liked to be compared to William F. Buckley and created the litmus test to exclude Heimbach from the NPI conference. To my knowledge, Spencer never gave Heimbach a platform. I’m sure the thought never occurred to him. Instead, he gave the platform to Jack Donovan.
According to the new litmus test, Jack Donovan who is a homosexual and a former Satanist is respectable and welcome at his events, but Heimbach is shunned as beyond the pale. Heimbach is the security risk, not all the undercover reporters, SPLC spies, or the anti-fa disruptors who infiltrated NPI. Oh, and he is so out of shape, unlike Lord Humongous and his neo-barbarians!
A few points:
1.) First, if It has been decided that Jack Donovan is respectable but Heimbach is beyond the pale, what does that say about those who are creating this new standard?
2.) Second, do we want shadowy cabals of male homosexuals debating in private who to include and exclude from the movement? Should those people by virtue of their wealth and the donations they make have the power to make such decisions?
3.) If so, what is the difference between White Nationalism and the GOP, which is controlled by wealthy donors like the billionaire Paul Singer who supports gay marriage?
Does anyone else see the humor in disciples of Julius Evola and Nietzsche who worship Odin and Thor tut-tutting with their best friend Lord Humonguous about the Young Earth Creationist and the Orthodox fascist who reviles freemasonry and wants to create an Avalonian ethnostate?
So, a Brony, a Nietzschean superman, Lord Humonguous, a Young Earth Creationist, a neo-Confederate, a Neo-Nazi Odinist and an Orthodox fascist walk into a bar. They debate who is respectable.
I’d sooner be a gay brony than a freemason! ^_^
How about a barbarian cult of skull-faced, available War Boys? Would they defeat your Orthodox Avalonian legionaires?
Brad, you need to rethink this.
First of all, I believe that Spencer was right to see Heimbach as a person who courts media attention, shoots from the hip, and stays stupid things. Spencer went to a great deal of trouble to put together his conference, and he wanted to make sure that the message and image he chose were presented to the world. And he felt that Heimbach could mess that up simply by getting in front of a camera or microphone. Do you really think that any of these points are false?
Now, you may not think much about the message and image Spencer wanted to project, but it is certainly different from what Heimbach puts out there, and Heimbach is pretty aggressive in seeking media attention. So was Spencer really stretching to think that Heimbach might be a liability?
Note that I am not saying the Heimbach is a “security risk.” Nor did Spencer. That is simply not the issue. The issue has to do with discipline in imaging and messaging.
Second, as I pointed out (and the point is not original with me), if NPI were simply discriminating against Heimbach on the grounds of looks, Sam Dickson would not have been invited to speak. But there were reasonable concerns that Heimbach would not only rush to any camera, but do so looking like a slob. Just do a Google image search for the name Matt Heimbach and you will see why they think that.
Third, Jack Donovan is not an issue here. I think that the claim that this is about gays in the movement is a malicious fiction designed to stir up maximum drama. Donovan is definitely a polarizing figure. I certainly can’t defend everything he says or does. (Hell, I can’t defend a lot of things that I have said and done.) But he is an important and interesting author, and Spencer could trust him to maintain message and discipline with the press. That was sufficient reason to give him a platform.
Fourth, one of the problems people have with Heimbach is that he associates with everyone. But there are many groups in this movement that do not wish to be associated with one another. The League of the South does not want to be associated with the KKK, skinheads, and the NSM. Nor does NPI. That is their right. Do a Google image search for Heimbach, skinheads, the NSM, and the KKK. You will see what gives people pause. Heimbach wants to network with everyone, but not everyone wants to be two degrees of separation from a burning cross in a cow pasture, and Heimbach is that link.
Fifth, it turns out that the people who opposed Heimbach were not a shadowy cabal of rich old homosexuals. It just did not happen that way. I hope you’ll take my word for it. Even though I have been frozen out of NPI and related circles for more than 5 years due to the machinations of Sam Dickson, I still know who most of the principals are, and there aren’t enough rich homosexuals among them to constitute a cabal, and even if there were, again, it is just not how this went down.
Yes Brad, I see the humor. We’re all Misfit Toys. But some of us think its Survivor. And they want Heimbach off their island. But he has an island of his own. A thousand flowers approach also entails recognizing that some approaches need to maintain a certain discreet distance from others.
This is a perennial problem for Heimbach.
Because he doesn’t have a litmus test, he tries to hang out with all the disparate factions of the movement, and he ends up pissing off everyone from Thom Robb to Richard Spencer to the Aryan Terror Brigade.
The myth that Heimbach’s an undisciplined ham relating to the media doesn’t stand up scrutiny. He’s participated in dozens of events in the past year, most of which he was not expected to be central to the event and none of which has he made a spectacle of himself against the hosts’ wishes. People just peddle that narrative because he does a better job of hustling up media contacts, which is a strength and not a weakness. He leverages those media opportunities to push intelligent messaging.
People cherry-pick unfortunate soundbites and awkward associations, typically from several years ago, from among his impressively broad library of public activism, the vast majority of which has been intelligent and on-message.
I can’t really speak to the slob thing. I don’t get it, but my hillbilly heritage may well preclude my ability to tell when somebody is or is not being a slob by reasonable standards. But we’ve not objected to Spencer’s very real right to exclude Heimbach from his conference. I objected to him insulting him on his blog immediately after the conference.
Matt, can you provide a link to the article where Spencer insulted Heimbach?
Greg,
1.) It is true that Heimbach suffers from newspaperitis. Everyone knows that. If the goal was to deny Heimbach the attention he craved, well, it obviously backfired and produced the opposite result.
2.) I’ve been to multiple conferences with Heimbach and he has attracted more attention by being shunned from NPI than he did at any of the previous events. The 2013 Amren conference, for example, was uneventful.
3.) The security risk issue was brought up at Radix. I thought it was amusing considering that anti-fa, the SPLC, undercover reporters and likely law enforcement had infiltrated the building.
4.) The latest comment over at Radix advocates the NPI conference becoming an annual male beauty contest hosted by homosexuals. This will supposedly attract women. There have been lots of comments to that effect. It seems to be a popular mindset in that crowd.
5.) Spencer is saying that Jack Donovan is respectable and should be given a platform, but Heimbach is beyond the pale and can’t even attend. He’s establishing a litmus test here and naturally it reflects his own worldview and the type of people with whom he is comfortable.
For the record, Heimbach doesn’t have a problem with Donovan. It is Billy Roper and Thom Robb who launched the crusade against Donovan, but they don’t like Heimbach either.
6.) Among others, Faye, Donovan, and Spencer himself have said any number of controversial things.
7.) The League learned from its experience with Heimbach not to play the associations game.
8.) In your post above, you said there was a debate behind the scenes over whether to exclude Heimbach. I think lots of people are wary of rich donors, particularly homosexuals, who style themselves as an elite conspiring behind the scenes to decide who is in, who is out.
9.) I always assumed there had long been a running beef between those two. I was more surprised that Heimbach had planned to go than Richard’s decision to shun him.
I’m not going to argue on Tradyouth’s behalf because they don’t want to make it an issue. I will argue on my own behalf. What would the argument look like for me not making that blog post?
“Dear Scott,
We know you’ve been talking about your 30 day water fast for a long time and we know you’re going to have to break it to come to come up to DC and hang out with everyone, but we’d prefer you not say anything about that on your blog. Is there anyway you can just end your fast without explanation? Why? Well, you see, Richard Spencer is beyond reproach and when he insults us, it’s our duty to silently take it – because, you know, when grown ups do bad things in private they have the reasonable expectation of their actions staying private.”
Um… no. Sorry. I don’t understand that.
If Spencer didn’t want this to be an issue, he should have let Heimbach go to the conference. Does sitting in the back of the room, golf clapping at the speakers, and having drinks in a local pub count as a “platform” now? If Spencer is sincere, then I hope he’s feeling sorry for not giving Heimbach *that* platform. Seems like that’d have been a much better option than trying to play some highschool “clique” game of “I’m better than you and I know it”; he’s got to live with the consequences of his actions.
You know you’re dealing with an austiticrat when their arguments revolve around statements like: “…it would make us look bad to…” or “…our movement needs…” or “…people wont like us if we…”
No gaggle of suit-n-tie-wearing fascists has any right to talk about what will or wont make “us look bad.” I’m sorry. Not even if they have all the fashion sense of Greg Johnson and Jack Donovan combined.
Thomas,
Matt, can you provide a link to the article where Spencer insulted Heimbach?
“I could see NPI excluding christians, especially overweight southern christians, they’re trying to distance themselves from the media created stigma of the anti-intellectual christian right-wing with their theologically based opposition to sodomy and degeneracy. They don’t want their conferences to become a haven for the westboro baptist church, it’s for middle class, northern whites with high income and high IQ’s, not for people who are so stereotypical that they’re the exact image of what the media has used to slander our movement for decades.
As much as we know that homosexuality is part of the degeneracy and religion is a powerful unifying force for a people, this isn’t what NPI is going for, this is an intellectual conference trying to create the image of that. Honestly they should also have a BMI and beauty requirement for attendees, literally only have the best and the brightest attend, it really enrages the anti-whites to see attractive, well dressed, intelligent, middle class whites organizing for their racial interests.
Call it elitist all you want, shouldn’t the white nationalist movement have an elitist organization or do you think our image will improve if we allowed low iq, ugly, neanderthals to attend every event and shout about tangential issues like homosexuality and religion?
IMO the NPI conference should be the SS of the WN movement, highly selected for intellectual and physical perfection. Hell, why don’t we start our own lebensborn program, get the fags in our movement to select attractive guys, make a NPI calendar and spread it around to get more women into the movement. Nothing will attract more women like conferences full of attractive, intelligent, well dressed men.”
Isn’t it all pretty much trolling once you get to a certain point? It’s not like anyone is saying something groundbreaking or parroting talking points that haven’t already been driven into the ground a thousand times before.
Another example:
“being a fat cartoon douche. I decided not to go to NPI this year because im horrendously out of shape and not presentable. I think there should be guidelines and dress codes to be honest. The “nazi aesthetic” was a HUGE propaganda tool that helped get young men involved in the movement. Fashion sense is a political weapon. Nothing can damage this movement like fat stereotypical rednecks waddling around screaming DAY OF THE ROPE HURRR”
Obviously that comment is parody. There are also many sincere comments in the thread expressing sentiments that are not too far off from parody. Satire doesn’t work without some kind of basis.
There are lots of comments to this effect and what Johnson says above confirms it.
Yes, I honestly couldn’t tell if it was a troll or a serious comment. Laguna Beach Fogey seemed to take it at face value.
Well, that parody comment gave me an opening to again deride the idea only Christians care about homosexuality. So I took it.
For the life of me, I can’t see how abortion, homosexuality, anti-natalism, MGTOW, or mannerbunds are pro-White. It seems to me that all of those things would discourage Whites from having children and should be rejected for purely secular reasons.
There is also the age old debate over whether women should be included in the movement with the most popular answer being that once we seize political power then women will be attracted to us.
In his book Archeofuturism, Guilliame Faye talks about how biotechnology could be used to create man-animal chimeras, semi-artificial living creatures, and decerebrated human clones who could be used as organ banks:
Faye takes the worst ideas of dystopian science fiction movies like The Island of Dr. Moreau or Terminator and advocates them as a positive good. But wait, Heimbach is fat and would make us all look bad!
I can see why people might chuckle about “Avalon,” but that is nothing on par with the insanity of creating man-animal hybrids. “Avalon” is also more modest than “Septentrion”/Eurosiberia.
Bottom line: we need some kind of WN peasant-friendly 😀 convention.
I like to think one day or another Anglin will start a fundraiser for some “Stormer Festival”, with a lot of participants: TradYouth, Angelo Gage, Occidental Dissent, etc.
The best approach is to let everyone do their own thing and minimize the infighting.
It can’t be infighting when you have sects who go out of their way to stigmatize, demonize and push others into the arms of opposition.
Celestial Time,
It can’t be infighting when you have sects who go out of their way to stigmatize, demonize and push others into the arms of opposition.
If you think our side instigated the stigmatization, demonization, and purging going on here, you need to lay off the BC hemp, comrade.
I will say that when the Dylann Roof shitstorm was going on this summer that I don’t recall Heimbach, Terry, or Parrott distancing themselves from us or throwing the CofCC under the bus.
What side is that, Matt? You’re gonna have to be more specific. I see people who organized events, then held attendees up to a specific standard. Whether or not you agree with the standards being imposed is really not the issue. That’s your opinion of right and wrong vs someone else’s opinion of right and wrong. It’s their venue, so they do as they please.
What Spencer wrote was nothing more than a clarification to the SPLC article. I really saw nothing more than that. Did he even mention anyone specific or specific actions other than quoting what the SPLC goons wrote? Maybe you and “your side” view their minimizing of certain social issues to be tantamount to treason or at least a very poor strategy. They obviously see things a different way.
I don’t recall Heimbach, Terry, or Parrott distancing themselves from us or throwing the CofCC under the bus.
Which pro-White people or groups did?
That experience taught me something.
In that case, no one from the CofCC had ever heard of Dylann Roof. He wasn’t a member of the group. In fact, there is no proof that anyone in the movement had ever heard of him. All he did was read Kyle’s black-on-white crime stories – all of which were true – and get pissed off by the obvious double standard in the media.
No one from law enforcement ever contacted the CofCC because investigators never had any reason to believe that Roof, who is still alive and able to explain his motivations (he plead guilty), had any connection to us. Our connection with Dylann Roof was on the same level as my connection with Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly because their shows on FOX News are on television.
However, that wasn’t the story in the media. The narrative in the media was that the CofCC had “radicalized” and “inspired” Roof’s crime spree. Yet that was enough apparently to cause certain people to go the cuckservative route and want to distance themselves and throw the CofCC under the bus in order to preserve their “respectability” with the media.
Celestial Time,
We didn’t object in the slightest to the exclusion. Everybody’s got the right to define their projects.
What Spencer wrote was nothing more than a clarification to the SPLC article. I really saw nothing more than that. Did he even mention anyone specific or specific actions other than quoting what the SPLC goons wrote?
If you didn’t see a direct attack squarely aimed at Heimbach, then you’re firmly a partisan for whom objective reality has no bearing.
Maybe you and “your side” view their minimizing of certain social issues to be tantamount to treason or at least a very poor strategy.
Y’all need to huddle up and decide whether we’re assholes for suggesting that the gay thing is involved in the matter or that we’re assholes for being on the wrong side of the gay thing.
Hunter Wallace: “So, a Brony, a Nietzschean superman, Lord Humonguous, a Young Earth Creationist, a neo-Confederate, a Neo-Nazi Odinist and an Orthodox fascist walk into a bar. They debate who is respectable.”
LOL! I haven’t commented on this site in years, but I had to say that’s one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. Good stuff.
Brad, there are thousand comment+ threads on gays NOT because that was the reason Heimbach was excluded. Because we now know that was not the reason. This very ugly, time-wasting infighting exists SOLELY because of the LIE broadcast by Terry and Parrott, and eagerly picked up by the SPLC and Ernst Ronin and others who share the same goal of maximum infighting, that this was about gays. Who did wrong here, Spencer or the Heimbach clique? Spencer acted within his rights and was completely honest about his reasons. (It pains me to write sentences like that.) The Heimbach clique, however, are lying and stirring the pot. Act accordingly.
Again, Matt, what side are you talking about? How do you define your sides?
Call me a partisan, I’ll call it being a mature adult who knows how to differentiate between blunt, constructive criticism and direct attacks. Clarification to an article doesn’t need to treat your delicate sensibilities like you would teat a little child who sulks and pouts when they hear the word NO. If you were offended because:
NPI will, however, exclude those who show reckless disregard with the media, or those who’ve made morally indefensible public statements. Such people make our movement look bad. We choose not to grant them a platform. It’s as simple as that.
then I conclude that you probably need to be offended a thousand times more in order to grow thicker skin.
I really do believe it was “as simple as that.” But that doesn’t stop prima donnas and malcontents from claiming to be suffering from vicious attacks.
No enemy’s to or on the right is a great ideal, but it can’t work when one side won’t respect it. The moderate factions are at least as bad or worse than the most radical, rhetorically toxic WNsts when it comes to not respecting a reasonable line between peer-critic of the perceived weaknesses in an approach and industrial-war infighting for no purpose.
Liddell’s attack on Andrew Anglin is a textbook example of a pedal-to-the-medal smear job from a moderate faction. He called Anglin a Jewish agent and a nigger, without a shred of credible evidence to back it. Instead of intelligently responding to Anglin’s blunt but carefully worded peer critic of the NPI event, Liddell went for the fact-free smear.
The irony there is that Liddell’s main idea is that nationalists like Anglin reinforce enemy stereotypes. It’s amusing coming from him, when all the enemy needs to do from now until the end of time when it needs ammo to embarrass nationalists with material that conforms to stereotype IF WILLFULLY READ DISHONESTLY is go for the Liddell classic — Is Black Genocide Right?
I don’t think so.
I think there is a pink swastika clique – scratch that, I know there is a pink swastika clique – and I am familiar with their views on a range of subjects. There are male homosexuals who donate to some WN organizations, who see themselves as cultivating a new elite, and who believe they have the power to set boundaries in the movement just like big donors in the GOP.
Those people are fine with giving Jack Donovan or Guillaume Faye a platform, but see Heimbach as a fat slob who ought to be shunned. The overwhelming majority of them have an axe to grind against Christianity. They want to preserve their brand which we all know is urban, secular, cosmopolitan, and gay friendly. Lots of them have a big problem with working class bumpkins and Christians from the South and Midwest.
And that’s fine. If they want to do their own thing, let them build up their own little subculture. I certainly have no objection to them holding their own events or preserving their brand. Who the fuck cares? There are only like a dozen conferences a year, every year, so there are plenty of options to choose from. I don’t see why there should be any conflict.
That should be “peer critique” not “peer critic.” Auto-correct.
Brad, let’s just say that there really is a pink swastika clique. It still does not imply that what the Heimbach clique says about this incident is true.
If the Heimbach clique said that this was the work of the Bilderbergers, it would not prove their claim by pointing out that yes indeed, the Bilderbergers actually exist.
The claim is not that X group actually exists. The claim is that they victimized poor Matt Heimbach. And we now know that the Heimbach clique are just lying and trying to create drama and infighting.
1. There is no pink swastika clique
2. The clique did not pull the trigger
3. The clique had every right to pull the trigger
Pick one.
We didn’t start this. We didn’t escalate it. Aside from some defensive posturing in the comments and responding specifically to @HipsterRacist’s broadside, we’ve not been stoking any fires. There were more comments at Radix accusing our side of than were accusing the other side, even before the moderator tipped the scales on it (which they have every right to do on their own site, yadda yadda). And from the beginning I conceded to not knowing how much the pink swastika had to do before the fact. After the fact, they were openly pushing their agenda in the comments and my tact was to insist that they knock off their attempts to purge Heimbach.
It appears Jews aren’t the only ones who cry out as they strike you.
Lol yeah … we also have travel plans this week.
We all know each other in real life. I’ve read the threads at Radix and Hipster Racist. I know what is true and what is completely false.
No idea. But whoever it is, he/she was awfully interested in my marital status.
As a general Internet debate rule, it’s understood that an appeal to an opponent’s romantic situation or physical appearance is confirmation of having lost the actual argument.
They act like they’ve got this impressive case against Heimbach, toss out a few stale canards that are easily shot down, then lose their temper and start raving about how he’s fat.
Heimbach is into fascism, but not atheism, homosexuality, and bodybuilding.
I think he is reading this thread. I mentioned earlier that everyone is getting married and having kids and that you are one of the last bachelors standing. It just struck me as the biggest difference with the NPI crowd.
How fortunate the single ladies in our movement are, that the two most handsome nationalists in the scene, Scott Terry and I, are single and ready to mingle!
Yeah, it is getting to the point where I will be counting my single friends on one hand.
“Fascism” means something different to everybody who uses the term. I suspect the historical folks most commonly accorded the label would be a little uncomfortable with much of its contemporary appropriation.
Actually, Parrott and I are competing for the affections of a lovely IHOP waitress. She was so dazzled by my biceps, she dropped all our plates. It was either that or Parrott’s wit. That’s up for debate, apparently.
You may have dazzled the adorable blonde waitress, but I had the senile bag lady wrapped around my finger.
Kyle needs a wingman.
I demanded we go to Waffle House, but Heimbach insisted we go to the Internationalist House of Pancakes.
Waffle House and Cracker Barrel both have special signs up in their restaurants promising that they won’t be racist and offering a hotline number to report it. That’s a sharp little confirmation that I’m enjoying my meal at an establishment which has enough racism going on to need a sign about it.
Hunter Wallace
‘Yeah, it is getting to the point where I will be counting my single friends on one hand.’
You have very tiny friends. yuk yuk yuk
I just noticed Radix censored about half a dozen intelligently written, non-trollish critical comments that were there last night.
Nikolaos Michaloliakos is overweight and far from handsome. He’s also the most successful authentic right-wing leader in the world.
I used to be very into bodybuilding, but then I got married and lost the habit. Couldn’t find the time. Now it is coming back.
I saw a lot of rambling and ad hominem attacks. They haven’t purged enough of the crap as far as I’m concerned.
I’m beginning to like Spencer & Co. the more I see the malcontents and misanthropes being put in their place and relegated to their natural Omega position of ankle biting and virtual slap fights.
You believe placing the alternative right in the service of a radical homosexual agenda is a good idea? Insane. There is a huge historical, anthropological and scientific case against normalizing homosexual behavior. I hope you’re not buying Radix’s false framing that only bible thumpers care about it.
“All this squabbling shows how people who believe that race is important are divided by culture and class.”
That’s what politics inside an ethnostate would be all about. Anyone pretending to leadership needs to unite classes, and Spencer just isn’t the one to do that.
Any organization that includes homosexuals within the leadership is an organization that will also cater to them. The narrative will also take on a pro homosexual stance. Any discussion about homosexuality will eventually be forbidden. I think that is why Matt was not allowed entry to the meeting. My quess is a wealthy donor threatened to withhold a sum of money if Matt were allowed to attend. Of course this is just speculation, but regardless, the same results would occur in an organization with homosexuals in the leadership.
It is almost akin to allowing Jews in pro-White groups. The results will be to the detriment of the group.
We were warned. Read or re-read this.
https://chechar.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/ns-on-homosexuality/
Although I initially believed Scott Terry’s claim that Heimbach was excluded because of the gay issue, Spencer’s statement and a number of commentators cast convincing doubts on that claim.
I don’t really get on well with Spencer, and I have no idea who works with him anymore. So it never occurred to me to just ask for the inside story. But purely by chance, I found myself chatting today with one of the people who made the case for excluding Heimbach to Richard Spencer. (None of them NPI donors, by the way.) According to this individual, the primary reasons were what can be inferred from Spencer’s statement: they did not wish to provide a “platform” to Heimbach to present a message and an image contrary to NPI’s message and image. They see Heimbach as a person with a record of courting media attention and saying stupid things that they find embarrassing. They did not want Heimbach talking to the media or debating antifa and protesters.
They also think he’s a slob who makes White Nationalists look like losers. They weren’t arguing that he’s too fat and ugly for their frat. If that were a criterion, Sam Dickson would not have been on the program. It has everything to do with dress, grooming, and public deportment.
Spencer was swayed and disinvited Heimbach. I certainly think it was within his rights to do so. I probably would have done the same thing, if I were in his position.
Why, then, are Scott Terry and Matt Parrott maintaining the false story that Heimbach was excluded by order of a “pink swastika clique”? Probably because they believed that it would cause maximum drama and infighting, the “movement” and the greater good be damned. And it has. Not your finest hour, guys, and it will probably do more harm to your project than NPI.
Greg Johnson
‘They weren’t arguing that he’s too fat and ugly for their frat. If that were a criterion, Sam Dickson would not have been on the program.’
Ouch!
Greg,
There’s a whole Rumsfeldian maze of unknowns, of course, and we both know that there’s far more afoot here than the gay thing. I certainly didn’t coordinate with Scott on his post and would have appealed to him to not post it at all. But there is a pink swastika clique. Within that clique, Heimbach is imagined as some sort of 1984 Goldberg-style villain, and it leapt on us with full force in the wake of the incident.
I object to the notion that we instigated anything. We played nice, kept our mouths shut, and controlled our behavior and official messaging to avoid infighting. Spencer responded to the SPLC’s response to the third party blog post with a direct and harsh attack on Heimbach, after having already been inappropriately rude to him, without provocation, in the private message cancelling his ticket a week after he secured it and made travel plans.
You’re acting like we started this in order to score some points or something. Everybody loses with this silly public feuding. We didn’t start this, and have been doing the bare minimum of defensive posturing in response to it. Had Spencer not been a dick to Heimbach while disinviting him in the first place, this wouldn’t have blown up. Had Spencer responded to Scott Terry instead of publicly attacking Heimbach in response to Scott, this wouldn’t have blown up.
When you strip away the superficial optics and aesthetics, it’s Spencer rather than Heimbach who showed bad judgment and poor manners throughout this incident. We’ll take a hint and steer clear of Spencer and his projects from now on. Being fully uninvolved in Spencer’s next episode of prickishness will absolve us of any guilt in it. The pink swastika clique is making at least as much of an error as anything we made last week in throwing in with him.
There is a pink swastika clique in White Nationalism and when it starts creating litmus tests on issues like homosexuality it is bound to blow up in their faces.
It wasn’t Heimbach who created a litmus test. Of all the people involved in White Nationalism, Heimbach has for whatever reason gone out of his way to seek out and build bridges between all the various subcultures. Heimbach is the “let a thousand flowers bloom” guy and tries to get along with everyone. At one point, he got kicked out of the League of the South for speaking at the NSM rally in KC.
It was Richard who told The Daily Beast that he liked to be compared to William F. Buckley and created the litmus test to exclude Heimbach from the NPI conference. To my knowledge, Spencer never gave Heimbach a platform. I’m sure the thought never occurred to him. Instead, he gave the platform to Jack Donovan.
According to the new litmus test, Jack Donovan who is a homosexual and a former Satanist is respectable and welcome at his events, but Heimbach is shunned as beyond the pale. Heimbach is the security risk, not all the undercover reporters, SPLC spies, or the anti-fa disruptors who infiltrated NPI. Oh, and he is so out of shape, unlike Lord Humongous and his neo-barbarians!
A few points:
1.) First, if It has been decided that Jack Donovan is respectable but Heimbach is beyond the pale, what does that say about those who are creating this new standard?
2.) Second, do we want shadowy cabals of male homosexuals debating in private who to include and exclude from the movement? Should those people by virtue of their wealth and the donations they make have the power to make such decisions?
3.) If so, what is the difference between White Nationalism and the GOP, which is controlled by wealthy donors like the billionaire Paul Singer who supports gay marriage?
Does anyone else see the humor in disciples of Julius Evola and Nietzsche who worship Odin and Thor tut-tutting with their best friend Lord Humonguous about the Young Earth Creationist and the Orthodox fascist who reviles freemasonry and wants to create an Avalonian ethnostate?
So, a Brony, a Nietzschean superman, Lord Humonguous, a Young Earth Creationist, a neo-Confederate, a Neo-Nazi Odinist and an Orthodox fascist walk into a bar. They debate who is respectable.
I’d sooner be a gay brony than a freemason! ^_^
How about a barbarian cult of skull-faced, available War Boys? Would they defeat your Orthodox Avalonian legionaires?
Brad, you need to rethink this.
First of all, I believe that Spencer was right to see Heimbach as a person who courts media attention, shoots from the hip, and stays stupid things. Spencer went to a great deal of trouble to put together his conference, and he wanted to make sure that the message and image he chose were presented to the world. And he felt that Heimbach could mess that up simply by getting in front of a camera or microphone. Do you really think that any of these points are false?
Now, you may not think much about the message and image Spencer wanted to project, but it is certainly different from what Heimbach puts out there, and Heimbach is pretty aggressive in seeking media attention. So was Spencer really stretching to think that Heimbach might be a liability?
Note that I am not saying the Heimbach is a “security risk.” Nor did Spencer. That is simply not the issue. The issue has to do with discipline in imaging and messaging.
Second, as I pointed out (and the point is not original with me), if NPI were simply discriminating against Heimbach on the grounds of looks, Sam Dickson would not have been invited to speak. But there were reasonable concerns that Heimbach would not only rush to any camera, but do so looking like a slob. Just do a Google image search for the name Matt Heimbach and you will see why they think that.
Third, Jack Donovan is not an issue here. I think that the claim that this is about gays in the movement is a malicious fiction designed to stir up maximum drama. Donovan is definitely a polarizing figure. I certainly can’t defend everything he says or does. (Hell, I can’t defend a lot of things that I have said and done.) But he is an important and interesting author, and Spencer could trust him to maintain message and discipline with the press. That was sufficient reason to give him a platform.
Fourth, one of the problems people have with Heimbach is that he associates with everyone. But there are many groups in this movement that do not wish to be associated with one another. The League of the South does not want to be associated with the KKK, skinheads, and the NSM. Nor does NPI. That is their right. Do a Google image search for Heimbach, skinheads, the NSM, and the KKK. You will see what gives people pause. Heimbach wants to network with everyone, but not everyone wants to be two degrees of separation from a burning cross in a cow pasture, and Heimbach is that link.
Fifth, it turns out that the people who opposed Heimbach were not a shadowy cabal of rich old homosexuals. It just did not happen that way. I hope you’ll take my word for it. Even though I have been frozen out of NPI and related circles for more than 5 years due to the machinations of Sam Dickson, I still know who most of the principals are, and there aren’t enough rich homosexuals among them to constitute a cabal, and even if there were, again, it is just not how this went down.
Yes Brad, I see the humor. We’re all Misfit Toys. But some of us think its Survivor. And they want Heimbach off their island. But he has an island of his own. A thousand flowers approach also entails recognizing that some approaches need to maintain a certain discreet distance from others.
This is a perennial problem for Heimbach.
Because he doesn’t have a litmus test, he tries to hang out with all the disparate factions of the movement, and he ends up pissing off everyone from Thom Robb to Richard Spencer to the Aryan Terror Brigade.
The myth that Heimbach’s an undisciplined ham relating to the media doesn’t stand up scrutiny. He’s participated in dozens of events in the past year, most of which he was not expected to be central to the event and none of which has he made a spectacle of himself against the hosts’ wishes. People just peddle that narrative because he does a better job of hustling up media contacts, which is a strength and not a weakness. He leverages those media opportunities to push intelligent messaging.
People cherry-pick unfortunate soundbites and awkward associations, typically from several years ago, from among his impressively broad library of public activism, the vast majority of which has been intelligent and on-message.
I can’t really speak to the slob thing. I don’t get it, but my hillbilly heritage may well preclude my ability to tell when somebody is or is not being a slob by reasonable standards. But we’ve not objected to Spencer’s very real right to exclude Heimbach from his conference. I objected to him insulting him on his blog immediately after the conference.
Matt, can you provide a link to the article where Spencer insulted Heimbach?
Greg,
1.) It is true that Heimbach suffers from newspaperitis. Everyone knows that. If the goal was to deny Heimbach the attention he craved, well, it obviously backfired and produced the opposite result.
2.) I’ve been to multiple conferences with Heimbach and he has attracted more attention by being shunned from NPI than he did at any of the previous events. The 2013 Amren conference, for example, was uneventful.
3.) The security risk issue was brought up at Radix. I thought it was amusing considering that anti-fa, the SPLC, undercover reporters and likely law enforcement had infiltrated the building.
4.) The latest comment over at Radix advocates the NPI conference becoming an annual male beauty contest hosted by homosexuals. This will supposedly attract women. There have been lots of comments to that effect. It seems to be a popular mindset in that crowd.
5.) Spencer is saying that Jack Donovan is respectable and should be given a platform, but Heimbach is beyond the pale and can’t even attend. He’s establishing a litmus test here and naturally it reflects his own worldview and the type of people with whom he is comfortable.
For the record, Heimbach doesn’t have a problem with Donovan. It is Billy Roper and Thom Robb who launched the crusade against Donovan, but they don’t like Heimbach either.
6.) Among others, Faye, Donovan, and Spencer himself have said any number of controversial things.
7.) The League learned from its experience with Heimbach not to play the associations game.
8.) In your post above, you said there was a debate behind the scenes over whether to exclude Heimbach. I think lots of people are wary of rich donors, particularly homosexuals, who style themselves as an elite conspiring behind the scenes to decide who is in, who is out.
9.) I always assumed there had long been a running beef between those two. I was more surprised that Heimbach had planned to go than Richard’s decision to shun him.
I’m not going to argue on Tradyouth’s behalf because they don’t want to make it an issue. I will argue on my own behalf. What would the argument look like for me not making that blog post?
“Dear Scott,
We know you’ve been talking about your 30 day water fast for a long time and we know you’re going to have to break it to come to come up to DC and hang out with everyone, but we’d prefer you not say anything about that on your blog. Is there anyway you can just end your fast without explanation? Why? Well, you see, Richard Spencer is beyond reproach and when he insults us, it’s our duty to silently take it – because, you know, when grown ups do bad things in private they have the reasonable expectation of their actions staying private.”
Um… no. Sorry. I don’t understand that.
If Spencer didn’t want this to be an issue, he should have let Heimbach go to the conference. Does sitting in the back of the room, golf clapping at the speakers, and having drinks in a local pub count as a “platform” now? If Spencer is sincere, then I hope he’s feeling sorry for not giving Heimbach *that* platform. Seems like that’d have been a much better option than trying to play some highschool “clique” game of “I’m better than you and I know it”; he’s got to live with the consequences of his actions.
You know you’re dealing with an austiticrat when their arguments revolve around statements like: “…it would make us look bad to…” or “…our movement needs…” or “…people wont like us if we…”
No gaggle of suit-n-tie-wearing fascists has any right to talk about what will or wont make “us look bad.” I’m sorry. Not even if they have all the fashion sense of Greg Johnson and Jack Donovan combined.
Thomas,
http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2015/11/4/the-rainbow-coalition
Last paragraph.
Is this a troll?
“I could see NPI excluding christians, especially overweight southern christians, they’re trying to distance themselves from the media created stigma of the anti-intellectual christian right-wing with their theologically based opposition to sodomy and degeneracy. They don’t want their conferences to become a haven for the westboro baptist church, it’s for middle class, northern whites with high income and high IQ’s, not for people who are so stereotypical that they’re the exact image of what the media has used to slander our movement for decades.
As much as we know that homosexuality is part of the degeneracy and religion is a powerful unifying force for a people, this isn’t what NPI is going for, this is an intellectual conference trying to create the image of that. Honestly they should also have a BMI and beauty requirement for attendees, literally only have the best and the brightest attend, it really enrages the anti-whites to see attractive, well dressed, intelligent, middle class whites organizing for their racial interests.
Call it elitist all you want, shouldn’t the white nationalist movement have an elitist organization or do you think our image will improve if we allowed low iq, ugly, neanderthals to attend every event and shout about tangential issues like homosexuality and religion?
IMO the NPI conference should be the SS of the WN movement, highly selected for intellectual and physical perfection. Hell, why don’t we start our own lebensborn program, get the fags in our movement to select attractive guys, make a NPI calendar and spread it around to get more women into the movement. Nothing will attract more women like conferences full of attractive, intelligent, well dressed men.”
Isn’t it all pretty much trolling once you get to a certain point? It’s not like anyone is saying something groundbreaking or parroting talking points that haven’t already been driven into the ground a thousand times before.
Another example:
“being a fat cartoon douche. I decided not to go to NPI this year because im horrendously out of shape and not presentable. I think there should be guidelines and dress codes to be honest. The “nazi aesthetic” was a HUGE propaganda tool that helped get young men involved in the movement. Fashion sense is a political weapon. Nothing can damage this movement like fat stereotypical rednecks waddling around screaming DAY OF THE ROPE HURRR”
Obviously that comment is parody. There are also many sincere comments in the thread expressing sentiments that are not too far off from parody. Satire doesn’t work without some kind of basis.
There are lots of comments to this effect and what Johnson says above confirms it.
Yes, I honestly couldn’t tell if it was a troll or a serious comment. Laguna Beach Fogey seemed to take it at face value.
Well, that parody comment gave me an opening to again deride the idea only Christians care about homosexuality. So I took it.
For the life of me, I can’t see how abortion, homosexuality, anti-natalism, MGTOW, or mannerbunds are pro-White. It seems to me that all of those things would discourage Whites from having children and should be rejected for purely secular reasons.
There is also the age old debate over whether women should be included in the movement with the most popular answer being that once we seize political power then women will be attracted to us.
In his book Archeofuturism, Guilliame Faye talks about how biotechnology could be used to create man-animal chimeras, semi-artificial living creatures, and decerebrated human clones who could be used as organ banks:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Sox12Y4fMY0C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=guillaume+faye+decerebrated+human+clones&source=bl&ots=VHsnz9uxRJ&sig=-i3YWZLtBLuOhx5ZdEOSiYAbB2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAWoVChMIpc6e7N2DyQIVzS-ICh1FbgR2#v=onepage&q=guillaume%20faye%20decerebrated%20human%20clones&f=false
Faye takes the worst ideas of dystopian science fiction movies like The Island of Dr. Moreau or Terminator and advocates them as a positive good. But wait, Heimbach is fat and would make us all look bad!
I can see why people might chuckle about “Avalon,” but that is nothing on par with the insanity of creating man-animal hybrids. “Avalon” is also more modest than “Septentrion”/Eurosiberia.
Bottom line: we need some kind of WN peasant-friendly 😀 convention.
I like to think one day or another Anglin will start a fundraiser for some “Stormer Festival”, with a lot of participants: TradYouth, Angelo Gage, Occidental Dissent, etc.
The best approach is to let everyone do their own thing and minimize the infighting.
It can’t be infighting when you have sects who go out of their way to stigmatize, demonize and push others into the arms of opposition.
Celestial Time,
If you think our side instigated the stigmatization, demonization, and purging going on here, you need to lay off the BC hemp, comrade.
I will say that when the Dylann Roof shitstorm was going on this summer that I don’t recall Heimbach, Terry, or Parrott distancing themselves from us or throwing the CofCC under the bus.
What side is that, Matt? You’re gonna have to be more specific. I see people who organized events, then held attendees up to a specific standard. Whether or not you agree with the standards being imposed is really not the issue. That’s your opinion of right and wrong vs someone else’s opinion of right and wrong. It’s their venue, so they do as they please.
What Spencer wrote was nothing more than a clarification to the SPLC article. I really saw nothing more than that. Did he even mention anyone specific or specific actions other than quoting what the SPLC goons wrote? Maybe you and “your side” view their minimizing of certain social issues to be tantamount to treason or at least a very poor strategy. They obviously see things a different way.
Which pro-White people or groups did?
That experience taught me something.
In that case, no one from the CofCC had ever heard of Dylann Roof. He wasn’t a member of the group. In fact, there is no proof that anyone in the movement had ever heard of him. All he did was read Kyle’s black-on-white crime stories – all of which were true – and get pissed off by the obvious double standard in the media.
No one from law enforcement ever contacted the CofCC because investigators never had any reason to believe that Roof, who is still alive and able to explain his motivations (he plead guilty), had any connection to us. Our connection with Dylann Roof was on the same level as my connection with Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly because their shows on FOX News are on television.
However, that wasn’t the story in the media. The narrative in the media was that the CofCC had “radicalized” and “inspired” Roof’s crime spree. Yet that was enough apparently to cause certain people to go the cuckservative route and want to distance themselves and throw the CofCC under the bus in order to preserve their “respectability” with the media.
Celestial Time,
We didn’t object in the slightest to the exclusion. Everybody’s got the right to define their projects.
If you didn’t see a direct attack squarely aimed at Heimbach, then you’re firmly a partisan for whom objective reality has no bearing.
Y’all need to huddle up and decide whether we’re assholes for suggesting that the gay thing is involved in the matter or that we’re assholes for being on the wrong side of the gay thing.
Hunter Wallace: “So, a Brony, a Nietzschean superman, Lord Humonguous, a Young Earth Creationist, a neo-Confederate, a Neo-Nazi Odinist and an Orthodox fascist walk into a bar. They debate who is respectable.”
LOL! I haven’t commented on this site in years, but I had to say that’s one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. Good stuff.
Brad, there are thousand comment+ threads on gays NOT because that was the reason Heimbach was excluded. Because we now know that was not the reason. This very ugly, time-wasting infighting exists SOLELY because of the LIE broadcast by Terry and Parrott, and eagerly picked up by the SPLC and Ernst Ronin and others who share the same goal of maximum infighting, that this was about gays. Who did wrong here, Spencer or the Heimbach clique? Spencer acted within his rights and was completely honest about his reasons. (It pains me to write sentences like that.) The Heimbach clique, however, are lying and stirring the pot. Act accordingly.
Again, Matt, what side are you talking about? How do you define your sides?
Call me a partisan, I’ll call it being a mature adult who knows how to differentiate between blunt, constructive criticism and direct attacks. Clarification to an article doesn’t need to treat your delicate sensibilities like you would teat a little child who sulks and pouts when they hear the word NO. If you were offended because:
then I conclude that you probably need to be offended a thousand times more in order to grow thicker skin.
I really do believe it was “as simple as that.” But that doesn’t stop prima donnas and malcontents from claiming to be suffering from vicious attacks.
No enemy’s to or on the right is a great ideal, but it can’t work when one side won’t respect it. The moderate factions are at least as bad or worse than the most radical, rhetorically toxic WNsts when it comes to not respecting a reasonable line between peer-critic of the perceived weaknesses in an approach and industrial-war infighting for no purpose.
Liddell’s attack on Andrew Anglin is a textbook example of a pedal-to-the-medal smear job from a moderate faction. He called Anglin a Jewish agent and a nigger, without a shred of credible evidence to back it. Instead of intelligently responding to Anglin’s blunt but carefully worded peer critic of the NPI event, Liddell went for the fact-free smear.
The irony there is that Liddell’s main idea is that nationalists like Anglin reinforce enemy stereotypes. It’s amusing coming from him, when all the enemy needs to do from now until the end of time when it needs ammo to embarrass nationalists with material that conforms to stereotype IF WILLFULLY READ DISHONESTLY is go for the Liddell classic — Is Black Genocide Right?
I don’t think so.
I think there is a pink swastika clique – scratch that, I know there is a pink swastika clique – and I am familiar with their views on a range of subjects. There are male homosexuals who donate to some WN organizations, who see themselves as cultivating a new elite, and who believe they have the power to set boundaries in the movement just like big donors in the GOP.
Those people are fine with giving Jack Donovan or Guillaume Faye a platform, but see Heimbach as a fat slob who ought to be shunned. The overwhelming majority of them have an axe to grind against Christianity. They want to preserve their brand which we all know is urban, secular, cosmopolitan, and gay friendly. Lots of them have a big problem with working class bumpkins and Christians from the South and Midwest.
And that’s fine. If they want to do their own thing, let them build up their own little subculture. I certainly have no objection to them holding their own events or preserving their brand. Who the fuck cares? There are only like a dozen conferences a year, every year, so there are plenty of options to choose from. I don’t see why there should be any conflict.
That should be “peer critique” not “peer critic.” Auto-correct.
Brad, let’s just say that there really is a pink swastika clique. It still does not imply that what the Heimbach clique says about this incident is true.
If the Heimbach clique said that this was the work of the Bilderbergers, it would not prove their claim by pointing out that yes indeed, the Bilderbergers actually exist.
The claim is not that X group actually exists. The claim is that they victimized poor Matt Heimbach. And we now know that the Heimbach clique are just lying and trying to create drama and infighting.
1. There is no pink swastika clique
2. The clique did not pull the trigger
3. The clique had every right to pull the trigger
Pick one.
We didn’t start this. We didn’t escalate it. Aside from some defensive posturing in the comments and responding specifically to @HipsterRacist’s broadside, we’ve not been stoking any fires. There were more comments at Radix accusing our side of than were accusing the other side, even before the moderator tipped the scales on it (which they have every right to do on their own site, yadda yadda). And from the beginning I conceded to not knowing how much the pink swastika had to do before the fact. After the fact, they were openly pushing their agenda in the comments and my tact was to insist that they knock off their attempts to purge Heimbach.
It appears Jews aren’t the only ones who cry out as they strike you.