Unite The Right: Where Are They Now?

57 Comments

1. The problem with the right, conservatism, nationalism or any other of the labels is no one wants to win. It’s all about the grift and popularity. Our enemies don’t grift or want to be popular for the most part, they want to win by any means necessary. They have each others back while the right stabs each other in the back. Just look at the Republicans, pander, grovel, apologize and make excuses. Not too different from the “far” right.

   • One hopes for better results. If Great Replacement goes the way of pro-choice, immigration will be halted on a North American continent of 700 million, 20 percent white. I didn’t get into public activism, but I also find myself much more at peace. Less of a drive to have a Freudian slip and out myself.

   • John, yes to a large extent you are right, “No one wants to win” in the Old Conservative Sand Box.

     I’d say it’s more that:

     These Old Conservatives don’t play/fight to win or even be competitive. They keep pushing extremely unpopular economic Conservatism, belt tightening, threatening to end popular government programs like Social Security and Medicare.

     It’s similar with our situation with professional boxing, mostly heavy weight, but really all divisions.

     We haven’t had an undisputed White heavy weight American boxing champion since Rocky Marciano in the 1950s. A big part of the problem is that American boxing has been dominated by racist Blacks like Don King and Js that dislike, hate us or just favor Blacks.

     In contrast White British and White European boxers have been dominating the middle to heavier weight divisions for > 20 years. Champions like Kovalev, Calzhage, Klitschko brothers and now the Gypsy King Tyson Fury. The most successful boxing promoter in the UK is a White Anglo Gentile Frank Warren.

     In order to get White boxing champions one must fight raw talent, get good training and then arrange proper matches to prepare for championship fights. IN the USA this never happens and it’s the same in national politics.

     We keep running candidates that are just not competitive – way too old, boring public speakers, folks that just can’t play identity politics. I’ve focused on Ron and Rand Paul, really old and out of men like Rancher Cliven Bundy, senile second term Ronald Reagan and poor old Bob Dole and his socialite wife Libby Dole.

     My observation is that American national politics, especially the Presidential race isn’t a libertarian/constitutionalist debating society – it’s a horse race.

     Would anyone here really think some old and boring guy like Ron Paul could compete in a horse race against the fastest 3 year old thoroughbred horses? He would have as much chance competing in the NBA slam dunk competition.

     I highly HIGHLY recommend reading, studying and implementing the sensible tactics and just observations of both GL Rockwell and Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

     GL Rockwell “50 years of (Conservative) failure” (now 100 years).

     http://www.colchestercollection.com/titles/chunk/W/white-power/chapter12.html

   • “being propelled forward by their own momentum now. ”

     Only brutal natural forces will correct the stupidity of WHITES.
     WHITES don’t have the foresite to protect their genes.

   • ” no one wants to win. ”

     Who are you including in that ?

2. That’s great that you gave Mr. Hayden a good, clear response, Mr. W., but I personally don’t think you had to apologize for having attended Unite the Right. Not being a violent person yourself, you didn’t expect violence. You felt strongly about the rally’s goal of preserving a Confederate monument, and you expected the event to be just that, a rally. In the period that led up to the event, there were clashes with antifa–“Based Stick Man” and all that, which you seemed to find amusing–but I’ll say again: I really don’t think that that led you to realize the event would draw persons who were looking for a fight with antifa, and I think you also didn’t realize–as maybe you should have realized–that the event’s organizers were in over their heads, that they were simply playing at being rally organizers, trying to imitate leftist activists, who know all about that sort of thing. Not long after the fiasco, Andrew Anglin said something that seemed to me to sum the thing up: “We didn’t even have lawyers”—in advance, he meant.

   Now—being right-wingers, those organizers were in a position in which it would have been difficult for them to obtain able lawyers; but the problem was that they were, as I say, just amateurs, who didn’t even realize they needed lawyers and who had no sense that they should instruct the attendees not to take the antifa bait. As soon as it became clear that antifa was intent on violently blocking the rally, the organizers should have called the attendees back from the entrance to the rally site and released a public statement that they’d be suing the city for failure to provide the attendees safe passage thereto. That’s what I said here, at Occidental Dissent, immediately after the event.

   Because, as you know well enough by now, I am entirely unsympathetic to neo-Confederatism, if that’s a term, I wasn’t displeased that the rally went wrong; but I’ll say it a final time: You yourself, as far as I can tell, went there with the simple intention of exercising your Constitutional right peaceably to assemble and to express a political view. That’s nothing for which you need apologize.

   Well, that’s my feeling anyway, for whatever it’s worth.

   • “Now—being right-wingers, those organizers were in a position in which it would have been difficult for them to obtain able lawyers; but the problem was that they were, as I say, just amateurs”

     Well, it’s easy for the left to do that when you literally have Gov’t backing and deep pocketed NGOs who hire professionals to help you organize the events. There is an organization of lawyers, the name escapes me at the moment, who provide legal coverage for Leftist activists. Think they do all that for free? Someone is footing that bill. Their activists just show up and everything else is done for them. Some even get paid to show up. The right doesn’t have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of. Considering that, they did pretty well. The actual rank and file leftists probably couldn’t organize anything better than what amateurs on the right did.

     • “Considering that, they did pretty well.”

       I think I have to disagree with you on that, but what you say otherwise might be correct in its every particular. That’s irrelevant. If the right is as lacking in resources as you say it is—and as I’d agree it is—the question is what must it do to amass resources. If that’s a multiple-choice question, the correct answer is not “Learn more about small arms.”

       • “the question is what must it do to amass resources. If that’s a multiple-choice question, the correct answer is not “Learn more about small arms.”

         Well the French OAS used bank robberies to finance some of their operations. However they were an actual paramilitary organization, of which the right has, once again nothing. The Order tried that as well, and other schemes, but it didn’t work out for them either. The problem with money (if that’s what you we referring to by resources) is that the left can literally print dollars to use for their operations. There is no way you can compete with that.

         • “The problem with money (if that’s what you we referring to by resources) is that the left can literally print dollars to use for their operations. There is no way you can compete with that.”

           Well—you can’t compete with it if you’re not prosperous enough to contend with them for control of the society.

     • @Adit,

       It is the National Lawyers Guild and The People’s Law Group that provides pro bono legal representation for both fagtifa and burn, loot, and murder.

       • Lawyers Guild and The People’s Law Group that

         Who funds them ?.
         I have suspicions.

         • Who funds them ? The (((same folks))) who fund both Antifa and BLM. They’ve set themselves up yet another self-licking ice-cream cone with gangs of violent thugs who are defended by offices full of (((lawyers))) working for the cause (exterminating YT). Then there’s the overlay of the old ‘Jewish Lightning’ racket with BLM looting Geldenscheiss & Merdedor’s high end retail store who collects from from Schlomo Insurance while Schmuel’s pawn shop pays the looters pennies on the dollar for the takings. Such a deal!

   • “Well, that’s my feeling anyway, for whatever it’s worth.” @ Bonaccorsi

     Your feeling is highly valuable, I’m sure everyone in the movement has paid attention to your feelings and ideas. The leaders of the movement e.g. Hunter Wallace, Andrew Anglin. Richard Spencer, Fr.+ John, appreciate your contributions in the struggle, Mr. Bonaccorsi.

     The kids are now definitely on the path to victory since “now that basic concepts like the Great Replacement, Christian nationalism and secession are no longer marginal and taboo.”

     Amazingly the astonishing victory was achieved with pretty much no sacrifice besides the time spent in writing childish gibberish on the web.

     • @Puppy,

       I’ll let HW speak for himself, but I do not believe that he enjoys being lumped in with Andre Anglin and Lord Dick Spencer. Also, HW doesn’t consider himself a “leader in the movement,” instead he is simply a historicist and political commentator.

       • Bingo.

         I have little in common with those two. I have even less in common with people like MILO. I’ve learned something from the experience though which is to avoid identifying with movements and labels. It is far better to just be a social commentator who runs a blog on the internet.

         I have never expressed any desire to be a leader of anything. That’s a job for people who have a different skill set.

         • “That’s a job for people who have a different skill set.”

           And mucho resources, either their own or their benefactors.

     • I’m having trouble gauging your sarcasm and determining its target. If I’m it, well, maybe I deserve to be.

   • @John Bonaccorsi I largely agree with you, right wing activists were no there for make violence and the presence of far-left and antifa was a trap, i also agree with you with the fact that the organizers, a lot of them, were a fraud and so people have not to apologize for being there to defend monuments. I just have a question, I am simply curious I don’t want to be controversial: Why you’re now unsympathetic to neo-Confederatism?? do you think now that confederates were all criminals and that tear down monuments was and is correct?? Mine is only a question my friend, i’m simply curious. 🙂

     • If, its length notwithstanding, my comment below will be posted by Mr. W., our host here, at Occidental Dissent, then I’ll hope, Marcel, that it answers your question.

       No, I don’t think of the Confederates as having been criminals; I simply think that slavery was their cause and that it was a bad cause. There are, as you know, persons—nearly all though maybe not exclusively Southerners—who would disagree with me on both those points. They’d say, in other words, either that slavery was not the cause or that slavery was not objectionable. Not only do I not agree with them; I don’t think it’s a trivial question. That was why, as Unite the Right was approaching, I posted here, at Occidental Dissent, a few comments in which I emphasized that it was not a pro-white rally but, rather, a pro-Confederate rally (or a Southern Nationalist rally, which is the term I used). I stated, I’m pretty sure, that any person who’d attend the rally would be, in effect, endorsing slavery. It seemed to me that Mr. W. shared that view, though he did not express it, and that the fact pleased him. He regarded it as a gain for Southern Nationalism that Unite the Right would effectively confer on it legitimacy, as if it were no different from any other nationalism, as if its being inseparable from support of slavery were of no great importance, just a sort of cultural detail. He was right, and that’s why I was glad the rally turned out to be a fiasco, an eruption of barbarism.

       It would be accurate to say, too, I think, with respect to our host, that he has argued more than once here, at Occidental Dissent, that modern liberalism was born from abolitionism, that in America, at least, abolitionism was its first manifestation, whence the liberals moved on to other crusades, after the North’s victory in the war of 1861-65. I find that argument unconvincing. The black slavery on which much of the first several centuries of Europeans’ activity in the Americas was based must be assessed, in my view, strictly apart from any other question. To me, it was simply unfair. You had, in Africa, a people whose way of life was quite different from the way of life of the Europeans who began encountering them in, I guess, the latter 1400s. They were helpless before the might of the Europeans who happily regarded them simply as a commercial asset. In a sense, many of their descendants, in present-day America, are similarly helpless. They find it impossible to get their footing in, to fit into, the civilization to which their ancestors were dragged; then, when they flounder in it, they are sometimes mocked, for their haplessness, by descendants of those who did the dragging. That’s right: descendants of persons who said blacks deserved to be enslaved because they could not otherwise fit into civilization mock them, for not fitting into civilization.

       In a way, the Confederacy doomed Southerners, as it seems to me, doomed them to eternal exclusion from the West. Merely to acknowledge any Western glory other than the antebellum, commodities-producing South is virtually impossible for them—psychologically impossible, I mean—because it involves, in effect, a concession that the Confederacy’s position was a bad one and that the West that moved on from the age of slavery is good for having moved on so. What, at bottom, can a Southerner admire in, for example, Americans’ triumphant transformation of California into an Anglo-Saxon wonderland in the twentieth century (even though transplanted Southerners themselves might have played a large part in that)? Oh, yes, Southerners can speak negatively of California’s more-recent transformation by liberalism—because that liberalism, in their minds, can be equated with the abolitionism whose moral view they can’t share, whose adherents defeated them, but that’s it. Think of that: the splendid California that gave birth, in large measure, to the internet via which they post their Confederatism before all the world is something they can’t allow themselves to appreciate at all. Even words like “industry,” “manufacturing” stick in their throats, while “secession,” even if it doesn’t quite mean Southern secession, is a word Mr. W. delights to hear and invoke. The only thing of which Southerners can sing favorably, in the country music I sometimes hear on loudspeakers in places other than my own residence, is topsoil—the “North Carolina dirt” or whatever it is they’re singing about.

       As to the Confederate statues, in particular, yes, I shared the view that every one of them should be removed, though not by mob action. I doubt there was ever a time that I regarded them as anything other than passive-aggressive Confederatism, dishonestly defended as a mere element of Southern culture or heritage—like grits. I’m sure many a Confederate partisan of the present day would be glad to go to Newburyport, Massachusetts—where, as I happened to learn late in my life, a distant maternal relative of mine lived—to deface or tear down the statue of William Lloyd Garrison, the abolitionist who was born there and who made good, across a third of a century, his commitment to bring American slavery to an end. I personally would be unhappy to see such a partisan manage to do that. Garrison—that’s my kind of Civil War hero.

       • @John Bonaccorsi First of all thank you for your answer, i like to have peaceful conversation with people, even and especially with people who think different than me. I have never been scared or afraid to deal with people who think different than me, i’m strong enought not to be manipulated and brainwashed, even if the tie me to a chair and bombing me with liberal woke propaganda or false compassion. That said i respectfully disagree with you, if you have ever read any of my comments on this website you know that i love history and that cancel culture and history are important points that make me follow politic and stand against wokism. I find reasonable your point that slavery is not good and condemnable, but i try to explain you why i still respect confederates: first of all, the fact that all confederates were slave owner is false, several of them probably were slave owner but there were a part of them who simply wanted the secession from the union (and this is not the “lost cause myth” like leftists call it); the second objection to your point is that slavery was not born with confederate american history….. slavery was present in the ancient world (Achaemenid Empire, Roman empire, China, Egypt, Aztec and Maya empire and even in African reigns before european came to Africa), medieval world, etc. Also is not only a white european institution because africans, asians and other non european had slavery institution, you can read the historian of Cambridge David Abulafia which is not a right -wing historian or racist but who is honest about this; The third point is this: are we sure that tear down monuments solve anything? Stop the supposed or presumed hate? NO. It is only an ignorant and vulgar action for two reasons: first because history has to be understood, it has to be contextualised and it has to be understood that people in different periods of time reasoned differently (otherwise we have to destroy roman monuments or greek or aztec monuments because they did slavery and violence) and second because i can understand if you destroy or remove a Robert Lee monument in Washington or Detroit (north cities), because in that case the monument of Lee would be out of context, but in Virginia, in the south is normal that there are monuments of confederates, its their history, those men were there ancestors and no one should be ashamed of its ancestor because we know that these argument is complex like other history arguments.
         Anyway this is only what i think, i want only to share peacefully my point of view.

         • @Marcel

           Thank you for your response to JBP. You have just exposed the hypocritical Yankee for all to see. None of my words are acceptable to him because he knows that I know and believe that God and His Word actually sanctions slavery and it is NOT a sin which he believes IS A SIN. That’s the cornerstone of the Yankee Empire secular religion — abolition — which has “anti-racism” and “wokeism” built on top of it. The Yankee North believes their beat down and total destruction of the old South was ordained by God because of slavery. They will never understand it until their beloved Yankee Empire is totally defeated, beaten down, starved half to death with their survivors taken captive and made to serve others as slaves and finally set free when they turn from their sins.

           Thanks again.

         • Thanks for your reply, Marcel. Rather than reply, in turn, to the points you’ve raised, I’ll simply leave our exchange as it is. We’ve addressed enough subjects for the moment, I think, and I’m happy to have discussed them with you.

       • @Bonaccorsi: Here’s a question for you as you seem to have done some of your own studying on the issue of the US civil war.

         Why did the United States – alone among the countries where slavery was practiced – have to have a massive damned war over the issue?

         Even Brazil, who imported many times more African slaves than were brought into North America, managed to end the practice through legislation (plus some sort of compensation to the owners) just over 20 years after the end of the conflict in the US (1888). There was little violence resulting from the abolition, though Brazil is a fairly violent country overall. They were the last country in the western hemisphere to end it.

         Most of Central and South America outlawed it long before the US (1810s to 1830s) – again with scant violence. There was clearly a legislative attempt to gradually restrict and ultimately outlaw the practice in the US starting with the Missouri compromise of 1820. This ended up being derailed by the radical abolitionists in the north and the radical “fire-eaters” in the south after the Mexican War. It would be interesting to read your take on it.

         • “This ended up being derailed by the radical abolitionists in the north and the radical ‘fire-eaters’ in the south after the Mexican War.”

           What you say there, Exalted Cyclops, is quite like something I myself said here, at Occidental Dissent, oh, many years ago, when I was first commenting here and had little sense of the difference between North and South. (Mr. W., our host, might not remember the time I said to him something like, “I’m getting the feeling there’s a large black population in your state.” That would be Alabama. “Duh,” he replied.)

           I don’t know the answer to your question. You had those two groups, at the two ends of the dispute, and nobody who tried to broker a compromise was able to get political traction. That’s my sense of it, anyway. How do you explain that? I don’t know, especially when we consider that there seems to have been, throughout Europe, a political turn against slavery, as the chronology you cite suggests.

           Since I know very little about the history of the European colonies in this hemisphere, I’m pretty-much taking a wild guess when I wonder whether the British colonies on the American mainland were more like settlements than mere agricultural colonies. That’s a wild guess, as I say, because maybe the equivalent could be said of, say, Brazil. If you’ve read “Jane Eyre”—and, well, I’m going from vague memory of the book—Mr. Rochester, who is part of England’s “landed gentry,” I guess you would say, has holdings in the Caribbean, I think. I’m pretty sure the book, though published in 1847, is set in an indeterminate and even inconsistently-detailed period decades earlier. What struck me about that, as I was reading the book—if I was understanding it—is that the property he controlled in the Caribbean was thousands of miles from England. He’d just go there from time to time, to check on it—I think. If that’s how life was in England at that time, then slaveholding, in the minds of the English, would have been, I don’t know, something that was practiced far away, not in England itself. Maybe that’s how it seemed throughout Europe, even with respect to a large, mainland colony like Brazil. Here in what is now the U.S., on the other hand, the slaveholding was being practiced “at home,” so to speak. Maybe that made it harder to throw slavery overboard here. I don’t know—just a guess.

           An odd thing, by the way—if the little I’ve read on the subject is accurate—is that the South’s slaveholders actually did treat the South like a distant colony. They had their overseers down there, to keep things running, but they themselves would be living up here, in Philadelphia or some other Northern city. This is said by—oh, what’s her name—the actress who was the grandmother of Owen Wister, who, circa 1900, wrote The Virginian. Just give me a minute, I’m going to check Wikipedia.

           Fanny Kemble. She married a Southern big-money dude, with plenty of slaves. He was a big supporter of the Confederacy—but he spent the whole Civil War up here, in Philadelphia, I think. That is really weird.

   • Re Charlottesville and similar, the problem of ‘not having lawyers’ is indeed a giant one, but the problem is not only one of money – tho for sure the system is doing its best to deprive rightoids of resources.

     The problem is that the US legal ‘profession’ of 1-million-plus lawyers has been cucked into fear and submission. If you know some lawyers well, they will quietly explain this to you. Under the media radar – and including some ‘leftist’ cases as well – lawyers are attacked, disbarred, even jailed if they go off the reservation. They are NOT ALLOWED to truly defend clients who are politically targeted. The ‘law’ is run by a mafia of judges and senior wealthy lawyers who work for the oligarchy. Half the lawyers submit to the mafia, the other half accept they can’t fight it. Lawyers often make fake promises of defending a client strongly in order to steal the client’s money, but then act weak and limp-wristed, selling the client down the river.

     Lawyers are often disbarred for reasons superficially disconnected to the political case that trigger their downfall. The bar associations etc. keep huge files of complaints about lawyers. Most of the time, nothing is done. But it is a ‘control file’ – if a lawyer misbehaves politically, old complaints are pulled out and suddenly the lawyer is accused of ‘misconduct’ and disbarred for some trivia.

     That is why poor, mentally-troubled James Fields of the Charlottesville events, tho having excellent grounds of defence due to his being violently attacked by Antifa, did not have decent lawyers jump in for his initial ‘trial’, tho in a normal society conservative lawyers would have jumped in to defend Fields at no charge just for the free media. But lawyers knew the ‘fix was in’. And Fields was stuck with a ‘public defender’ linked to the local legal mafia.

     Meme on James Fields and his sentence of life plus 419 years, compared to the case of Jewish Lizzie Grubman, who yelled ‘F-ck you white trash’, and rammed her Mercedes SUV into a crowd injuring 16 … 38 days in jail for the Jewess
     https://i.postimg.cc/WzdqGHRG/james-fields-and-lizzie-grubman.jpg

     • “The problem is that the US legal ‘profession’ of 1-million-plus lawyers has been cucked into fear and submission.”

       Maybe that’s true, balticus, but that problem is itself downstream of money. Who scorns money scorns life itself.

3. The obsession with race over faith and massive infiltration is what killed the movement. There simply isn’t gonna be a rebirth of Jim Crow. The quicker you realize that the sooner you can live a normal life, and treat people as human beings not as aliens that need to be separated by physical appearance.

   • Antiracism is a psychopathology, one that, in the modern West, has gone pandemic, rather as Christianity went pandemic in the ancient world.

     • @John Bonaccorsi,

       Whip smart and accurate analogy of antiracism and Christianity. Edward Gibbins would agree.

   • Jim Crow has better odds of coming back before Jesus does.

     • Jim crow will never work, only total separation.

   • Are you or have you ever been born between 1946 & 1964?

   • Orthodox Brooklyn Slumlord,

     Human beings and extraterrestrial biological organisms (“aliens) by their origins and physical appearance would be considered to be of separate taxonomy. Why subspecies of Homo sapiens who have different life history strategies, propensity for criminal behavior, mean IQ differences in cognition, and multiple physical and mental predispositions shouldn’t also be separated makes no rational sense. Your goal is the dissolution of European kind by integration and subsequent miscegenation. No thanks.

     • There is no such thing as subspecies of humans there is only 1 species of human. IQ determinism has also been debunked several times. A persons IQ is not determined by what “race” he is designated with at birth. Criminal behavior is due to a number of factors but your race is not a determining factor. I suggest to look at current science / anthropology and not outdated debunked pseudoscience.

       • “There is no such thing as subspecies of humans there is only 1 species of human.”

         You seem to have meant to say, “There are no such things as subspecies of humans; there is only one, undivided human species.”

         Regardless, I suspect there are scientists who’d question whether there’s just one human species—though they’re unlikely to question it out loud. I personally regard the Aryan not merely as a distinct species, or even a distinct genus, family, order, class or phylum, but as the first member of a new kingdom.

   • OS:

     “There simply isn’t gonna be a rebirth of Jim Crow.”

     You don’t know the Holy Scriptures. One day slavery itself is going to return following the return of Jesus Christ who will allow regathered Israel to take and possess servants once again. Can’t wait to see that stunned, sick look on your “woke”, liberal face, should we still be alive at that time, race hustler. You are the one who is obsessing over race.

     Isaiah 14:1-3 (KJV)
     1 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
     2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SHALL POSSESS THEM IN THE LAND OF THE LORD FOR SERVANTS AND HANDMAIDS: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
     3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve…

     The South was Right! There was no prohibition against slavery or secession in the Constitution and there is no prohibition against slavery of secession in the Holy Bible!

     Secede now!

     May God Save the South!

     • As Orthodox we believe at Pentecost the curse of separation from the Tower of Babel was undone. God is no respecter of persons and if you promote hate, division, oppression of race then you won’t make it to heaven.

       • @OS

         Okay, you show me in the Holy Scriptures where slavery is a sin and the Scriptures that actually promote abolition. No links. Just KJV Scripture.

4. In regard to the shekel funded anti-White NGO, Jared Taylor’s baby momma Evelyn Rich chose the splc to deny the charges of her being a jewess by the DR in 2016. Of all places, Ms. Rich used an organization that literally tracks the dwindling White gentile percentage of the US population with hand rubbing glee to declare her gentile bona fides.

   Anyway, it is a short and revealing letter that doesn’t imho clear Ms. Rich of what she has been accused of (e.g., No documentation on her maternal side of her family, as we all know it is the maternal side that automatically makes a child considered jewish or not).
   read://https_www.splcenter.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.splcenter.org%2Fhatewatch%2F2016%2F05%2F04%2Fsetting-record-straight-longtime-partner-jared-taylor-addresses-white-nationalist-criticism

   • “as we all know it is the maternal side that automatically makes a child considered jewish or not”

     That’s only among orthodox.

5. I’m not surprised to see normalfags radicalizing. With the rampant online censorship, the Floyd riots, the questionable election, the covid lockdowns/“vaccine” mandates, CRT in education, the J6 response, LGBT grooming, the record levels of inflation, and just generally how disgusting, disingenuous, & violent the left is, I’d be more surprised if normies weren’t. The left made the radicalization inevitable.

   The only thing surprising to me is seeing mainstream figures on establishment media making quasi-alt-right talking points: Charley Kirk condemning the separation of church & state, Matt Walsh sounding almost like a white nationalist these days, Tucker repeatedly addressing the Great Replacement along with Kirk & Walsh. What gives? Is the Zionist occupied right cutting some slack to their goyim pundits/influencers? Are they pivoting? Or is their control just not that strong? They could very easily address the border crisis & immigration without framing it as the Great Replacement, so I don’t get it. Mainstream figures addressing it that way is doing no favors to the alleged motives of the alleged people who control the right.

   • I heard Tom Luongo on Rense say that this is due to Wall Street banks backing resistance to the Davos agenda.

     Trying to preserve US military strength, perhaps.

     • Watching Roe Vs Wade get overturned was surprising. Some might dismiss it as a deliberate spectacle to trick the right into getting their hopes up or to fire up the leftwing base or whatever, but I just don’t know about it. A lot of people on the right are understandably paranoid about the amount of power these left globalists/Jews/Davos Forum types have and sort of perceive the ruling class as uniformly under the control of these types – some people even going as far as asserting there is already a One World Government with Russia & China already under globalist control in which the clashes between them is all a facade. But this sentiment may be largely the consequence of them currently having a monopoly over the media & academia as well as cultural domination in the corporate world. But maybe the upper class isn’t as uniform as what the media would want you to believe. It would be understandable that there be some intelligent people who aren’t enthusiastic about the world the left globalists are creating. Revolutions require splintering within the elite and its hard to think of a worse sales pitch than what the WEF has to offer:

       • you will own nothing
       • you will have no basic human rights
       • you will have no security or privacy
       • you will be a despised & spat upon minority
       • a social credit system that will destroy anyone who challenges the status quo
       • a central bank digital currency with complete control over your spending & could result in your assets evaporating with a touch of a button
       • you will live on a diet of bugs while a small club of billionaire gay nerds jet set around the world (and I don’t think they’re bluffing about the bugs)

       So yeah, some people not being on board with this is hardly surprising. But what is the composition of these people? What are their motives? To what extent are Jews involved? Are there Zionist Jews out there who don’t want to burn down the West (if only for the fear of the parasite killing the host or to just maintain control over an inevitable white uprising)? Cuz listening to mainstream conservative figures talk of the Great Replacement is baffling to me.

6. First of all Brad thank you for your consistency and commitment, not only in the streets but especially for this website, and I don’t say this to be pandering or ass-kissing, as I also say things that are unconventional for our environment, as for example I still hold Jeff Schoep in high esteem after speaking to him via email and realising that he is denouncing antifa and the faults of the left (although he has changed he has not gone over to the enemy, just as others have not gone over to the enemy). Unlike you, regarding Charlottesville, I think it was yes a very high price to pay for the right, but I don’t judge it a mistake. I am telling you this as someone who lives in Europe, therefore abroad compared to America, Charlottesville galvanised and excited many here in Europe, myself included. That’s because it was the strongest and most symbolic signal the right has given after at least eight years of cancel culture and woke culture. To many of us abroad you were and have represented brave Americans defending their history from something as crazy as the erasure of history and damnatio memoriae (and I say this as a history graduate). You were the ones who decided at that moment to say no more to the bullying and arrogance of the stupidest left ever. Then OK, some statues were knocked down anyway, but it is not true that it was a defeat, because you showed that you fought and did not stand there and watch them knock down your roots and do nothing. Obviously the price to pay was high because when you are in a battle there is always a price to pay, but the left has also paid the price for its battles on many occasions. I would like to thank all those on this website who fight to remember the past without shame, to preserve the present with courage and to move towards a better future, to ensure a better future for this world (the western world) that has gone completely mad and fallen apart.

7. “””….We wanted society to change … “””

   Without C’ville, probably society never changed. C’ville was the catalyst what really launched liberal madness and all the rest is already consequences. C’ville was second important event after electing Trump.

   It was like Munich putsch. Some people dead, some people in jail including führer himself. But that put snowball rolling.

8. The anons are still going strong, as the worst we have suffered is being banned.

   The progressives used to know that we humans hate hypocrites, as they have been very good at pointing out hypocrisy among their opponents. They still try to do this, but for one it’s now imagined hypocrisy because they are living in a media simulacra, and secondly they don’t even know that they look like hypocrites themselves to the ones not living in a world where truth is determined by the regime media and the twitterati.

   How Mike Hayden et al have done their best to destroy lives of pro-whites that dared use their own name and speak publicly, all the time while they are paid by big business and NGOs, looks disgusting to normal people. The progressives can’t even talk about this without being punished for being an nazi apologist, so it’s little chance that they will update policies that are counterproductive from their POV.

9. Jews could have just accepted that Trump won 2016 fair and square and resorted to their usual politicking and media tactics but instead they lost it completely.

   They know they can’t go back now so they’re openly using Bolshevik tactics against Trump/supporters.

   The rule of law envisioned by the Anglo Saxon founders is not in their gene pool and the mask is fully off.

   We’re getting really close to elected politicians possibly naming them.

   It’s still quite a long shot but the awareness is spreading rapidly.

   Many conservative normies are now starting to accept the fact of Jewish subversion but still oppose socialism.

   For purists, that’s not enough but it’s a win in my view.

   • The unhinged rage of Ron Perlman types was unwarranted by the biggest philo-Semite of all time

10. Unite The Right was overwhelmed by vastly greater forces $$$ , hired thugs and controlled politicians.

    The cards were stacked and game rigged before they ever sat down at the table.

11. I didn’t attend but I watched a lot of Hunter Wallace’s livestream @ Charlottesville.

    Hunter Wallace/Brad Griffin conducted himself honorably from what I saw and does not deserve any flak from the marxist, liberal, anti-White Communists at SPLC and other Jew organizations who hate our history/our heritage/our very existence.

    So all you dystopian ministers of “truth” go spin your commie lies elsewhere.

    • I naively went to Charlottesville under the assumption that we had the legal right to be there. I wasn’t accustomed to “law enforcement” as it is now practiced in Blue States and Deep Blue cities.

      • @HW

        All of you walked into an ambush/setup planned/funded/manned/executed by Soros and every anti-White organization in the world (even the Swamp itself) with all commie/marxist/anti-White/anti-South hands on deck with a very devoted accomplice in the M$M to make sure these anti-Christian globalists’ lies all seemed to be “truth”.

        I wish every Southerner would read and internalize what really happened in Charlottesville instead of the Left’s version of the story. I think I will read again Dr. Clyde Wilson’s daughter’s account of what really happened at Charlottesville (events which you published on OD in real time on while it was real news actually happening live) to make sure none of the actual TRUTH is lost.

        Charlottesville Untold — Inside Unite the Right
        by Anne Wilson Smith

        https://shotwellpublishing.com/charlottesville-untold

        I know you need a break from it and deservedly so.

      • It’s pretty simple anybody who went to Charlottesville was either an idiot/and or mentally ill, a criminal, or a paid actor/informant.

        • yes on the left side, sorry but defend monuments and history from madness is not wrong.

        • @OS

          There were those coming on OD like yourself sowing discord trying to discourage anyone from showing up. One in particular was called out and accused of being a gov’t informant just before August 12th. Are you one? Now I know you are an arrogant demon know-it-all from Satan but I am talking about the Yankee Empire.

      • No one predicted that that authorities would throw out the agreed security plan, fail to police the event, allow antifa free range to attack rally goers, & after a state of emergency is declared allow antifa to parade around the streets attacking people who were trying to get to their cars. The Heaphy Report is damning as is the footage (when examined). Two police chiefs fired.

        James Kirkpatrick noted that Trump at the time was one of the few people who was actually paying attention to what was happening. “Journalists” promoted a fictional alternative-to-reality narrative.

        But do the public get what happened?