For those familiar with the movement’s backroom bullshit, Alex Linder occupies a unique niche in the pro-White universe. He’s among our most gifted rhetoricians but has virtually no visibility outside the stuckment. This is partially due to his lack of involvement in street activism, but it’s primarily due to his mission: protecting the White Right from Jewish subversion and perversion through attacking and exposing those who deviate from his insistence on naming the Jew, identifying the Jew as the single causative factor of our plight to the virtual exclusion of all others, and avoiding compromise with or engagement with the Jew.
My number has come up for one of his famous roasts, with a long and growing thread dedicated to evaluating me: Matt Parrott, AmRen Censorship, CMS Gatekeeping. I do fail to meet his purity standards, and he was bound to figure that out sooner or later, and I was resigned to suffer this rite of passage in silence. I have, after all, fraternized with Jews and non-Whites to various extents in the past and am liable to do so again.
I’m responding despite my better judgment for two reasons: Linder makes some claims which are wrong enough to be refuted and asks some questions which are important enough to answer…
Is Matt Parrott a “Holocaust” Affirmer?
This is pretty much true. While I know that it has been exaggerated and exploited for political and cultural gain I do believe that Jewish non-combatants were systematically persecuted and killed in a manner that meets the UN’s definition of genocide. I believe it was both morally and tactically wrong to do so, and I believe it’s tactically misguided to actively engage this issue in contemporary outreach efforts through “historical revisionist” efforts.
I’ve more completely elaborated on my position in this old piece at OD: Holocaust Denial as Strategic Buffoonery.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we should abide the brainwashing and blood libel which comes shrink-wrapped with the “Holocaust”. There were plenty of other genocides in the 20th century, and the Jewish people can and should be held accountable for the genocides they helped orchestrate. Their lies and exaggerations should be thrown back in their faces. Holding the very people who defeated NS accountable for exaggerated parodies of the crimes they committed is the height of chutzpah, and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Critically evaluating the “Holocaust” is poor strategy when it comes to reaching persuadables, but historians have every right to study whatever they want and arrive at whatever conclusions they come to. They should be defended from physical and legal threats against them when they do so. Those who are angry at me for being “soft” on the “Holohoax” should note that I hosted David Irving in my apartment because anti-White thugs were throwing bricks through the windows of his venues and making physical threats against him. While I continue to refrain from dredging up WWII trivia, I will also continue to defend the rights of those who choose to do so—and not only with mere words.
Does Matt Parrott Censor People Who Name the Jews?
With the exception of a commenter named Jupiter (who isn’t even critical of Jews), I haven’t deleted any comments which weren’t clearly misaligned with the editorial policies of the site in question. In the case of my relatively brief tenure as an AmRen moderator, this did indeed involve deleting comments critical of Jewry. While I’m not a “moderator” at TOO, I have from time to time “cleaned up the comments”. This has exclusively consisted of removing comments which are obsessively repetitive, incoherent, vulgar, or spam.
There is indeed a value judgment that goes into such decisions, something every comment moderator is familiar with. After all, one man’s “vulgar” is another man’s “frank”. Incoherent people can’t help being incoherent, and I may well be incoherent relative to more coherent folks. My only advice here is to save copies of your comments locally and go directly to the site’s editor with the comment which was “moderated” if you feel you’ve been inappropriately censored.
While imaginations get carried away, “rogue moderators” exist and moderators who are either intentionally or unintentionally making decisions which are incompatible with the editorial policy happen. Moderators come and go, and they’re often anonymous “volunteers” who haven’t revealed themselves to the commenting community. The active moderator may not be who you think it is, and more often than not, the comment merely landed in the “Pending” bucket and will be posted when the moderator gets around to sifting through the bucket.
If you’re angry about the site’s editorial policy itself, such as AmRen’s decision to be welcoming to Jews, then that’s not really between you and the moderator. That’s between you and the site. It’s not a secret that criticizing Jews is unwelcome there, and I’m baffled that people spend the time to write something that’s foreordained to get deleted, then become angry when the inevitable occurs.
Regarding my own brief tenure as an AmRen moderator, my moderation of anti-Jewish comments was not due to a principled rejection of anti-Jewish comments but due to a principled acceptance of the terms of my “employment”. I was just following orders. While I both approve of criticizing Jewry and do plenty of it myself, I support sites and projects which choose not to do so from time to time. Having myself passed through a phase where I was not aware of the scope and nature of the Jewish Problem, I see the value in maintaining an array of discursive spaces—including those I’m not entirely in agreement with.
Pearson’s Law: Any organization that does not overtly and explicitly exclude jews will in time be subverted and taken over by them.
I believe this is true, presuming of course that the organization in question matters. Until that happens, the organization can still be a useful vehicle. Any bread which is left out will in time become moldy, but one can still enjoy a slice of it while it’s still edible. There can and should be an inner party which overtly and explicitly excludes not only Jews but everybody else who adheres to a separate tribe or tradition.
Until such an organization exists and is viable, those attempting to move forward have no choice but to rely on the vehicles that exist—and do their best to try to steer them in the right direction. That’s not really a sustainable solution, and what we really need is an organization which exists and is viable. Having come of age after National Alliance imploded, I haven’t had much choice but to try to do the best with what we’ve got.
Linder: “I have to wonder at the naivete of MacDonald, as I’ve mentioned many times before, in not understanding why Jared Taylor would completely ignore the causative role of jews in bringing about the 1965 immigration revolution, and shift the blame entirely onto Kennedy and da libruls. And at least one person is accusing Parrott of doing the same thing.”
I’ve directly named the Jew on the subject of American immigration policy repeatedly. For example, I posed the question about the 1965 immigration act and followed it up with a link to MacDonald’s comprehensive analysis here. Last year, I wrote the following…
Americans have consistently voted for restricting immigration, even legal immigration, to no avail. The lax laws themselves were imposed on an unwilling nation by a Jewish elite hellbent on weakening our traditional White American ethnonational foundation. I recommend that you read Professor Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique for a complete analysis of this well-documented usurpation.
Note how every step of the way, Linder makes assumptions about my positions then carelessly extrapolates from those assumptions.
Linder: Yeah…so what we’re seeing is the Polished Turd is insinuated through the various foundations and sites and publications of the Regnery family. And some of his associates, like apparently Parrott is, move freely between the posers at alt-right, and some of the more WN sites like KM’s site(s). What does it mean? I don’t know, beyond the fact that whatever real WN leadership exists in this warren is not observing the principle of excluding jews and jew-excusers.
I’m neither a Jew nor a Jew-excuser. I’ve extensively criticized Jews as a movement and specific Jews engaged in anti-White behavior repeatedly, on a variety of sites and in a variety of contexts.
Hadding: Parrott is one of these people who thinks that what’s wrong with Jews is that they didn’t accept Christianity. They are “Pharisees.”
Jews are by definition a different tribe and ethnic nation from my tribe and ethnic nation. The final bottom line for me is that I’m an ethnic nationalist and while I can and will ally with and cooperate with those who belong to different nations, only Americans of overwhelmingly European descent can—as a matter of identity—be my comrades. Jews are unique in their hostility to us, and I do believe that religious differences partially explain that, but the core issue is that of identity, not religion.
Linder: Who are “we” anyway? Would Parrott exclude jews from that we?
“We” are Christians, pagans, and skeptics in America who are of overwhelmingly European descent. That’s my “tribe”, as I define it. My ethnonational tribe is not inclusive of Jews.
Linder: The only thing to observe is that VNN, or at least my approach, is principled and non-hypocritical, whereas the opposite is true for the Parrotts and people they work for: they are unprincipled, AND they are intolerant while pretending to tolerate different approaches.
I’ve not bothered VNN. Evidently, Linder barely knew I existed until recently, so his attempts to frame me as attempting to attack him or VNN are baseless. While Linder would like to believe that I object to his having principles, my reason for avoiding him and his site has to do with his hobby of attacking pro-White activists. His ready, fire, aim approach to enforcing anti-Jewish orthodoxy includes—as has been demonstrated here—gathering up every accusation out there (including a good share which are tangential to his principles), then throwing them and seeing what sticks.
Linder: Lindbergh couldn’t win with 90% of the public on his side, a reputation that no amount of jew-controlled mass media could destroy, and a more civilized, intelligent public. Yet in a truly dumbass maneuver, A3P resurrects this political loser and puts him on their banner. Every indication is thereby given: we won’t fight if it gets dirty. We’re gentlemen here. We’re polite. We won’t bite or gouge in the clinch. We’re content to lose and say, gosh darn it, we sure gave it the old college try, we did. Parrott is, far as I can tell, 100% suffused with this mentality, and the proof is the lies he helps the jews further about ‘the’ ‘Holocaust.’
I won’t back down and haven’t backed down. Being a gentleman isn’t about adhering to a self-destructive protocol. Being a gentleman requires that one defend his family and country at all costs—by any means necessary. What does it take? Childish epithets make us look stupid and play into the frame our enemies have constructed. If shouting “nigger” was what it took to secure a future for our children, I would shout it with all my heart.
It’s not. I’m trying to deliver a message when I write and speak publicly, to an audience which is conditioned to be repulsed by certain keywords. You make a case that it’s necessary to assert social dominance through refusing to accept their taboos. This is superficially plausible, but I believe there are ways to demonstrate fearlessness and confidence which don’t carry the risk of striking the target audience as pathological and pathetic.
My strategy is polarization, and that begins by attacking conservatives, not mixing them. It would be interesting to see someone who disagrees explain why I’m wrong, but I don’t expect that to happen.
I’ll take a crack at it…
I do not believe that VNN has the institutional maturity necessary to benefit from polarizing the discourse. Virtually everybody who’s trying to balance between the two stools at this stage is going to retreat to the opposing side or retreat from the fight altogether. The net effect is a general weakening of the pro-White and Jew-wise faction with each attack.
In theory, it seems like a sensible strategy. In practice, it results in a chilling effect on White Advocacy, with those who are still invested to some degree in the current system being forced prematurely to stand on either a sturdy evil stool or on a wobbly broken VNN stool. Anybody who either tactically or ideologically fails to pull off a singular leap from the anti-White stool to the pro-White and Jew-wise VNN-approved stool will be in the line of fire from both sides.
Actually, it’s even worse than that. You even target those who are solidly in our pro-White and Jew-wise camp like KMac for petty reasons which have nothing to do with your cherished “principles”.
What if the NSM does have the right approach, and the Reggies don’t?
I don’t bash the NSM. The few times I’ve mentioned them in passing, I’ve noted that they are indeed taking street-level advocacy seriously.
What this ilk ignores is that every single day our children are hectored in public school with lessons about or based on jewish lies about what Germans did to them in WWII.
This can be challenged with a handful of simple talking points which serve to reject the centrality and gravity of the episode rather than hugging the tar baby.
WN should ATTRACT, not appeal. We should not appeal to what we can do for people, but attract them to our supermodel cause. Of course it’s in their petty interests, but that aint the main point – the glorious stuff is – bossing our own country, living the way WE want to live. The very biggest things, not the small stuff that is the staple of democratic pandering.
We should both make appeals and be attractive, though I agree that being attractive is more important than appealing to base considerations. I also agree that abiding by firm principles is essential to winning admiration. You tirelessly strive to frame this as a matter of you being a big tragic martyr for your principles while the rest of us are unprincipled. I also have principles, they’re just slightly different.
Namely, I’m willing to consider Jews and non-Whites allies but not comrades (and only at arm’s length) if they genuinely respect me and my people (defined as non-Jewish Americans of overwhelmingly European descent). I’m also willing to ride along in a vehicle which doesn’t explicitly exclude Jews and/or non-Whites if that vehicle is heading in a pro-White direction if that’s the only vehicle available in the situation.
So when a prince of paper like Parrott acts all cocky, I feel the echo. Because we now know, and I had long suspected, that Turner was employed by the enemy. I don’t actually have the same feeling about Parrott, but after seeing that comment, the question is now open in my mind.
I have an extensive record of street activism, directly confronting antifa and standing my ground with an explicitly pro-White message to large crowds of non-White protesters. Does Linder have a straight face when he contrasts me with himself and concludes that I’m the scribbler? He’s now speculating that I’m a government asset for no other reason than that I got a bit bold for a spell in one thread? Does he have a straight face when he does that while acting like I’m the one who’s somehow mistreating him?
The bottom line is this: WN will not begin to be serious until they begin to place blame for their failure to organize on their enemies’ successful suppression, subversion, and undermining of their groups and men. Believe it, Mattsy. If they can take down a great man like Lindbergh, they can just maybe handle a putz in porkpie like Parrott.
It’s a fedora, and I don’t believe I’m invincible.
Bibliography
Matt Parrott
mindweapon
I think we do need to make a distinction between comrades and allies. We do need to accept help from allies when it’s offered without strings.
If you have studied history you know that no successful movement didn’t have some unlikely allies.
Good response. It will be interesting to see what Linder has to say (if anything).
Hadding,
Conversely, I describe what they’re doing to us as genocide by the same definition. Desegregation busing is genocidal, for example. The UN definition of genocide is a nifty rhetorical tool, as it tempts people to compare its line items to anti-White policies.
I’m not a historian. What research I’ve done that appears legitimate seems to confirm that it was more focused and methodical than you’re suggesting. My attempts to merely ignore the topic have failed, as guys like Jimmy Marr and others continue to accuse me of being some kind of Jew or Jew-excuser for neglecting their hobby horse.
We’re not talking to “hayseeds”. I’m responding on a “movement” blog to a bunch of “movement” types who won’t shut up about it.
Leonard Ruse,
I was merely being clear and thorough. “Of overwhelmingly European descent” is sufficient to exclude a Middle Eastern people.
I don’t believe I’m perpetuating anybody else’s strategy. I’m a traditionalist, not a conservative—a key difference being that I’m attempting to reject and replace the institutional status quo, not defend it.
Hadding,
I’ve frequently discussed the central role of Jewish influence in our immigration policy. In fact, I linked and even quoted examples of myself doing precisely that in my response to Linder.
I think you’ll agree that a misguided sentimentality on the part of a considerable minority of White Americans does at least play a major—if admittedly short of decisive—role in enabling our displacement. Do you not agree that debunking the major excuses and rationalizations for open borders offered by Jews and global capitalists is a worthwhile tactic?
Hadding,
Linder is correct in interpreting this as a difference of opinion on how we read the politics, not as a matter of me attempting to shut the discourse window to the right of me.
To some extent, I think this may be generational, with folks in my age range simply failing to see its contemporary relevance. The entire episode is transitioning from politics to history with the passage of time, and both sides of the debate are increasingly seen as cryptkeepers on par with Civil War obsessives. Contemporary attempts to frame discourse in terms of evil Nazis and righteous Allies are the subject of open ridicule in mainstream discourse, precisely because one can only get so much mileage out of a corpse.
My position—written as an appeal within the community and not as an attempt to marginalize you to the outside community—is that our best strategy when engaging persuadables is to let the dead bury their dead and respond with an eye roll and a recitation of Godwin’s Law when they attempt to lead the discussion down that road. It’s not tactically wise to allow your opponents to dictate which battlefield you fight on, and this battle is one which is both unlikely to be won given the logistics and one which wouldn’t serve our cause much even if it were won.
It’s a waste of time, in my humble opinion.
Linder,
We are responsible for the vulnerability. Once both the managerial and martial elites which had traditionally controlled Europe became decadent and derelict, control of the West went to the highest bidder. It was actually Europe’s indigenous mercantile elites (wealthy peasant merchants, Freemasons, America’s founding fathers, etc…) who spearheaded that revolution, only to be infiltrated and subverted by the Jews they presumed to be their comrades.
We can keep going around in circles about accountability, but the bottom line is this: The Jews did it and are accountable for having done it—but we allowed them to do it and could have reacted in a way that would have guaranteed our continued mastery of our own keystone institutions.
The Linderite Hypothesis is problematic for a few reasons: namely, no other society has been as vulnerable to being cuckolded by invasive elites. Neither the Cochin Jews of India, the Kaifeng Jews of China, nor even the Lemba Jews of Africa managed to succeed in those habitats. They made quite a bit of progress in the Muslim world, but remained junior partners and never pulled off anything even close to what they’ve accomplished in the West.
Throughout Western history, the cycle has been one of them becoming increasingly powerful up until the moment their hegemony threatened the indigenous elites…at which point the problem was identified and resolved in one way or another. Stalin’s approach focused on the root cause, targeting the relatively small group of Jewish oligarchs while maintaining a rather mild approach to Jewish peasants and even publicly holding a pro-Jewish line. It was evidently more successful than the NS approach, which (supposedly) targeted the largely irrelevant Jewish peasant population.
I don’t see the Jewish Problem as any less serious or central than Linder does. I only see the solution as being one of raising awareness of the subversion being carried out by the Jewish oligarchy and raising up some sort of indigenous counter-elite to kick them out of power and create an ethno-state. As they don’t belong to our ethnicity, they have no place in it.
I abide by a few principles:
1. Co-ethnics who honor and support* our pursuit of an ethno-state are comrades.
2. Co-ethnics who challenge our pursuit of an ethno-state are traitors.
3. Aliens who honor our pursuit of an ethno-state are allies.
4. Aliens who challenge our pursuit of an ethno-state are enemies.
* A special case is that of White American co-ethnics who are either in an interracial marriage or are otherwise functionally alien in their loyalties, yet they honor (if not support) our pursuit of an ethno-state. They’re functionally aliens, and are therefore allies.
In theory, this approach is distinct from Linder’s. In practice, it’s largely a distinction without a difference. While I can cooperate with allies, I can only conspire with comrades. This means that I’m not going to get incestuous with Garveyite Blacks, Amrenite Jews, or Chinese nationalists. The “arm’s length” distance is in the spirit of pan-nationalism, one where I reciprocally respect those who respect me.
I fully agree that inviting Jews as full and equal comrades would assuredly end in subversion. But it’s also tactically foolish to wage a fight with those who have agreed to my terms: the right of my people to an autonomous ethno-state.
It’s purely coincidental—if perhaps fortunate—that these principles manage to comprehensively address the Jewish Problem without requiring that I be an obnoxious and vulgar asshole. Shrieking “nigger” at Black people who are minding their own business or “kike” at Jews who are acting sympathetic to our plight does indeed offend my sensibilities, but it also happens to be every bit as ignorant as it seems. In fact, it’s worse than ignorant, because the Linderite Strategy creates the false impression that these vulgar (if admittedly cathartic) tantrums are something more than childish distractions from the serious work to be done.
Well said Matt.
Well I looked up this guy Alex Linders. Wow. The only thing I can disagree with you about is your assertion that he is a gift rhetorician. Frankly, my totally unsupported speculation,is that he is working to make anyone that supports White people look bad. He plays too much to the hateful image that turns Americans off.
I notice at one of his rallies there is a big guy in overalls standing behind, looking like something straight out of the Beverly Hillbillies. Really? Sure seems like something from central casting to me. I’ve heard that about 10% of the members of certain aggressive pro-White groups are government informants.
And then he spends time trying to create friction among those that have a general concern for Whites. So is he sincere in his beliefs? I am not a mindreader, but I would honestly bet, No. I can’t imagine anyone who is truly concerned with White-interests behaving the way he does. Now, he may not be actively working to hurt the cause, but at the very least, he is simply using it as a vehicle for his own vanity and doesn’t really care about the outcome. And maybe he is just too intoxicated with his own belief in his rhetorical skills. In that case, it’s narcissism.
But the truth is, regardless of his motivations, America has never responded to his kind of speech, at least in a way that had an impact on social policy. Most Americans (and most people everywhere) will always view someone like him as a loudmouth seeking attention. At best.
Oh and by the way, does it occur to anyone that even Hitler (whom I don’t support) never used ethnic slurs in public? As far as I know, he never did much in private life either. So what is this guy really up to?
@ and I believe it’s tactically misguided to actively engage this issue in contemporary outreach efforts through “historical revisionist” efforts.
So do I. Although I can’t find the source, I believe I read somewhere that David Irving himself now admits that genocide was committed.
Thanks for helping him against the thugs btw. I like him a lot.