Infiltration of the Dissident Right with fake leaders, shysters, hucksters, and lowlifes.

Perks, but what about responsibility?

Everyone wants to be someone important.

Forney with Aurini had a recent stream on Candice Owens and her rise to prominence via “grifting” in Conservative circles.  I will say that I don’t hold quite the antipathy toward Owens as others do and I specifically appreciate her role in helping to confirm what many of us already knew about Zoey Quinn – that she was harassing herself and making a virtue signaling false flag racket with it.

It however brings up an overall trend that’s been happening in the last few years and what I’m going to label as “Dissident Appropriation”.    We saw it with the anti-feminists on YouTube, the Skeptic “community”, various members of the Red Pill communities, and in the Dissident Right in general.

What did we see?

Even in the Dissident Right as well as other associated spheres, you’ll notice there’s a crop of people – often anonymous or semi anonymous – trying to create a name for themselves.  It happened with the manosphere and now it’s happening throughout the Dissident Right at large.

People coming in to make a quick buck and trying to create a product – not a bad thing necessarily – but with little actual ORIGINAL thoughts and ideas. They just rehashed what had been circling in the various spheres from the abstract and intellectual writings of reactionaries to the Red Pill shock jock larger-than-life style bloggers.

It’s not just tradthots like Laura Loomer or anti-feminists like Shoe0nhead who are parroting Dissident ideas to a thirsty male audience, but “entrepreneurs” and PUA types who throw out a few pieces of common knowledge with a polished looking website in hopes of getting money from people who already are likely down on their luck.

Want to charge people for a boot camp? How about “Dating” advice?  There’s always self-improvement that involves making tons of money by writing edgy blog content because clearly, that is an actual feasible thing.  You don’t really need an actual job, nor the skills and experience that comes with having one for your future. Just buy their stuff and girls and lots of success will come your way.

That valuable experience, contacts, friends and network created by working various jobs – no matter how menial apparently doesn’t matter and isn’t needed. All you need is a blog and a phone.   Now some of you have been told all about this a few years back, but there’s a new wave of subversive elements who want to talk the talk but not walk it.

Yea, life is hard and while we can blame feminism, SJWs, etc for it.   instead of any real solutions however, here’s some self-help with some “alpha” like words and phrases thrown in to make you feel like it something much different.

Shysters, Hucksters, and Infiltrators

This feeding of false hope is horrible and despicable on a moral level – especially any that laments losing core Western values and whatever is left of that.  How can you build or rebuild social trust and social capital when your own sphere is being subverted to the point of that trust being destroyed?

What the hell are we doing?

Deliberately feeding false hope and supposed “freedom” to live any way you want to susceptible broken shattered men and teenagers is shameful as is avoiding alternative theories that newbies may want to consider. But the something 50% of what’s left of the Manosphere selling supposed self-improvement don’t care.  Encouraging hedonism and narcissism sells apparently as well as sex does.

It’s hard enough for freelance journalists and real entrepreneurs to make money, but somehow kids writing about their Tinder experiences with your hosting site from a beach in Thailand is going to generate enough income for them to become financially independent and able to start a family if they wish?

With what contacts and network? (Someone on  the stream mentioned earlier makes the point most of these people pushing this have already established passive income streams – like owning property they rent out – which they of course don’t disclose because their writing and books is making them all the cash.)

People criticize Matt Forney all the time, but he took down most of his books because he couldn’t in good conscious sell stuff that isn’t applicable to the internet world in 2018. Who else does that?  This is how you can tell how much someone cares about the people they want to engage with.

You wonder how much these other people really care about the supposed community there are “creating” content for.  Do they really care if their “consulting” and advice ends up destroying your life and potential future? I’m starting to think they really don’t.  Sure, don’t go to college and get a worthless degree, but move overseas and everything is suddenly going to vastly improve without a real passive income stream?

What about your future? Don’t look toward getting a wife and building a career as a wife and children will hold you back from being a lifetime bachelor sailing around the world banging 100s of foreign women – as will a stable 9-5 job.  It’s no secret much of modern society is arrayed against young men, but these infiltrators and hucksters are adding more pain to their misery and disguising it as self-help.

Of course these hucksters appeal to your inner “alpha” in an attempt to persuade you that being a true Machiavellian is something that you really want.   Take for example the advocates of the Dark Triad which want you to fork over 300$ for some kind of uber Volcano lair meetup so you can feel like a man by being in the presence of “supposedly” top alpha men.   Iron may sharpen iron, but is there any iron here?

300$ to feel like an Alpha

If you put on that mask for so long, do you become that monster eventually? It’s a significant question and you need to ask yourself if it’s worth the price – considering you might be selling yourself, soul, and future livelihood for something that may have no material, spiritual, and measurable payoff.

Unfortunately, these are elements in the “Dissident Appropriation” in which that occurs. It’s often in the form of people looking to create a niche for themselves, purely for the sake and feeling of being “counter-cultural” because there’s no Patreon dollars of real controversy to draw attention to make the shekels if you are parroting the usual mainstream views.

You end up with a Dirty Dozen of denizens and not knowing what they really think, if they are some kind of subversive elements, or if they have any loyalty to the people and spheres they are trying to influence.  From what we’ve seen with recent Bloodsports and the implosion of the remaining Alt-Right, many of these people seem to be trying to fly close to the sun to attain maximum exposure and are willing to backstab and destroy anyone in their way.

So much for a stable foundation to rebuild the West or present any kind of feasible foundations to stand upon.  You start to wonder if they ever really had those intentions in the first place.

Granted there will always be jealousy of those who make a name for themselves and get “recognition” and those who don’t – regardless of what community you associate with. Furthermore to be fair, what man doesn’t want to create a name for himself wherever and whatever way he can?

Well let’s examine.

The Cost of Fame

A serious question that I wonder if people ask themselves is, “Do you really want all this attention?”  Do you really want to be a leader and deal with the actual vast and harsh burdens and responsibilities that come with it?

What about the cost to your family and any possible future that involves a stable financial footing? How much do you really care about those closest around you who arguably are the most important?

As we saw with the ROK Meetup insanity back in 2016, there comes a point where controversy and attention becomes a negative thing that has real cost to your family and livelihood.  We point this out and these deviants who engage consistently in the dark arts of Dissent Appropriation call us cucks.   Yea, it’s real cuckish to want to build a stable future for your family and friends.

Internet fame might be fun, but it’s also a curse and if have a family or hope to have one, it becomes quite a bit harder when you are trying to build any kind of family and legacy in order to become any kind of “leader.”  Again there comes a point when you end up with too much recognition from all the wrong people and it ends up greatly hindering yourself.

This isn’t 2005.  Anyone and everyone is a google search away from a damning internet post or ill worded rant torpedoing their career or imploding their network of contacts built over 20 years.  Yea sure, maybe they should have chosen better “friends” and contacts, but that takes a huge amount of time to do. It doesn’t happen overnight.  (Neither do the alternative platforms those in the Dissident Right are trying to build.)

Often some of these “leaders” remind me of feminists who want all of the perks but none of the responsibilities that come with leadership. It ends up boiling down to accepting praise for what goes right and gets attention and blaming others for what goes wrong and blows up in your face.

That’s not leadership.

Leaders are front and center. They don’t just write the walk from their anonymous blogs. They live that walk everyday and show people how it’s done.  When things go to hell, they clean it up and don’t deflect the blame.  The buck stops with them and their lives are the example.

This isn’t a game or a scene that you can simply stop attending.  Lives, careers, and people’s ability to not live paycheck to paycheck are at stake here.  Once people have put their names forward, they are susceptible to all the deviants and viciousness of SJW types gunning for their jobs and looking to make hell on earth for the lives of their family members.

If you are going to be some sort of leader, you better be prepared to help your “followers” deal with the shitstorms that come their way due to your influence and guidance.  Being a real leader of any kind – assuming any level of morality — means that you don’t just take their money and run – you face the music with/for them with that said money.

Briefly Remembering Charlottesville

Consider what happened with Charlottesville and the supposed leadership of the Alt-Right there.  When everything went to hell, there was no around to accept any responsibility let alone help the people who were likely going to lose their jobs from the mere association. (There had been warnings about the movement and the leaders.)

Jason Kessler ran away and is hiding, Spencer disappeared, and Cantwell acted like a tough guy on TV to Vice, while later crying on YouTube once he realized he was in real trouble.  Totally white ubermench alpha right there.  Instead of being self-proclaimed smart tacticians and strategists,  they all ended up being indirectly responsible for that lady’s death – regardless of what you think of her and specifically in the eyes of the American public.

These “leaders” couldn’t even police their own – regardless of false flags or not – and now ensured that the Alt-Right label was left to actual Nazis and foaming white supremacist types on the Daily Stormer.  It’s hard to tell people you aren’t Nazis when people with the damn flags show up or end up committing murders, because actual Nazis weren’t denounced hard or extensively enough.  (Seriously, who the hell let’s Nazis show up to their events?)

Furthermore, consider the tactical failure in having a “rally” there in a VERY hostile city with a government and police force that basically did everything to ensure a riot and violence would ensue.   Of course they weren’t going to play fair and restrain AntiFa from attempting to kill whoever there they deemed a fascist.

Why the hell didn’t they plan a rally somewhere that WAS NOT in a liberal stronghold.  Sure, you might want to protect a statue, but was it worth the shattered lives of the guys holding tiki torches who can’t find regular employment now? “Blood and soil” doesn’t matter that much if you can’t afford to live.  (How the awful optics of this evaded the minds of Alt-Right leadership, I have no idea.)

All this over a damn statue.

Now they’ve found that out the hard way.  While AntiFa and all the rest of their slack jawed deviant supporters will rejoice, it just adds to the list of broken young men who now have even a harder life then before and will ironically make them even radicalized in the process.

What kind of leader allows that to happen to their “followers” if they actually care about them instead of just the “cause”?  This is a very serious issue.  Very recently one of these young men – Andrew Dobson – who was there and not even a WN or even a follower of Spencer or these “other leaders” was doxxed and was harassed so much that he recently committed suicide.

Guilt by association. He made have been on the “right”, but the penalty for being near this rally has literally been fatal. Sure some henious assholes on leftist sites will rejoice, but who will comfort his family and friends?  It’s not just maddening, but it’s depressingly sad.

https://twitter.com/Millenniel_Matt/status/997541700351528960

https://twitter.com/Millenniel_Matt/status/997676595388264448

https://twitter.com/Millenniel_Matt/status/997696123165921282

https://twitter.com/Millenniel_Matt/status/997907186499096577

Again, this dude essentially lost his life over a damn statue.

One major criticism I heard of Richard Spencer – who isnt really the “Hitler” people make him out to be – and people like him is that they enjoyed the attention and the recognition of being “organizers”, but had little to offer both in terms of responsibility and aid when the Charlottesville debacle occurred.

Most of us already knew that most of the people – specifically leaders – in the Alt-Right were ready to betray and step on one another to be famous in the eyes of the Media.  (Not sure that’s a prize really.)   But what did we really expect with an ideology that shuns any real moral foundations to be replaced with some weird nihilist post modern “might makes right” crap?

N.T. Carlsbad from Therimdor Mag made this damning observation about what was left of the Alt-Right:

 “After the Enoch doxxing, after Charlottesville and now after the implosion of TWP, there simply is no fooling anyone. The illusion has been shattered. “Alt-right” is just a pompous synonym for white nationalist, and nothing more. The psychotic mania among the press that for some time drove them nuts about how the next-door neighbor kid drawing cartoon frogs might secretly be a member of an “alt-right” fifth column waiting for the right moment to ethnically cleanse minorities, has since dissipated and mellowed as the specificity of the alt-right has been made clear.

Andrew Anglin and weev no longer LARP as neo-Nazis, but as American nationalist MAGAmen, in response to this shift. With no enigma left to it (and it never got to the point of developing any real organizational capacity), the alt-right is now a tabloid media cash cow for the ADL and the SPLC to scare their donors into handing over those sweet shekels.”

I couldn’t have put it any better.  Stop following people who don’t care about you or anyone else.  Mike Enoch literally destroyed his life even further divorcing his Jewish wife – so he could prove his Jew blaming rants were legit. (Disclosure to you goyim, I found out I’m 3% European Jewish apparently.)

For what?

Now he’s alone and removed from a woman who seems to have loved him for some internet trolls and LARPers who don’t give a shit.  That’s not a life that you want emulate. Unless the leaders of a movement are willing to sacrifice themselves for you – like true leaders do – then you are wasting your time and your future.

These same people are still around and lurking in the Dissident Right looking for new targets and people to deceive and profit from – either for the sake of creating a name and recognition for themselves or for a sin as old as time – greed and the money that comes from it.

We need to ask ourselves, how much damage are we doing to people vs helping them?  What kind of identity are we forming? Yes, we know feminism and the excess of Modernism had wreaked havoc on the foundations of society and made it a hell of time to be a young straight male looking to succeed in life.

However are we just adding false hope to that miserly brew that they’ve already been thrust into?  We need to make sure people know the “risks”, while giving them as much advice, info, and knowledge from our mistakes and successes as we can.  If you become like Machiavelli, you might end up in a prison of your own – or someone else’s making just like him.

We are talking about fire and it burns – maybe for life if you end up with a mindset and worldview based on treachery, deceit, and a will to power with no moral restrictions.  Your soul can and is at stake when you expose it to this kind of lifestyle.

Perhaps at the core of this, one alternate explanation is the most depressing one; that some of the people being attracted to the Dissident Right by shysters aren’t being “taken in.”  They are willing participants who want to lie to themselves instead of put in the hard and long time to build something stable for their futures.

I suppose they will have to learn the hard way.

Rejecting Guilt By Association

Regardless of what mortals you follow, adore, admire, and pay homage you will at some point disagree with them.  Whether it’s most of the time or almost never, no one will ever hold exactly all the viewpoints that you have come to cherish.

A tweet from Milo Yiannapolous prompted the above line of thought in which he voices disagreement with libertarians on the NSA spying incident – color my libertarian tendencies irked.

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/591284596190347264

Obviously, he is mistaken, as his his later tweet about Snowden being a traitor and not a hero.   I’m also above reproach in my conclusion. 

Today, the internet echo-chamber or “communities” as we call them is often bereft of any actual substance in discussion when it comes to disagreement over just about anything.  Dissenters are labeled “concern trolls” or just “trolls” in general.   In fact the word, “troll” has lost it’s meaning because of the abuse of the term.

Throw in “safe-spaces” and this takes on a whole new layer of people who immediately dismiss anything that comes from an opposing side.   If you make the mistake of identifying with a label that is considered “bad” or triggering, everything you say is immediately dismissed – regardless of the validity of what you say.

We need to start judging statements, comments, and opinions based on what they actually are –  the merit and validity of them – instead of who said them.    Whether they come from a radical liberal feminist or a neo-con warhawk, it shouldn’t matter; we need to reject guilt by association.

Encountering the “Other Side”

Take for example Cindy Brandt’s site/blog which I recently came across and her post, “You Don’t Need To Tell Me You Don’t Agree.”   She actually makes alot of good points, despite certain… social justice affiliations.

Well, I don’t agree.   Okay, I couldn’t resist.  Take a look at this specific observation:

“Which one of us agrees on everything with any other single person? No one! Certainly, many of us share similar passions and congregate according to common interests, it’s only human to interact with those who you resonate easily with. But if you dig deeper, or you spend enough time together, it isn’t long before one discovers there are indeed some, if not many points of disagreements with those we are in relationship with.”

As she points out, no one will  ever agree on everything, but with today’s identity politics and culture its often either all or nothing.  If someone doesn’t share enough “similar” passions, interests, and convictions,  chances are that most people won’t give anything they say the time of day.   This is more likely if they know about your “opinions” and affiliations before they evaluate what you’ve actually said.

“If we are honest with ourselves, adding the phrase is a form of social insurance. We want to protect ourselves from the risk of being associated with certain things this person represents. “

It certainly is a form of social insurance, but why?

People seem conditioned to pre-judge and make assumptions based on labels and what they “represent”, so what choice is there but to adjust? Unfortunately, this is the reality of where we are at.  It rather sucks that these qualifiers are needed, but can anyone point to topics of conversation where they aren’t?

The risk of being associated with someone who is deemed a racist, bigot, homophobe, ect or any other culturally deemed demagogues can be cause for your employment to be revoked. Consider Razib Khan who was initially hired by the New York Times, but then let go because of his “association” with right-wing publications who were deemed to be mired in racism.    So much for diversity of opinion right?

Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint...
Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint…

Shockingly, the fact that he isn’t even white was enough to save him from the wrath of social justice warriors who usually excuse certain people from terrible actions, deeds, and statements based purely on their genetics.  Another mighty journalism giant bows before Gawker and SJWs.    Apparently, all you need to do is label someone a racist enough to make them suffer the effects of today’s modern heresy.

For instance, Cindy describes herself as “social justice-y” on the side bar of her site.  GASP!

Someone, pull the alarm.   Danger is near.

  My spidey sense is tingling.

Now a large amount of people will probably dismiss anything she has to say because of the affiliation with social justice.  Don’t make that mistake; don’t fall prey to guilt by association.  I  may fall to this ever constant trap subconsciously, but then force myself to read what is actually state.  Some exceptions are made for Tumblr…

I strongly disagree with almost everything  modern day social justice folks advocate – what normal sane person wouldn’t – but I won’t necessarily dismiss something because of who is advocating it.

“We can dialogue with people as people, other human beings with different personalities, life experiences, and ideas. We can celebrate common ground without erecting walls or drawing boundary lines. We can connect without disclaimers, embracing the whole of our conversation partner along with her ideas. Let’s base our conversations with one another from a place of shared humanity instead of basing it on fear by association. “

Is this really possible? Can we connect without disclaimers? I don’t think we can.

Tales From The Online Crypt

I recently encountered and “argued” with some conservatives on TheRightScoop about the subject of police abuse.   Obviously, they deny this is a real problem.  In order to even get them to look at anything I have to say, I had to utter the following disclaimer, “I’m not a democrat…”

This is of course true, but if I didn’t point this out, said conservatives would assume I’m some sort of liberal because I disagree with one of their viewpoints.

Behold, the current state of online discourse.

If you disagree with someone on an issue you are immediately considered to be a follower of the opposing “side”.   If you disagree with some of the trash on the Huffington Post, you are a right-wing bigot, ect, ect, ect.   If you take issue with something on Breitbart you are left-wing marxist, socialist, ect, ect, ect.    Qualifiers are absolutely necessary.

“The power of association, of tribes, of communities, is so strong that we take extra measures to ensure boundaries are clearly marked, compelling us to insert disclaimers even in casual conversation. We are so fearful of being grouped with the “wrong” crowd as perceived by the person we are speaking with.

I do not think this is a healthy way to dialogue. I think it is a sign of disrespect to curate someone’s ideas, extracting it from their whole selves with all of their complexities and personhood.”

She is right; it’s not a healthy way to dialogue.   Yes, we must consider the context of a person – if that makes sense –  which is necessary to fully understand their ideas and why they have them. However, in today’s charged, “guilt by association” culture, you absolutely have to introduce qualifiers into the conversation or anything you say will be dismissed based on you supposedly are.

The need for safe spaces...
The need for safe spaces…

One popular “Debate” tactic is Godwin’s law.   To sum that up, it means that you equate a certain argument, idea, or even person to Hitler.  This of course invalidates anything they have to say.  Or does it?

Just because Hitler said something, doesn’t qualify it as being incorrect – such as his radical environmentalism, state control of “healthcare”, ect.   In fact, I’m sure almost everyone today holds some positions that Hitler advocated on economics, state control and power, and the environment.

Color me shocked.

This time-held tactic is “guilt by association/wrong by association” and is employed by disingenuous teenagers, tumblrites, and many adults who want to shout down others based on who they are, rather then what they’ve said on extremely important blogs and websites where their comments clearly make a difference.

 

Don’t be one of “those” people.

People who engage in daily displays on their Facebook feeds in guilt by association tactics usually have something in common;  they are angry, upset, and jaded.

Their life is a never ending stream of  un-fulfilled selfies, self-loathing, and vicious attacks on anyone who looks like they wallowed in depression for weeks upon end.   All of these bitter people online have one goal in mind; if they can’t be happy – neither can you.

Go outside of your bubble and live.

It’s been said that you can’t argue with certain people, and that is true. Argument however shouldn’t be the goal of every interaction.  You don’t need to “win”.    All you need to do is engage, discuss, and see if any new seeds are planted in either your mind or your “opponent.”   In order to any of that, you must reject guilt by association.

Perhaps, you may just develop a relationship with someone where you don’t need qualifiers, but you must take the initiative to do just that.

I encourage all to go out and have face-to-face conversations with people you know you disagree with. You will be surprised at what happens when both of you or others involved have a conversation that isn’t based on “convincing” anyone of a particular point, but is focused on the exchange of ideas and worldviews.

This is how you grow and become a more rounded individual.

 It is one of the first steps in today’s vicious culture in becoming a renaissance man.

Reject guilt by association.

The Left and Right: Principled Ideological Differences?

Sometimes, you have mini epiphanies come to you out of nowhere. It’s happened to me at work, but I never have time to write it down there. This time however, I was shaving when my “epiphany” occurred. Can I really call it that? Perhaps.

Today when we think of the “right” and the “left”, most of us think of two differing ideologies that are clashing with each other on both a cultural and political scale. I suppose that’s true.  You can also be a libertarian like me and look at both sides Ideology as inherently statist, but that just isn’t relevant to this point/idea that cropped up in my rather unfocused mind. (I really am rather jealous of those who can focus their thoughts into concise points and articulate them like talking heads who know exactly what they are talking about.)

Notice alot of the issues that have popped up since the early 2000s, both culturally and politically. When you mention the word “big government” concerning an issue to someone who is supposedly a progressive or on the left on whatever the issue might be, what happens?

  • You are assumed to be a conservative.  (But I’m a libertarian!)
  • They advocate in favor of whatever action big government is participating in concerning the subject.
  • Their position on the action big government is taking becomes more valid in their mind.

Most liberals I know define their support or opposition of big government based on the concept that conservatives define it by.  So notice the trend. Depending on whatever position conservatives advocate, liberals will advocate the opposite even if that is not necessarily their position on the subject. This applies vice versa as well.   It’s almost as if a kind of “partyspeak” exists.  People tow a certain party line.

When it came to the subject of the Patriot act, note the opposition that was there when it was enacted and notice it now.  Apply that same line of thought to the issue of drone strikes. Apply it to the whole Monsanto debate.  Apply it to the War on Drugs. Apply it to recent censorship and internet piracy debates.  Keep applying it to much of the political dialogue over the last decade. Notice anything?

Liberals and Conservatives aren’t necessarily opposed to big government or in direct support of it. They are all of course opposed to whatever the other side supports.  Do you know any liberal or conservative who is actually in support of unrestricted Drone Strikes? Indefinite detainment of American citizens? Invading or participating in more foreign conflicts? Internet censorship?

I suppose the assumptions we make about either side somewhat become a self-fulfilling reality even though the specific boxes and categories we try to put people in really don’t fit as well as they should.  Could some of these attempts to categorize people and make very widespread assumptions about said people result from our Western drive to categorize, organize, and make every kind of distinction we can? Even if it is, I’m not sure if we can shed those presuppositions and our thought process that may be one of the factors in what drives party line ideology today.

I believe our very time-saving and “immediate” cultural attitude and behavior may be somewhat at fault here. We however must make the effort to not be lazy and avoid the time consumption convenience  of assuming either side or whatever the ideology may be is always wrong.   If an idea is valid, it doesn’t matter who proposes the idea.  Guilt by association just doesn’t seem to be the proper mindset if one actually wishes to examine and  filter ideas through as many individual perceptions on a subject to determine the validity of said ideas.