Unless you’ve been living under a rock in recent weeks, you’ve probably heard of the groyper rebellion against Conservative Inc.
What started off as college kids messing with cuckservative grifter Charlie Kirk and his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) fake-right organization has spiraled into a full-blown invasion of cuckservative and grift-right events by young men cloaked in courage, armed with the truth, and posing uncomfortable questions to the controlled opposition.
So far, the groypers have caused the resignation of the TPUSA’s President, Vice President, and Secretary at Kansas State University (one of its largest chapters), forced cuckservative gasbag Sebastian Gorka off the Internet, and manipulated Charlie Kirk into purging TPUSA of anyone who supports the groypers – or at least their right to pose difficult questions. This means that he’s essentially expelled the brightest, best-adjusted, and handsomest people from his organization (if population genetics are right about the kind of people who are conservative).
I believe Robert Hampton has done a stellar job of covering the nitty-gritty of the groyper war from a political perspective. What I want to do is provide insight into the metaphysics and ideology behind the war, offer a partial profile of the combatants, and address the first serious threat to groyperdom which now looms on the horizon, courtesy of one M. Yiannopoulos.
We begin by observing the reactions of the neocons, grift-right, and the various tentacles of the Kochtopus and allied monsters to the groyper phenomenon. Amidst the oy veys, nudda shoahs, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the rending of garments, and ever-escalating charges of racism and Holocaust denial, one thing is clear: The concerns of the groypers are not typical of American conservatism but are rather closer to the European Right, whereas American conservatism is really just a defense of liberalism, as Jeremy Boreing recently made clear:
Jeremy Boreing
✔@JeremyDBoreing
What these retrograde losers don't understand is that what American conservatives want to conserve is American liberalism.
American conservatism is not European conservatism. https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1189577905380188165 …
Benny
✔@bennyjohnson
Replying to @bennyjohnson
If you’re a *real* conservative who believes in individual liberty then above all else you want:
— Less government control over our choices
— Less government authority to tell us how to live
— more freedom for all AmericansThese Hate-filled gremlins are NOT conservative
1,906
You’ll see the purple-pilled reaction to that, and on the face of it, that’s that. But here’s a radical thought: What if that odious and aptly-named carbuncle is right?
If you’ve read your history, you understand that, yes, the United States is a constitutional and liberal country. It was founded in rebellion against a monarchy, based mostly on conspiracy theories that’d make David Icke blush; its Constitution is used as the classic example in constitutional law textbooks to illustrate the premise of liberal constitutionalism; and it rejects traditional religiosity, hierarchy, and corporatism in favor of the secularism, egalitarianism, and individualism of liberalism. But the liberalism of the Founding Fathers is now a bit passé, having been replaced by a more advanced form which now concerns itself primarily with tearing down the white man rather than uplifting the Negro – which still pops up now and then, wearing a ridiculously fake moustache and calling itself “libertarianism,” or sometimes more brazenly “conservatism.” It was and is a Leftist movement which stands opposed to the traditional worldview and traditional society. It does have Rightist elements, but only insofar all Leftist movements need some Rightist policies in the event that they win – quite simply, the Left is a vector of chaos and incapable of governance. Every revolution is followed by the sobering emergence of a pragmatic, relatively Right-wing ruler, often authoritarian: Stalin followed Lenin, Napoleon followed Robespierre, Hamilton followed Jefferson. Nevertheless, the core of the ideology remains Leftist, liberal, and hostile to the genuine Right. The United States was literally conceived in sin: the sin of the prodigal son, although unlike the Roundheads, Jacobins, and Bolsheviks, the Americans did not commit that combination of patricide and deicide that shatters the soul of a people: regicide.
Thus, when the normiecon blabbers on about “muh constitution,” “muh American values,” and whatever else, he is signaling his allegiance to this Leftist and liberal ideology, which was America’s central ideology in a time he considers better than his own. A new, fast, and sleek version is available to Leftists, but even the conservative jalopy will get us to the endpoint of liberalism eventually, which is a dystopian hellhole where there are no families, no joy, no American nation, not even fancy future cars – just armies of bugmen munching on bugburgers and living in rows upon rows of grey pods.
Did I say American nation? Huh? What is this racism and anti-Semitism? As long as they come here legally, I don’t care what their color or creed is! This is Uhmerica!
Even though the US was conceived in sin and tainted with liberalism from the get-go, there was at its core an American nation, which served as the springboard for the American empire. From this historic American nation sprung America’s counter-currents which opposed the inherently decadent US. There is a Deep America, which is made of flesh and blood, which believes in blood and soil. There is an America which conquered the continent from sea to shining sea – a white America, if I do say so myself; one concerned not with the welfare of the negro, but with the existence of white Americans and a future for white children. From this Deep America arose such men as Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Madison Grant, Ezra Pound, Robert E. Howard, Huey Long, Pat Buchanan, John Wayne, and Ross Perot. This is the America of hearth and home, not of marble columns in DC and dangerous utopian nonsense in dusty tomes written by dustier men.
From this America do the groypers arise. They are of the Right, most definitely. They are not, however, of American liberalism. They do not dream about the long-lost 1776 (even though Alex Jones assures me it is about to commence again). The groyper dreams, in his questioning and quest for truth, of something that is yet to emerge and take shape. The groyper dreams of an American nation qua American nation, which has thrown off the yoke of liberalism and exists for itself rather than as a vehicle for an outdated, Enlightenment-era ideology. The groyper wants America to exist as the nations of Europe exist. He is an enemy of empire, because empire blurs the borders between peoples. Any nation which has had the misfortune to be at the core of an empire has fuzzy borders; Turks and Russians come to mind, with Turkish identity meaning little more than “non-Albanian Balkan/Anatolian Muslim” at the end of the nineteenth century, and with Russian identity being little more than “Russian speaker” even today (though it is rapidly differentiating itself). The groyper naturally crosses rhetorical swords with the cuckservative, the normiecon, the libertarian, and the Boomer, all of whom are vectors of liberalism and empire. The aforementioned groups would like Deep America to not ask questions, but rather to stoically carry on her burden as a vehicle for liberalism and empire. The groyper is the dissenting American who would like to know why there is a transgender named “Lady Maga” being propped up as a conservative personality. The groyper would like to know why his nation’s blood and treasure are being expended on a tiny country in the Middle East with a massive lobbying operation in DC. The groyper would like to know why his nation is being invaded by swarthy and hostile foreigners, and why the alleged conservatives support a legal version of that invasion, even if it means the death of the historic American nation.
In a sense, we are witnessing the conflict between liberalism and a form of European-style conservatism – which is to say, the conservatism of a particular European nation: America. It is clumsy and undefined, and there are no elaborate national myths, but I think that the American nation has yet to crawl out from under the American empire’s shadow. (I believe the American empire is still alive, although its prognosis is not good.) In time, its identity will become differentiated and it will become a coherent group; in other words, the process of ethnogenesis will be completed. We are observing such a process of ethnogenesis in the wake of an empire in Russia today, whereas studying the history of post-1924 Turkey can provide us an example of a more-or-less completed ethnogenetic process.
The groyper army is to a great degree self-directed, though from what I can tell, the major figureheads of the movement are Nick Fuentes, Vincent James, E. Michael Jones, and Patrick Casey. Some patterns jump out: All four of these guys are some combination of Mediterranean and Hibernian. All four are Catholics. All four took the side of optics in the Optics War. All four look for political solutions, eschewing fedposting and calls to violence. There’s a reason for all these common traits.
First, it’s important to remember that liberalism is to a great extent an Anglo phenomenon and that the English people have shown an unfortunate predilection for it. Insofar as Anglo thinkers are fundamentally illiberal, we usually find Celtic admixture in them. It stands to reason that if a nationalist and illiberal Right is to arise in America, it would arise among non-Anglo whites, and with the German-Americans completely subsumed into Anglo culture, it’s up to a scrappy crew of Micks and Eye-talians to git r’ dun. Catholicism dovetails with illiberal nationalism in two important ways. Firstly, it is inherently hierarchical, entry into its priesthood is restricted (you at least need to pass seminary), and it can trace its roots back to the Roman Empire – to the crucifixion of St. Peter in Rome. It is a living reminder that there was a world before liberalism and, for those who have eyes to see, it is prima facie evidence that goodness and beauty can exist without liberalism.
Secondly, Catholicism does not necessarily suffer from the American Protestant disease of philo-Semitism. In this long and exhaustive article, we see that American Protestantism is incurably Zionist and philo-Semitic and has been since before the founding. It is therefore unlikely that an American illiberal nationalist movement, insofar as it is America First rather than Israel First, would arise out of Protestantism.
Of note is that the groypers seek to usurp Conservatism Inc. Conservatism Inc. is morally bankrupt and at the very least an accessory to the evils committed by the anti-white and anti-family Left, but it is very good at rooting out anything which even smells of illiberalism. The groypers are optical not because they want to infiltrate and subvert Conservatism Inc.; they are very much aware that this cannot be done. Rather, they seek to demonstrate to the conservative American – who is an American nationalist in the making – that Conservative Inc. does not have his best interests at heart and that it is willing to be as censorious and as shrill as the Left when asked polite questions by clean-cut, if green, young men. Charlie Kirk’s panicked disavowals, Dan Crenshaw’s smug dismissals, Rob Smith’s effete passive aggression, and Sebastian Gorka’s bloviating paroxysms are all revealing Conservative Inc. as a group of corrupt and capricious bullies whose haughty outrage at having been asked a question (a question, I say!) by the unwashed masses red-pill more people than a thousand spreadsheets with crime statistics.
I wish the groypers well in their endeavor. As a European-style nationalist, I welcome them and the rising American nation to the club. I am eager to help them with any wisdom I can impart. Let me therefore begin by warning the groypers that Conservative Inc. may look like a bunch of morons, but that these people can be surprisingly cunning when it comes to guarding their income streams.
Milo Yiannopoulos has just leaked a recording of Richard Spencer throwing a temper tantrum in the wake of the Charlottesville rally:
BAILEY, THE LIBTARDTARIAN
@atheist_cvnt
Milo just uploaded leaked audio of Richard Spencer reacting to the death of Heather Heyer and the negative press it did to his movement.
Just in case there was any question of the so-called "dapper white nationalist" being a raged fuelled hateful monster.
Explicit warning.
32.3K
It shows us that Richard Spencer is one narcissistic puppy. Still, I have to disavow the recording and its leaking because I, too, have had my heated gamer moments, and I’ve said much, much worse about people of other races, faiths, and ethnicities in my angry rants. But I’ve not ever, to my knowledge, claimed to rule the effing world. See, what I find contemptible in this rant is not the rage against “kikes,” “midgets,” and “octoroons,” but its petulance and megalomania.
In case you’re wondering, no, the editor did not splice two texts together. The Milo leak is relevant because of its timing. It is late 2019 and Spencer has been a spent force for over two years now. His various problems are well known to the Dissident Right, and nobody outside our movement has any regard for Spencer. So why am I bringing it up now?
Given rumors that Milo Yiannopoulos is dead broke, I would not be surprised if this were some ploy to taint Nick Fuentes as the groypers’ most visible leader. It is easy to forget, but Nick Fuentes was present at Charlottesville. This two-year-old clip could very well be the beginning of a smear campaign against Fuentes, which would taint the entire groyper movement by association. Spencer, for his part, is visibly bitter about Nick’s success with the groyper uprising, whereas all his creatures on Twitter have been trying to link Milo with Fuentes and make people believe that Spencer is the actual target. At the time of writing, there is no evidence that Milo is planning to strike at Spencer, but it is important to bear in mind that he is a recently impoverished man of extravagant taste, that he probably has audio recordings of a lot of people in the movement, and that Conservative Inc. has a lot of money to spend – and a grudge against the groypers and especially Nick Fuentes.
If true, this plot will fail. Firstly, Nick Fuentes has already been as defamed and attacked as any member of the Dissident Right. He is, in a sense, robust and even antifragile to censorship and abuse because he has anchored himself to the truth. His groypers will follow him into the maw of D-live, if need be. The second reason is even simpler. The groyper movement is far more than a Nick Fuentes fan club. It is the primal scream of Deep America, of an American nation which intends to make itself known and rise on the world stage. Fuentes is riding this wave – how far, I cannot tell. Vincent James, E. Michael Jones, and Patrick Casey are also riding this wave. This wave has the power to sweep away the cuckservative establishment. This wave has the power to cleanse America of liberalism. A biblical plague of frogs has descended upon Conservative Inc., and with every question croaked, a true American nation edges closer to its birth.
No comments:
Post a Comment