Your Blogmeister’s Other German Desk
Much the same thing happened six years ago, when we were on our honeymoon. Ron Unz came out with an essay also being one letter away from the words “white nationalist” in the title that lit the sector afire, but I wasn’t able to read it much less respond to until it was over. Back then, Unz was “immigration was too much of a diversion when blacks are the real problem.” I remember my snarky response was that while we stopped in Belgrade, (which was actually one of our stops), I bought a good used wormhome generator to whiddle myself to an alternate July 2020 where the alt-universe Ron Unz wrote an essay about how blacks are too much of a diversion when immigration is the real problem. It was just my glib way of saying that it’s useless to argue one-or-the-other when they both are; it’s just that, like a game of whack-a-mole, one is going to be a bigger problem than the other at varying times places and circumstances.
So now we come to today, with Scott Greer. Who likewise dropped this while we were on vacation, meaning once again my response is so long after the fact that it’s old shoe so what by now.
I was going to deep dive this, but then I realized that all I need to do is snorkel.
Most of his purported case is that there’s no need for the white nationalist label anymore because normie conservatism (in America, and this matter is America-centric) is adopting heretofore WN positions and mentalities. Greer seems to think that the WN-ification of the broader greater American right has already been fully consummated or close enough for government work. I do think it is happening, but it’s happening slowly, and is far from complete, and is currently nowhere near the level that Greer believes. I know some WNs think that there has been no progress at all, especially considering (their/our misinterpretation of) recent events. I split the difference.
Yet and still, so what? What’s in a name? It’s a silly contention anyway. It’s rug-merchanting over nomenclature. In 1993, Prince legally changed his name to that symbol that’s a mashup of male and female. (In retrospect, he was far ahead of his time). Following Greer’s purported WN reasoning, it means that everyone who bought any Prince records before 1993 get to claim after that they don’t own any Prince records.
If it waddles like a duck, has feathers like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Further down in the article, Greer snarks about “militias out in the woods.” Someone with an IQ of 187 should have known better than to do that, because someone with a 187 IQ and a really good understanding of recent history which he has should have instantly known off the bat that those crowds are the biggest race cucks going, as bad as any (to use the word of vintage 2015 coinage) cuckservative. WNs aren’t run out to the woods people, and run out to the woods people are anti-WN. Run out to the woods types were/are largely informed by right-libertarianism, (“the extreme right wing of the left wing,” as one Counter Currents writer phrased it several years ago), while WN, being race minded people by definition, arrived at WN because of being forced to interact with problematic nons, (Patterson’s First Axiom), which for the better part has happened and still does happen in urban areas (Willie Sutton Doctrine), not out in the woods. Why it took me, a mere peon with a lowly modest pitiful low 140s IQ, three whole standard deviations dumber than Greer, to tell him or you that, God knows.
I also think that even Greer himself knows that nary a liberal, leftist or progressive will be fooled. It might be tempting to think that his whole purpose in WN-by-any-other-name is to get back in good with the left, but, again, someone with a 187 IQ will know better.
Then I realized that it was a mistake to respond like this, because the mistake was to take Greer literally. It was wrong of me to read this article from top to bottom, when the proper way was to read it sideways. You might have noticed that I used the word “purported” twice before this paragraph; That should have been a hint that I’m thinking that he’s rationalizing.
So I’m going to do something that’s really risky pool, against my better judgment, and something I usually advise against:
I’m going to put words in Scott Greer’s mouth.
But once you have read both them and Greer’s essay, you’ll probably conclude that I’m right.
Here’s what he really means by this essay:
I agree with the practical sociopolitical output of white nationalism, but I don’t like the crowd that openly calls themselves white nationalists. I agree with the articles but cringe at the comment section. It’s because open WNs almost always devolve into some mix-or-match of wild, bombastic, loud, rude, hysterical, conspiraTARDial, blackpilling, doom porn peddling, purity spiraling, gossip-mongering, internecine pie throwing, stupidly provocative, just plain stupid, internet bubble mentality, and worst of all, they blame every hung toenail and misaligned throw rug on a certain tribe as if the Jews all have 9000 IQs and are 20 feet tall and bleed liquid arsenic and have bulletproof skin, and WNs will ratio you out of the sector if you’re not as monomaniacally fanatical and extremist about Jews as they are. I just can’t take most of these people home to meet mama.
And ya know? Sometimes, I can’t blame him. These days, and pretty often, I just can’t with the sector. They got me like. Please, touch grass.