In the wake of Charlottesville

It still remains to be seen what the effect of the weekend’s clashes in Charlottesville will be. There is a lot of discussion and argument on the right about whether the Unite the Right rally was a disaster for us or a ‘win’.

Much of the discussion centers on the ‘optics’ of the rally. Did the presence of some participants, who displayed swastika flags or other NS trappings sabotage any chance of getting a fair shake from the media or the ‘normies’ who might be observing? A large number of people think that any such provocative symbols alienate or scare off many possible sympathizers, and lead to a PR disaster for the right generally.

Whatever side you take in that dispute, it is obvious that the media, controlled and biased as they are, will always paint even the mildest right-wingers as ‘Nazis’, fascists, haters, bigots, etc. Always. On the other hand why make it easy for them to condemn nationalists or pro-Whites by displaying symbols that they can use as evidence that yes, all right-wing people are in fact Nazis and fascists and ‘White supremacists.’

Nonetheless if we were truly in a free country, there would not be repression of certain symbols because of historical or political associations. In fact, that takes us back to the original reason for the Unite the Right rally: to defend the presence of symbols of the Confederacy (in this case, the equestrian statue of General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville). The regime is hellbent on erasing our past, and this statue of General Lee is in their sights, as eventually they will obliterate all such monuments and symbols which they say represent ‘hate’. The only hate here is the constant hate emanating from the possessed lefties, whose behavior justifies my description of them.

As to the optics, I know that the rally organizers specified a dress code which they asked participants to follow, though of course not all followed the guidelines. Bizarrely, the ‘respectable Republicans’ on certain forums are saying that the fact that many participants were dressed neatly and similarly indicates that they were all fakes, all “bused in by George Soros” and were all antifas there to discredit the right by waving Nazi symbols.

Given what we know about how the leftist/globalist/antiwhite regime has openly admitted to using operatives and shills to infiltrate, of course this is possible. Could the driver of the car which killed an antifa female have been such an infiltrator, given that he was apparently unknown to the people with whom he marched? Certainly, but I don’t hold out hopes for that, especially as the truth would never be revealed if he were a ‘plant’. It may be just what it seems: he was there with honest intentions though he was not a serious nationalist or alt-righter, apparently, and he just panicked when violent antifas wielding sticks and bats surrounded his car and began pounding it. We don’t know.

All we know is the media lies, and so do the powers-that-be. They want us to be confused and misled. They spread disinformation, rumor, character assassination, and they are out to demoralize us and to make us feel hopeless and resigned.

The presence of ‘shills’, operatives, or agents provocateur is well known, yet how many of us really look with a skeptical eye at some of the regulars on certain nationalist or alt-right blogs? I can think of some examples of commenters on certain blogs who consistently promote violence or otherwise use nothing but provocative, over-the-top rhetoric. Despite the ideal of ‘free speech’, which does not really exist anywhere, there are comments which only give fuel to the witch-hunters, to those ‘hate-sniffing’ orgs that monitor ‘wrongthinking’ bloggers and writers. Why make their job easy, obliging them with comments they can point to as ‘dangerous’? It may be that people are just letting off steam but in an increasingly repressive environment this just asks for trouble. And it does alienate some people who are otherwise in sympathy. I can tolerate some pretty hardcore rhetoric if I know that it is not meant as incitement to some kind of violence, but it is hard to determine what is just talk and what is meant to incite or inflame. And then the agent provocateur wants to incite people to act out, to entrap them.

My feeling is that we should not give them what they want. It’s possible to get our ideas across forcefully without using outrageous rhetoric and language.

As to the ‘violence’ that the UTR participants resorted to in resisting the antifa aggressors, using force in self-defense is not immoral, and it is almost always the case that the left commits violence first (and does so with impunity) and the right does so defensively. No moral equivalence there, no matter what the ‘Respectable right’ says.

I am concerned at how this event is being used by the ‘Respectables’ to condemn nationalists and alt-righters. But I suppose it is just part of the ‘sifting’ that seems to be going on in the world now, with people lining up on one side or the other. We are seeing who truly is ‘of us’ and who is on the side of The Lie.