I don’t like to write about e-drama, but the recent pedogate implosion of the Catboi Cult wasn’t entirely e-drama, especially with police reports being filed. There are also real world ramifications of these faggots being homosexual groomers. In addition to the child abuse itself, they’ve given the butthole-left the ability to “no u” when normal people accurately call them groomers.
More recently, Milo Yiannopoulos stole Kanye West from Nick Fuentes by being less of a gay pedo. Yes, you read that correctly. Nick Fuentes got into a “who is less of a gay pedo” competition with Milo Yiannopoulos, and came a distant second.
This doesn’t have any serious political implications, it’s just funny.
Or perhaps it does?
Well actually no, it doesn’t, but only if your definition of politics is in actually getting Government policy on behalf of us. In that case, it does not make one iota of difference if Ye24 is still on, let alone who is running the clownshow. Kanye West remains an entertainer. Albeit one who, briefly, I found myself very much entertained by. Now he’s gone back to loving Jonah Hill and wearing leggings in public.
However, a while back I reviewed CJ Miller’s “In His Own Words: The Essential Speeches of Adolf Hitler.” I blitzed through the part that covers The Night of the Long Knives, even though I called it the highlight of the entire book, and didn’t quote any of it. Let me rectify that now, with Miller giving us the background to a July 13th, 1934 address that Hitler gave to the Reichstag just after said night.
Much has been made of the supposed ideological differences that led to the purges of the Night of the Long Knives, but the reality is that they were motivated much more by the contingencies of Realpolitik and personal grievances. This mistaken view is based on a kernel of truth, but more so on politically-motivated reasoning, misunderstanding, overemphasis on the importance of ideology, and a corresponding under-emphasis on considerations of Realpolitik.
-Page 157 in .epub edition.
Miller goes on to detail how few of the murders had anything to do with politics.
The other most prominent member of the old inner circle liquidated on the Night of the Long Knives was Gregor Strasser, and this is another very complicated case, shrouded in misunderstanding and outright misrepresentation. Historians in the Marxist tradition have constructed a narrative that this purge constituted the suppression of the “left wing” of National Socialism, and from this premise concluded that National Socialism was never a revolutionary movement, but merely a tool of capital to be wielded against genuine socialism all along. On the other side, many who come to sympathize with National Socialism from a right-wing background accept this framing, but count it in favor of National Socialism instead of viewing it as discrediting, without ever really examining whether the premise itself is even true. The fact is that there is a kernel of truth to it, but the issue of ideological disagreement is so muddled and confused, and so blown out of proportion, that it is much more accurate to assert that Gregor Strasser’s murder, just like Ernst Röhm’s, was motivated more by Realpolitik, and in his case even personal vengeance, than ideology.
“Strasserism” is a slightly more difficult subject, because it is a label that has been applied almost exclusively as a pejorative; nobody in the National Socialist era called themselves Strasserists, and it is only in later years that very fringe tendencies adopted that label for themselves, or more often, that people used it to insinuate subversive tendencies. The issue is further confused by the fact that the two Strasser brothers, Gregor and Otto, were actually quite divergent in their politics, and in their paths in life.
Gregor Strasser, certainly, never saw himself as anything other than an orthodox National Socialist. He joined the Party very early on, way back in 1920, and marched by Hitler’s side in the failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. His organizational skills, energy, and commitment were crucial to building up the NSDAP into a nationwide movement, and especially in reaching industrial workers in bigger northern cities. His worker-oriented National Socialism was never inherently in conflict with the main Party line; it was rather a particular focus under the big tent of National Socialism, meant to appeal to a particular demographic, the same way Richard Walther Darré’s “Blood and Soil” agrarianism was a particular focus meant to appeal to peasants and rural landowners. His disagreements with Hitler were rather of a tactical nature, for example during the election years in the early 1930s he thought Hitler’s insistence on accepting nothing less than the full chancellorship was stubborn, unrealistic, and foolish, and he constantly urged the Party to take whatever pieces of power it could get in order to advance at least some of its agenda. In economic terms he was on the left end of the National Socialist spectrum, but then so were Gottfried Feder and Joseph Goebbels. Furthermore, he was at times perceived as one of the more moderate and sensible members of the Party, even by some industrialists.
Whatever the brothers had in common ideologically, then, was eclipsed by their differences: Otto Strasser disavowed both National Socialism and Hitler’s leadership, while Gregor remained faithful to both. This raises the question of why exactly Gregor was murdered.
The obvious answer is that, although he had withdrawn from politics in 1932 and requested not to be involved in any political issues, and had nothing whatsoever to do with his brother’s Black Front, NSDAP officials feared that he might return to politics and try to challenge Hitler’s power. The repeated attempts on the part of Kurt von Schleicher in 1932 to convince Gregor to take up a position in the government as Vice-Chancellor and split the Party by bringing his faction with him made this seem like a credible threat. But the fact remains, Gregor had no involvement in politics after he resigned from his posts, and there is no evidence he had any designs on challenging Hitler’s power. His name was nowhere on the hit list that Hitler drew up, which originally named only seven men including Röhm, but through a process that is not entirely clear, expanded to include many more. The memoirs of Alfred Rosenberg, as well as historian David Irving, seem to imply that Strasser was killed against Hitler’s wishes, quite possibly on Hermann Göring’s own initiative, and with the approval of Goebbels, who for some time had regarded Strasser as a personal rival.
In both cases, the tendencies that both socialists and reactionaries might label “National Bolshevism” or “Strasserism” very often have little to do with the actual ideas of Ernst Niekisch or Otto Strasser, but are either simply orthodox socialism without liberal social progressivism, or would in fact fall under the umbrella of orthodox National Socialism.
There were two Strasser’s. The first, Gregor Strasser, was a very orthodox member of the NSDAP, who didn’t even have a particularly collectivist economic ideology, and had retired from politics in 1932. Frankly, he even appears to have had a fairly conservative temperment, and somewhat counter-revolutionary political instincts.
The second, Otto, had some semi-communist economics positions, but even Wikipedia admits that he wasn’t the most economically extreme NSDAP member. Gottfried Feder, who called for the nationalization of banks and the abolition of interest, was influential within the party. The difference was that he wasn’t an opportunistic sperg who was looking for an opportunity to usurp Hitler.
There is little evidence that Gregor was murdered because of his brother’s economic ideology. It is much more likely that Gregor Strasser was murdered because mid level NSDAP members viewed him as a potential threat to them. Kurt von Schleicher, also murdered, was recruiting him to drive a wedge into the NSDAP.
You know how Greg Conte, and a few others, have demanded that Warren Balogh randomly stab Mike Peinovich in the back and take over the NJP? Imagine if one day Warren and Emily got murdered by Eric Striker in a power move, because they were worried that the Baloghs might take over the party, and also Striker just didn’t like the guy. Then we found out that Warren had a shitlib sister, so future historians concluded that this was a purge of shitlibbery from the NJP ranks.
It is a compelling narrative that the Night of the Long Knives was about purging bolshevik ideologues from the party ranks, it just doesn’t appear much grounded in reality. This is not to say that this wasn’t real politics. If people are being murdered because they found their way onto a list, it’s political. If you have people who are trying to split a functional political party up, serious action must be taken against them, although hopefully short of murders.
A factor that contributes to the narrative that these purges were rooted in irreconcilable ideological disputes is the fact that this narrative is usually put forth by people who are themselves very interested in ideology and politics, whatever their political persuasion happens to be. There is an apt saying that when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Those who are very interested in and motivated by ideology and politics tend to project this motivation onto others, and thus attribute undue importance to ideological factors in world-historical events, while underestimating the influence of the hard realities of non-ideological political maneuvering, summed up in that German term Realpolitik. For example, while religion certainly played a role in the crusades of the Middle Ages, so did wealth, personal power, prestige, and economics. To this day there are regions of Germany that are Protestant by default because their princes converted during the Reformation, not necessarily because they read and were strongly persuaded by Martin Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, but perhaps because they wanted more independence from the Holy Roman Emperor, or even wanted to divorce their wife without waiting for the pope’s permission. Countless wars, probably the vast majority, have been fought without any ideological disagreement between the two sides, but rather over factors like land, women, wealth, or the personal ambitions of rulers. To be sure, ideology is an important motivating factor, and can fuel the flames of a conflict with other causes, but other factors are very often more important. And such was the case in the purges of the Night of the Long Knives.
In the end, at least eighty-five people were killed during the purge, and possibly more, some by mistake, some resisting arrest, some due to personal vendettas. Kurt von Schleicher was gunned down in his home, and his wife was killed by accident when she got in the way. Other prominent victims included Otto Ballerstedt, the former Bavarian separatist politician and early rival to Hitler, SA Obergruppenführer Edmund Heines, who was caught in bed with a younger man when he was arrested, and immediately dragged out of bed and shot, Gustav Ritter von Kahr, the former Prime Minister of Bavaria who had helped foil the Beer Hall Putsch, and Willi Schmid, a music critic killed in a case of mistaken identity, as the SS mistook him for a member of Otto Strasser’s Black Front.
Even the term “purge” is something of a misnomer for the NOTLK, since many of the victims were never a part of the NSDAP. Rival politicians were among the hitlist, and the streetfighting SA was cleaned up largely because they had become a counterproductive menace to society, not because Ernst Rohm was a bit too hardcore with the commie novelty takes.
Everything was more serious in the Weimar Republic. Nowadays I complain about having to censor and ban the spergs doing the spergfights. Back then we would have had to get a few dozen men and silence them, permanently.
Ultimately, the SA leadership were acting like incompetent retards, and it was easier to kill them than ask them to stop. Harsh, but that’s just real politics for you. Considering how many people were being murdered per year in the Weimar Republic, it’s really not that surprising.
Murders are of course, not the only political action. Tucker Carlson is almost certainly not our guy, and yet he was undoubtedly squeezed out from Fox because he was too populist for them, they say as much themselves. And of course, everything the ADL does is real politics. Mass censorship is real political action. Legislation, judicial appointments, corporate takeovers, all of that.
I get tired of constant online discussions, because they are, most often, not political. Sure, they are about politics, but they are not themselves politics, even if there is the occasional productive discussion.
However, there is politics that is done online. It’s not the kind of politics that leads to Government policy, but it is the kind of politics that leads to certain bank accounts growing faster than others. Realpolitiks, just not electoral politics.
I’d been meaning to write about the Night of the Long Knives chapter in Miller’s book for quite some time, in part because I keep having the Daily Rake telegram chat turn into an annoying spergfight centered around bolshevikism. People promoting some sort of neo-bolshevikism are annoying novelty take Enjoyers, but it’s not true that purging these people from the NSDAP was the purpose of the Night Of The Long Knives, in part because they weren’t in the party in the first place.
Nick Fuentes and Milo Yiannopoulos are totally fake political actors. However, they are very dangerous Realpolitik actors. Sure, you’re never going to get any tangible policy from either of them. They’re not ideological. They’re both totally narcissistic. Hell, they’re both closeted homosexuals for crying out loud. The agenda they are promoting is their personal enrichment.
And that’s why I ultimately loathe the Catboi Puhrer as much as I do, in addition to his little master, and the other one. Everything is realpolitik, but nothing is real politics. That’s why they bloviated so loudly about Grift The Steal. Meanwhile, Christian Secor, founder of the second America Fisters university chapter, gets more than the book thrown at him for walking around the capitol, and the Catboi Cult say nothing and do nothing while I and Eric Striker write articles on it.
Same goes for Gabriel “Zeiger” Chaput. Writes 1,000 dailystormer articles, and the biological failure known as Andrew Anglin is silent as the grave when he gets put away for years on bullshit charges.
In a sense what these people do is very similar to a debatelord like Destiny, who has to quite literally defend neo-liberalism in a debate, like he did against Mike Peinovich. It’s all tactics, gotchas, and personal attacks. That works wonders against people who went in expecting to have a real discussion where different viewpoints will be honestly debated.
If you just want to win a debate, learning some rhetorical tricks, coming up with some personal attacks, interrupting your opponent, turning your mic volume up, these are all great tactics to use, especially against an unprepared opponent. And frankly, if you want to debate, you have to at least come up with ways to avoid being dragged down into the mud in this fashion.
Does this mean that debating is inherently bad? No, but you need to have the understanding that, except debates between friends, your job is to crush, humiliate, and destroy your opponent. Learn how real debate is done, or don’t ever debate anyone.
It’s never a good time to be a populist. You will get no support from the (((Democracy Class))), and face a great deal of punishment. What that meant for years was a certain authenticity for people doing our politics, real politics. Then these grifting faggots came in and eagerly fell for every GOP op in order to not get censored for years after we all did.
It never got enough attention that Nicky Fuentes shut down the America First Candidates program. That came out on the famous Kino Casino stream with Jaden McNeil, but it was arguably the most damning thing that was discussed. I didn’t care so much about Fuentes being a cum hunting weirdo who watched Euphoria and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. That’s offputting, but I can have an iron stomach for someone if they’re getting something done politically.
It hits differently when it’s a realpolitik fag who shut down his one chance at doing real politics. If you aren’t primarying Republicans, or forming your own political party, you have no vehicle through which you can affect change.
At the time I assumed that Fuentes was simply too lazy and incompetent to bother. That may still be the case, but it’s also entirely possible that he got a call from some of the connections that Milo or groomer Ali Akbar gave him to mainstream Republicans, who were none too thrilled about any plan to attack them. They told the little gaffer that there might be a future for him in Con Inc if he cooled it with the anti-Republican remarks. Or maybe some (((donors))) just flat out gave him some money, strings attached.
After all, the justification for bringing Ali Akbar around, despite him being a mystery meat homosexual pedo, was that he had connections to Con Inc. I would point out that someone having connections to Con Inc is a bad thing, just like getting congresscritters up on a stage with you is delegitimizing.
But that’s from the perspective of Real Politics. From a Realpolitik perspective, sure, why not? If the only consideration is un-ideological maneuvering that benefits Fuentes, bring it on. There’s a lot of money in Con Inc, don’t ya know, wignat? Gotta take every opportunity to ensconce yourself in there, until the grift is over.
Milo Yiannopoulos raised over a hundred thousand dollars once for a White Only scholarship, and then the money mysteriously disappeared. I don’t say this to praise him, but the op that he pulled on America Fisters was worthy of study. After he got kicked out of Ye24 by Loomer and Fuentes, he constructed and then executed his revenge in a commendable manner.
First, he gets Nick, retard, to send him embarassing texts trashing his friends, all of which he saves. Second, he slowly earns the trust of a bunch of Gaypers behind the scenes, and gets a few of them to agree to come forward against Ali Akbar. Third, he gets a bunch of propaganda rags to print that he is the new leader of Ye24, which prompts Fuentes and the Gaypers to deny this, only to look stupid when Kanye West does in fact come out and name Milo as political director.
Milo appears to have learned the right lessons from his early 2017 downfall. Not the ones about being a decent person, my goodness no. I mean the un-ideological Machiavellian lessons about being careful with what you say, patient, and viciously putting down your political enemies. He’s come back, and is now, in my opinion, the pre-eminent tradcath fake hetero thought leader that you should rally behind, if you’re into that sort of thing.
Milo vs Fuentes is a joke, but operations similar to what Milo did are done by serious political actors, because they are important. I don’t want to hear some spergs novelty take in my telegram chat. Contact me if you’ve been running a sting operation on your local groomers and got them to admit to raping a fourteen year old boy.
We have to end here. In part 2, coming later today, I finally go over my aborted school board run.