Lauren Southern, Generation Identity, and the Quest for Meaning

In the Current Year, urging motherhood is being a rape apologist. Over 100 students recently protested Lauren Southern when she came to speak at Cal Poly on the “return of the traditional woman.” Southern was especially criticized for having once held a sign at a feminist protest that read, “There is no rape culture in the West,” leading one student to call her a “rape apologist.”

“What we were very upset about was that Cal Poly willingly gave people like them a platform to spew hate and make this campus more unsafe for marginalized students,” said one member of the Cal Poly Queer Student Union. “And it’s already very tough being a marginalized student at Cal Poly.”

Of course, there is a strong case the “marginalized students” at Cal Poly are not just a privileged caste but perhaps the most privileged caste in all of human history. Degenerate aristocracies of other societies at least spawned attractive luxuries like Fabergé eggs or Dutch tulips. We’re stuck with subsidized degeneracy in the form of the Cal Poly Queer Student Union and other organized parasitism. A life of guaranteed prosperity and material comfort is theirs simply if they identify as part of (or can invent membership in) one of the mascot minorities.

Many “marginalized students” are only in college to begin with because of the vast privileges granted by their membership in one of the protected classes. As for those few straight European-Americans present, the whole point of elite education is to learn to destroy your class rivals through weaponized speech and justify your own place on the top of the food chain.

What Southern is wrong about, though, is that there’s not just one but several “rape cultures” in the West. For example, we have the unfolding scandal at Baylor, where young White girls were allegedly pimped out to black players by White football coaches and boosters. And few feminists were troubled by the sexual abuse of thousands of English girls in Rotherham, while local authorities looked the other way. Still, she obviously knows this, and her sign was directed at the feminists who tell us to ignore the above and instead crusade against things like White fraternities.

Southern is fundamentally right when she says traditionalism offers an escape from a supposed sexual “liberation” movement that has turned into repression, hysteria, and the opposite of liberty. As she puts it in her book, Barbarians,

[We] have nothing but infinite license to put who and what we want in our bodies, while our freedoms to speak, to think, to dream, and to build get more limited every day.
More broadly, as she notes, she’s right to highlight how our entire generation has “experienced an utter dispossession, dilution, and disintegration of the Western soul” and how the great struggle of today is the search for “meaning.” The issue of immigration, and the larger issue of identity, is the key to finding that meaning.

Southern effectively criticizes immigration in Barbarians, with her chapter on immigration serving as a breezy “greatest hits” collection of restrictionist arguments. We get:

Yet all of this is, in a deeper way, unsatisfying. Southern complains mass immigration “often allows in critical masses of groups that despise Western culture’s most precious heritage: that of freedom, classical republicanism, and the enlightenment.” However worthy some may find such abstractions, this is thin gruel to sustain a movement that will require sacrifice and courage to achieve victory, especially when the liberal intellectuals aren’t concerned about defending their own supposed “values.” Why should the Right save them from the consequences of their own actions and beliefs?

The same kind of questions can be asked about the “Alt-Lite’s” willingness to fight for free speech. This is admirable, but free speech is not worth very much if we don’t have anything substantial to say.

Something more is needed. That something is identity.

Southern took a courageous and important step when she recently visited France and worked with Generation Identity, one of the better organized and active European youth groups engaging in propaganda of the deed, metapolitics, and community organization.


In contrast to the “proposition nation” faux-conservatism of the United States, Generation Identity explicitly defends its people and homelands as part of a resistance to multiculturalism.

Perhaps the best introduction to the movement is Markus Willinger’s (an Austrian) manifesto, Generation Identity: A Declaration of War Against The ‘68ers. The book addresses some of the same themes Southern does in her own videos and book.

Willinger’s “Declaration of War” targets the aging radicals who took to the French streets in 1968 and now comprise the ferociously anti-Western EU and national bureaucrats of today. Not content with deconstructing their own nations, Willinger blames them for dissolving society itself, leaving a generation “uprooted and disoriented.”

Similarly, Southern writes in Barbarians:

[I]t’s time to retire the term “conservative” to describe the right. My generation sees nothing worth conserving in the modern world. And we shouldn’t. To be a literal conservative today is to tacitly support the left. To be on the right today is to want to restore things that have been lost.

Indeed, as Southern, and those to her right, have often observed, even many older American conservatives have turned into the clueless “Boomerposters,” subsisting on happy talk about the Constitution, the Cold War, the military, and Ronald Reagan, totems as meaningless to today’s Third World America as the Oriflamme would be to the denizens of the no-go zones in the Paris suburbs.

The political struggle for this generation, is an existential struggle.

Gregory Hood wrote in reviewing Willinger’s book:

Willinger speaks for all those who know in their bones they have been cheated of their birthright–even if they can’t fully put it into words. Willinger deliberately positions himself as the voice of his generation, contemptuously confronting those who created this nightmare world that they are forced to endure. When he speaks about the nights of regret following a party, or the ennui and despair of an atheist generation which nonetheless cannot make itself believe, or the “cold and empty” world dumped upon European youth by the Generation of ’68, he is speaking for everyone. Though there are still the religious, the morally restrained, the idealistic, and the hopeful, Willinger has the courage to confront and give voice to the dark impulses and experiences within Western youth.

More importantly, these charges are laid at the feet of the Generation of ’68, the leftists who got the chance to build the kind of utopian society they wanted and instead gave us a disaster combining the worst aspects of deracinated capitalism and self-loathing socialism. By framing the struggle as “us versus them” and identifying and acknowledging the powerful psychological impulses behind identitarians, Willinger is able to go beyond just writing a political platform. The political and cultural struggle is a necessary part of the effort to redeem the individual lives rendered meaningless by the Generation of ’68. The war without, the war to save Europe, is part of the effort each person must make to win the war within.

Southern doesn’t quite get to that level of pathos. Instead, her work is more reminiscent of the freewheeling Internet culture of the chans, Alt-Right Twitter, and online nationalist communities. It’s more ironic, humorous, and approachable. However, both Willinger and Southern recognize Millennials do not know what it’s like to be raised in a society with “traditional” morality or an Establishment that supports patriotism. (The Canadian Southern was born long after the transformative rule of Pierre Trudeau.) Contemporary right-wing youth are driven less by the defense of real existing communities than by a sense of loss for what has been stolen from them and fury at those responsible.

Willinger frames the quest for identity as an answer to the problem of meaning. The ‘68ers tore down the institutions in quest of a vague “liberation,” captured in slogans like “It is forbidden to forbid.”

In contrast to such sentiments, Willinger argues the mission of the present generation is to build something new out of the ruins. He writes:

Your question, “free from what” was wrong from the very beginning. But we ask, “free for what?” And our answer is, “Free to find our way back to ourselves.”

In this sense, tradition, religion, ethnos, and history are part of the cumulative project, not just restoring European identity, but reawakening it as something vital, organic and new.

And identity, as he notes, becomes important chiefly during an encounter with the “Other.” The historical purpose of the conflict taking place now is for Europeans to rediscover their own identity and their place in the historical chain of their people, stretching into the distant past and forward into eternity.

In the end, the focus is not on immigrants, but on Europeans themselves. “Europe belongs to the Europeans alone,” he writes. He has no illusions about “assimilation” or “integration.” He explicitly renounces universalism in favor of an “ethnopluralist” model, rejecting the demands for “integration” of Muslims into Europe.

The problem is not that the Muslims are remaining separate from French culture. The problem is that they are in France, they have no business being there, they are not and will never be French, and they need to go back. 

This is especially important because France has already tried the kinds of policies American conservatives claim will solve the problem of non-integration.

As Steve Sailer noted in 2004:

[T]he French have traditionally tried to do with their immigrants almost exactly what the neocons recommend here: cultural assimilation, education in civics theories, monolingualism, meritocracy, separation of church and state, and all the rest.
It hasn’t worked.

In contrast, while Southern clearly recognizes the threat mass immigration poses to Europe, her arguments about immigration are more universalistic and policy oriented:

  •  Immigration is bad because it is a “brain drain,” which hurts countries that send migrants;
  • The “migrant crisis” is explicitly built upon fraud as few of these “Syrian refugees” are refugees, or, indeed, even Syrian;
  • Migrants are coming to get on welfare and are imposing costs on the European people;
  • And the result is a cultural conflict between migrants who are ultimately miserable and alienated and native Europeans.

All of this is true. But. . . so what?

Ultimately, the question facing Europeans and European-Americans can be put far more simply. Do we have the moral right to resist an increasingly obvious effort at naked dispossession?

Southern is obviously being hammered with accusations of “racism” and is showing some real guts, so we shouldn’t jump down her throat. But does Southern see an American equivalent to Generation Identity she would be willing to identify with, and if not, why not?

To bring it full circle, a similar question faces her in regards to promoting moral traditionalism. Southern has been criticized by those who subscribe to a particularly idiotic form of “horseshoe theory” that suggests she is being just as bad as Islamists by suggesting restrained sexual behavior. Naturally, the kind of moderately restrained sexual behavior that most Westerners practiced throughout the bulk of our civilization is not the same thing as Shariah. And Southern has also responded by arguing that her traditionalism is “voluntary.”

But if the recent past has taught us anything, it’s that culture is mostly driven from the top down, and we have less “choice” than we think. Relentless media campaigns promoting certain beliefs, coupled with economic, social, and occasionally governmental punishments for dissenters, have a way of changing the beliefs of most people even on those issues once considered central to any conception of morality. Even if people disagree with orthodoxy, they will keep their mouths shut as long as dissent is punished.

No matter how much empirical data proves radical feminism needs to be re-thought for the good of women themselves, no change will occur without state and media power. What good has the mountains of data done for the cause of racial realism?

It is better to rebut those who claim sexual modesty is proto-Islamic on Identitarian grounds. Of course, there are certain practices common across religions. But Islam is not our tradition, and has nothing to do with us. Its strange folkways have no echo in our blood or history. If Islam does triumph in the West, helped along by those same feminists and liberals who despise the more moderate restraint of Christianity, it can only be regarded as a conquest by outsiders.

If Westerners are to survive, it requires embracing, as European Identitarians have, a forthright defense of ourselves as a people, defending our traditions, interests, and ethnos. And to defend any concept of traditional America means accepting the reality of race, as the Founding Fathers and most European-Americans did throughout American history. As Jared Taylor put it, “For more than 300 years… American policy reflected a consensus on race that was the very opposite of what prevails today.”

Southern is in a unique place in the alternative media environment that has developed because of her defense of the Identitarians. She’s not close to being the most influential or widely read, and is certainly not the one who is pushing the Overton Window the most.

But Southern is the focal point between the “Alt-Lite” and the Alt-Right and is one of the few new media figures aware that “classical liberalism” is not synonymous with Western Civilization, nor is it sufficient to defend that civilization’s existence. For that reason, where she goes from here is important.

She is not without her critics. As Southern herself acknowledged, there’s an argument that a “traditionalist” woman shouldn’t be going around the country giving speeches. The sheer existence of a “traditional woman activist,” as she was described by the press, is self-discrediting. (Of course, they made the same argument against the late Phyllis Schlafly.)

There is also a valid case to be made against “e-celebs” begging for cyber-shekels, especially as, when one suspects, many of those appealing for funds through their Patreon are young women profiting off their thirsty beta orbiters. Indeed, some would contend any speech or cultural critique that is not done anonymously is doomed to subversion, as the writers will always be forced to pull his or her punches to ensure some measure of social peace, financial viability, or access to services such as YouTube.

More broadly, politics destroys people, especially young women. The thousands of young female journalists or activists fed into the meat grinder of right wing activism, or the DC open bar circuit are just as lost to motherhood and family as any SJW nonprofit head with a gender studies degree, and this remains true whether they labor in Conservatism Inc. or in the edgier realms of the Alt Right.

But, speaking as someone also dependent on donations, there is a more charitable interpretation. As Donald Trump has shown, brand in the modern era is mostly a product of personality, and this requires at least some people to put themselves out there, with their real face, real name, and real person on the line. Regarding the need for funds, alternate media depends on individual contributions, as we all have been successfully purged from the major outlets and from receiving grants by major foundations.

There’s also something larger at work. The contradiction between a “traditionalist” ideology and an activist lifestyle is part of the tragedy of our generation. To devote oneself entirely to the private sphere and avoid the stress and chaos of politics makes it far easier to sustain romantic relationships, get married, join a church, have a family, enjoy prosperity, and live a more “traditionalist” life.

Rich White liberals may believe “far-left” things, but tend to have more stable and socially conservative families. As Steve Sailer put it in his review of Murray’s Coming Apart, they “Talk Sixties but Live Fifties.” They certainly have more stable private situations than most “right wing activists,” many of whom must scramble to make ends meet, travel constantly, and generally live like rootless cosmopolitans while singing paeans to the importance of community. If an activist keeps his beliefs largely private, he must contend with the psychological strain of leading a double life. If he goes public, he will find that, unlike the Mafia, the forces of tolerance and diversity will go after your family, and they, out of fear, might blame you for it.

Yet to keep one’s head down and acquiesce to being a Last Man and a consumer is to simply allow the decline to continue. Indeed, it makes things worse because it’s your taxes, your subverted patriotism, your respect for institutions, and your general good will, and sense of fair play turned against you. Even your tithes and church donations may be in the service of evil. If you lead a “good life” and do what you are supposed to do, ultimately, all you have done is serve your most vicious enemies.

*Contra *Southern’s book title, it’s we who publicly dissent against egalitarian dogma, who are somehow in but not of society, who are the “barbarians,” in the classical sense. We are outside this society, exiled from the *polis*, and denied its social (and occasional governmental) protections and privileges. Sad as it is to say, by contemporary standards, the crazed primitives on many college campuses are the ones considered “civilized,” while the urbane Jared Taylor is regarded as a savage by the Great and the Good.

But people take up this life anyway, especially an increasing number of young people. To fight for our own people and culture, something taken for granted at perhaps every other time in history, is the one thing that is not allowed.

Whether one revels in the decadence, as the Cultural Marxists do, or revolt against it, the void in our souls can’t help but lead to a relentless alienation driving us every day of our lives.

For that reason, as the work of Southern and more vanguardist activists in both Europe and North America has shown, what is taking place is beyond politics. And debating tactics, propriety, or even morality is somewhat beside the point.

An entire generation has been stripped of their culture, identity, and future.

Involvement in the struggle is a compulsion for an increasing number of people, not because there is something to be gained or even because success is likely, but because no one with any self-respect can be mollified by the ruins our occupiers tell us is meant as our inheritance. People throw themselves into it out of a primordial Need, not out of political calculation.

Ultimately, Europe and North America will rise or fall together, as they are part of one great civilization and share the same fate. Regardless of what President Donald Trump does or does not do, if he fights or cucks, identity is at the center of the new North American and European Right. A generation is searching for meaning, and they will find it in the fight for our survival. And the reason more people are joining the fight is that those people standing on the sidelines, to a large extent, are already dead.

Michael Driscoll
Michael Driscoll is a refugee from the conservative movement.


  • Not even a week after all of the autistes were Pathologically Counter-Signalling and guess what happened?

  • Whites need to form a global union – The Whites of the EU have the Org, pol parties and the $$ behind them – The USA has not much of any of that at this point – BUT the USA has the freedom to do the type of field training one needs to do – and we have the Alt Rights Vets to do that training. We need a US 501C3 to group with our EU brothers and network to buy a ranch in the US and set it up as a training ground for both our people in the US and the EU. I have been working on this idea for the past year and so far all groups “want to do there own thing”…. which means victory IF it comes will be much harder. ANYONE????

  • Lauren is an attractive, smart and courageous girl. However, I don’t get why she cucked in her last video about alt-lite vs alt-right free speech when she said she was wrong about identity politics…

    • If she’s casting Generation Identitaire in a positive light then it doesn’t matter what she says. If I said, “I’m not a White Nationalist” but I recruited young Whites for Identity Evropa and TRS pool parties would it matter?

      • It would matter if the people you recruited dropped out after a few months.

        You’re assuming that her audience takes her opinions seriously. It’s obvious they don’t. Men don’t fawn over women because their opinions converge.

        • “Men don’t fawn over women because their opinions converge.”

          Men go where the women are. This is why bars and clubs have ladies’ night. I have to explain this because you’re an autistic faggot.

          • As long as women have the vote, they will support progressive causes. If men just “go where the women are” politically, then men would support progressive politics. Trump’s election would have been impossible, because women, especially young women, supported the Democratic candidate.

            Women follow trends which are established by men. No matter which camp Southern finds herself in, it will be one created by men. She’ll come around when men have made the alt-right fashionable.

            It’s men who start revolutionary movements. If there are women in the movement, it’s because women have followed men.

            When she comes out as alt-right, her angry, thirsty, middle-aged bootlickers will be there to heap false praise on her. Her “journey” will be complete.

          • Now you’re changing the subject. You’re literally so autistic you can’t stay on track for even a moment. You really are autistic, but not in a good way.

          • Men don’t go where women are ideologically. If they did, then men would gravitate to progressive movements because “that’s where the women are.” Men don’t join political movements to get laid; if they do, they drop out, because they’re not true believers.

          • “Men don’t go where women are ideologically.”

            Never said they did. I said men go where women are, and that means physically.

            “If they did, then men would gravitate to progressive movements because “that’s where the women are.”

            Yeah, because there are zero male progs. Any other examples?

            “Men don’t join political movements to meet ladies; if they do, they drop out, because they’re not true believers.”

            Objectively false on both accounts otherwise no one would ever “convert” under any circumstances. Meanwhile, there are countless examples of people “meeting someone” and then becoming a “true believer.” Typically it’s women that “convert”, but that’s just biology. That’s also why there’s no point in counter-signalling against someone who isn’t openly hostile.

          • Then men ought to be enrolling in women’s studies courses, veterinarian schools, and progressive movements. The male-to-female ratio is lower in progressive movements than in right-wing movements; but even if it were higher, that wouldn’t prove anything. Men don’t join political movements to get tail, but for other reasons, like their economic station. The only exception may be male feminists, but they’re mentally ill losers.

            If men go into movements for non-ideological reasons (e.g. because a pretty face says the white population is under threat), they will drop out, unless they believe in what the movement stands for. You tacitly concede this when you say that it is typically women who are converted by men.

            Southern isn’t going to convert anyone to the movement, which she has disavowed. The idea that she has that ability is as dumb as your repeated misuse of the term “counter-signalling.”

          • Rabbi Rossi,

            If a guy joins a movement to get hot chicks, but doesn’t get any, what reason would he have to stick around?

            If men go into movements for non-ideological reasons (e.g. because a pretty face says the white population is under threat), they will drop out, unless they believe in what the movement stands for. You tacitly concede this when you say that it is typically women who are converted by men.

            Charismatic men like Richard Spencer and Benito Mussolini grow political movements, not ditzy broads.

          • Rabbi Counter-Signal,

            Whoever this Rossi is you’re Doxxing the wrong goy, but keep going. I want you to attack some random normie and watch him turn on you. That should end well. While you’re at it, go back to Doxxing Mike Enoch and the TRS crew. Nothing grows a movement like counter-signalling traitors.

            Your pathological counter-signalling forces your to keep being an autistic faggot. Every post is worse than the last. What’s the matter? Give up on Milo so now you’re trying something else?

            “Charismatic men like Richard Spencer and Benito Mussolini grow political movements, not ditzy broads.”

            Jesus fucking Christ you’re autistic! If you want to get into specifics (which you don’t and obviously you can’t) we could talk about the Moonies. Literally no one is saying Laura Southern is going to be Murdoch Chan, well except you.

            Political movements grow from propaganda, charisma, power, emotional support, money, cartels… and it’s certainly not limited to one way.

          • Whoever this Rossi is you’re Doxxing the wrong goy,

            No, it’s definitely you. You deleted the photos from Facebook and changed your avatar photos as soon as I made the connection. What a freak.

            Whatcha doin’, Rossi?

  • Who cares what Lauren Southern thinks? Her thoughts aren’t interesting. She’s a slutty attention whore, not Alexander Dugin.

    • Lauren get 100k Youtube views within hours, that’s why we care. If we don’t focus on winning hearts and minds, we lose.

      • Lauren gets 100k Youtube views within hours…

        …from thirsty men who aren’t watching her for analysis. They don’t care what she says. Any red-pilled men who follow her were red-pilled before they saw her videos.

        If anything, her influence is negative. What Lauren Southern does has a bigger impact on the subconscious of women than anything she says. If she tells women to be stay-at-home moms, it will conflict with Southern’s decision to have an exciting journalism career.

        If the alt-right doesn’t have a problem with a careerist slut, because she occasionally says things they agree with, then we have some crypto-feminists in our midst.

        These alt-righters either think women are like men and can be reasoned with, which is retarded, or that men watch pretty girls for philosophical insight, which is equally retarded.

        • Prediction: Lauren will be Identitarian and have multiple white babies within five years. Let her continue on her journey to our side while you bitch and whine about a 22 year old GIRL as a “slut”.

          • A woman like Lauren Southern is reliant on the viewpoint of her boyfriend or husband.Southern is already red pilling many thousands of people right now. LOL ZOMG!

          • Have you seen Lauren’s latest video? Looks like all of the pathological counter-signalling was wrong.

    • Alexander Dugin is completely useless to the White world. His political theoryies are centuries behind Lothrop Stoddard. His stance on race is completely in line with the Cult of Political Correctness. If we followed Dugin we’d have Hapa-Nigger favelas in the ruins of a White World.

      • If we followed Southern, we’d be race-blind civic nationalists. How is that any better?

        I’m sure one of her fawning admirers will chime in and explain how she’s an evolving thinker who’s slowly coming around to race realism. If that ever happens, it will only be because race realism is on the table politically and socially.

          • They aren’t mutually exclusive (Alain de Benoist is both a journalist and a political theorist), not that the difference is relevant to anything.

          • Dugin is not a journalist.
            Southern is not a political theorist.
            You’re autistic, but not in a good way.

          • I never said they were, so why is this relevant? Are you saying that can’t follow what someone believes unless they’re a political theorist?

          • Repeatedly calling someone autistic is retarded.

            Southern is a journalist, she’s an activist – and not for white nationalism. Go watch her latest video where she explains away objectivity and fact in reporting, claiming nothing can be reported objectively and the world is better off just left to compare two different biased points of view. She also flat out says the truth is boring and it won’t bring you clicks or attention so why bother. Watch the reaction videos too. Read the comments, where people ask why she’s deleting dissent.

            Either way, she’s developed a following of lonely losers who have spent the majority of their lives in front of a computer – pluck your average Scandinavian/European/Russian woman her age off the street and they make her look like trailer trash. Great that’s she’s moderately red pilled some people but there’s little depth or substance and ultimately they’re just finding her story telling. When it becomes popular to be WN sure she’ll join like every other band wagoner.

          • “She also flat out says the truth is boring and it won’t bring you clicks or attention so why bother.”

            So she’s not in it for the attention or the money?

            “Either way, she’s developed a following of lonely losers who have spent
            the majority of their lives in front of a computer – pluck your average
            Scandinavian/European/Russian woman her age off the street and they make
            her look like trailer trash.”

            So she’s in it for the attention and the money?

            The problem with pathological counter-signalling is you sound autistic. Here’s another great example:

            “When it becomes popular to be WN sure she’ll join like every other band wagoner.”

            If that’s true then why did you bother to say anything?

          • I didn’t contradict myself – My point is that she doesn’t simply report on sjw events because that wouldn’t bring money or attention – she goes to the events and invents stories she knows people want to hear, much like CNN, that may or may not reflect truth.

            Why does it matter if she and the her beta following join eventually anyway ? .. because then it’s just a movement of frauds like the alt lite. She doesn’t care about you hahahahahaha but keep fapping to her and cernobitch simultaneously

          • You literally said:

            “She also flat out says the truth is boring and it won’t bring you clicks or attention so why bother.”

            When will you stop pathologically counter-signalling?

          • Learn what “counter-signalling” means before accusing others of it, Rabbi Rossi.

          • Right and so you must be affirming that she will cast away truth and fact in favor of likes and subs. Her following would leap to defend her smoking dindu cock – she is infallible because she gives them more eye contact in her videos than any female ever has irl. I understand. I truly don’t care. Like her don’t like her idgaf. Imho a true identitarian movement cannot be built around popular YouTubers and their sheeple. It arises in the individual and is not easily bought or sold. A WN, I would think, would be a strong individual with strong convictions who hopefully wouldn’t blindly follow any one person or notion without analysis or question. If a person is not willing to openly support their race then whose race are they supporting? Or are they lying by omission to save shekels?

          • “I truly don’t care.”

            That’s not the impression I’m getting.

            “Imho a true identitarian movement cannot be built around popular YouTubers and their sheeple.”

            Literally no one is saying we should.

            “If a person is not willing to openly support their race then whose race are they supporting?”

            Finally we’re tackling the CQ (cuck question). This is why Libs/Libers/Cons are indistinguishable on serious matters: immigration, miscegenation, JQ, et al. All of them support African adoption and miscegenation, while simultaneously fighting against White identity. What you’re getting at is a vetting process to determine who is with us and who isn’t. So far there are no good answers. But attacking White people who are anti-Left just because they’re not 1488 is pathological counter-signalling. Just because Jared Taylor is weak on the JQ doesn’t mean we should attack him. Everyone has their uses.

            “Or are they lying by omission to save shekels?”

            As Kevin MacDonald points out: White Genocide is highly incentivized. Obviously we must be willing to incentivize White people. The WeSearch d’nations for Andrew Anglin was a huge win. In case you’re out of the loop, Andrew Anglin exposed the Jewish community’s attack on Richard Spencer’s mother. As a result, Jews engaged in Lawfare to bankrupt him. Did you donate to Anglin’s legal fund?

          • Usurpname, you don’t understand people or motives at all. Not even two days after your diatribes and this was posted. You can STFU forever.

          • “follow”

            Who’s “following” anyone? I’m just not so autistic I believe everyone is 100% against White people unless they’re born 14/88.

    • If anything, Alexander Dugin is the attention whore. He keeps making controversial statements like cannibalism being okay if that’s your muh tradishen as a cheap mean to spark controversy. The fact that Americans — who are of an entirely different soul to the Russians Dugin (mostly) talks to — are considering him an authority for their own ideology only goes to show how shallow, autistic and LARPy these people can be.
      As if your resentful beta attitude towards Southern wouldn’t be enough to make that clear…

  • She seems very pro-European. I think she represents the broad centre of the resistance – not identifying with WW2 German National Socialism, but not wanting the European peoples to die out either.

    For people calling her a brainless bimbo, I wonder if they’ve actually watched any of her videos. She may not have the sophisticated metapolitics of Richard Spencer – another good-looking blond – but she seems more intelligent than 90%+ of political commenters, even the ones on our side.

    • I don’t know if Lauren seems more intelligent, just more patient and tolerant of other viewpoints which is a very traditional Canadian concept (Canadians are in my family). Of course, that has all gone away with subversion of Canadian society and the resultant hate speech laws and Hijab clad Mounties.

    • She is not more intelligent than 90% of political commentators. Her commentary is warmed over Milo and Sargon. She is not even an interesting stylist.

      • “She is not more intelligent than 90% of political commentators.”

        Over 90% of political commentators are explicitly anti-White.

        “Her commentary is warmed over Milo and Sargon.”

        When did Sargon and Milo join Generation Identitaire?

        “She is not even an interesting stylist.”

        That sounds ghey, Rabbi One Man’s Chorus.

        • Just because someone is disingenuous, or actively malicious, as 90% of political pundits are, does not mean they are unintelligent.

          Southern didn’t join Generation Identitaire, which is a continental European political movement, but Milo linked to and praised a Counter-Currents article, which is more radical than Generation Identitaire.

          • Your pathological counter-signalling is just fucking pathetic.

            “Southern didn’t join Generation Identitaire… but Milo…”

            Jewish Milo didn’t join Counter-Currents, and he would be more than welcome. Jewish Milo is a degenerate homosexual and pedophile, which is why you’re defending him Rabbi One Man’s Chorus. When Jewish Milo joins James O’Meara (since they have so much in common) then you can talk about being “radical.” Until then, keep being a counter-signalling autiste.

          • What’s the point of saying that Milo and Sargon didn’t join GI when Southern didn’t join it either? If you want to give her points for making people aware of GI, then give Milo points for linking to CC, which would make the reader aware of the Jewish question. GI is neutral on the JQ.

            Hilarious that you changed your name, avatar and deleted those photos of you wearing the skullcap at the Jewish wedding. Why would you do that?

            Those photos prove that you’re a clown trying to sow discord. All I ever see you do here is fight and bicker with people.

          • Rabbi Counter-Signal,

            Are you giving up on your beloved Jewish Milo so soon? Why didn’t Milo join Counter-Currents? What’s the matter Rabbi?

            Hilarious that you’re so autistic you’re accusing others of “sowing discord” while you’ve spent two days pathologically counter-signalling against a harmless Alt Lite. All I ever see you do here is fight and bicker with people who have been around longer than you. A shekel for the good goy.

          • Hey Rabbi Counter-Signal, post more pics of random Jews. Anything sow discord and distract from your embarrassing, pathetic counter-singnalling of a helpful Alt-Lite journalist and activist.

          • It’s impossible to communicate with you rationally. You’re hysterical, insulting and you go on irrelevant tangents. And you’ve been doing it for years, which is why you don’t want others searching your disquis history. It’s more evidence that you’re a troll, or a mentally ill freak.

          • “It’s impossible to communicate with you rationally.”

            By “rational” maybe we should look at your diction:

            mentally ill freak

            Or how about the subject at hand?

            slutty girl
            ditzy broads
            slutty attention whore

            Oh you’re really rational and mentally stable while you’re Doxing random Jews and normies! Meanwhile, you’ve attached yourself you Alexandre Dugin who denies race exists. Since you want to posture as “rational”, it would be high time you remember the central tenets of the Alt Right are race realism and White Identity. You cannot choose one and not the other. You chose Whitish Identity and Western Culture, much like the Proud Boys.

            You’re not on Thot Patrol, Rabbi Counter-Signal. You’re just pathologically counter-signalling, sowing discord, and attacking potential allies when the world is against White people, inside and out. You are part of that problem.

          • After all of your pathological, brainless, dickless, hopeless, helpless autistic counter-signalling, you were flat out wrong.

            Here you go Rabbi Counter-Signal:

  • Lauren is not just a hottie, she’s an avatar for what most of our men want. She’s desirable not just for her looks, but I’ve talked with her and unlike most women she is not putting on an act. She is genuinely a sweet girl. She is not a cunt. That is rare in my experience. If you can find a beautiful, loyal, intelligent, genuinely kind girl you have struck gold.

  • An entire article theorizing the terribly important subject of some bimbo’s ‘quest’ [sic] looking for a meaning? Seriously, who gives a flying fuck about this girl? Do you really think she’s one of ours?

    She’s into the movement because she gets the most important things for any female: male attention and money.

  • “There is no rape culture in the West,”

    There wasn’t before mass immigration from the Third World.

    • The current umbrella of US protection causes many of Europe’s problems, as the money they should be spending on national defense is instead used to import millions of third-worlders and provide a welfare state that makes the European male obsolete. Not to mention the ridiculous sanctions the US puts on Russia, which our NATO allies must abide by.

  • She’s a net positive and the fact she’s pretty is of course a plus. The boys who complain that she’s not at home making babies are beta orbiters themselves, just engaging in “aggressive verbal topping” online instead of the beta orbiters being “nice.” A difference without a distinction.

    She’s also coming closer to our side, a trajectory we should welcome. As pointed out below, like Ann Coulter, she knows exactly what is up but is building a brand and is trying to avoid the David Duke treatment. When she occasionally counter-signals clearly her heart isn’t in it.

    The “right” is supposed to be against “egalitarianism.” Some people are better at being a public figure than others. Looks count for a lot, brains count too, and being well spoken is mandatory. Sorry, not everyone is cut out for public activism. Southern clearly is.

    • Well put. Some people on here would rather die in a purity spiral than exercise just a bit of patience.

    • Sometimes we simply can’t live the type of life we want to because there is something else we must reconcile with first. Something which threatens the type of world we actually want to live in. I would die for my own children. Of course that does not mean that I would want to die, but that death was the only tolerable option for me due to the circumstances I was given. Likewise, I’m sure Lauren Southern would love to live the traditional lifestyle with a big loving family, but she sees what is being done politically and feels an obligation to stand up and put herself on the line in order to stop it. Since if globalism and the anti-white agenda is not stopped then traditionalism will die completely.

    • Hate to counter-signal against Southern since she’s a genuinely
      admirable figure, but she doesn’t even come close to Coulter’s wit.

      This is part of a bigger issue today’s dissident right faces that other people have noticed as well. We don’t really have equivalent replacements to the older generation, to people like Sam Francis, Jared Taylor and Johnathan Bowden. Lack of a Sam Francis probably hurts the most, since he was a very astute, systematizing intellectual and we need a more cohesive doctrine right now. Hope Greg Johnson’s lengthy manifesto turns out well.

    • You sound like an idiot. Her very existence is counter to alt-right. Overton Window? Maybe, but use it don’t excuse it.

  • Lauren “I am not a white nationalist” Southern

    I don’t get why she’d say that after spending time with Generation Identitaire on the border. Really makes her come across as just a clever opportunistic journo.

    • A more important question is whether she is consciously pro-white. I don’t know the answer to this. I have been saying for a while that pro-whites who want to want to avoid setting off normie alarm bells unnecessarily should should avoid the term white nationalist. It conjures up images of ethnic cleansing. I would tell someone I was pro-white before I would tell them I was a white nationalist. White ethnostates will not happen for a number of decades. Saying you are pro-white moves things in the right direction, while saying you are a white nationalist makes people think you want to round up nonwhites and deport them.

      • What is the plan to create the ethnostate? In a couple decade most American States and cities will be even more “diverse”. If creating ethnostates (larger than a gated community) isn’t happening today, why will it happen in 30 or 40 years, when whites are an even smaller minority? I don’t get the logic of that claim.

        And, eventually, isn’t rounding up and deporting nonwhites still the only plausible way you end up with a white ethnostate in North America. Do you expect nonwhites to voluntarily leave?

        • The thing is, most whites do not have white racial consciousness now. In other words, they are not consciously pro-white. The main thing holding whites back now is a lack of awareness. It is true that the demographic situation will continue to get worse, but this cannot stop whites from coming together and forming explicitly white organizations and communities.

          Here is how I see things playing out. Once ~10% of the white population is consciously pro-white, things will change quickly. Whites will demand the right of freedom of association. Nonwhites are allowed their own organizations, etc., currently. Whites will create these things for their own people, and once a critical mass is reached, the threats of job deprivation and ostracism will no longer work. Explicitly white clubs, professional organizations, and advocacy organizations will become ubiquitous. Whites will begin speaking out against miscegenation. Right now, you cannot do this publicly without repercussions. Once we get the right to speak out against miscegenation, the dire demographic situation for whites will stabilize. There will be a reproducing white population that will be committed to avoiding race mixing.

          You might say that this will become less possible in the future because of the changing demographics, but you are thinking linearly here. When more whites start waking up, your linear extrapolation into the future will cease to apply.

          Eventually, we can hope that the explicit white community at large, which intentionally avoids race mixing, will seek its own ethnostates. It is not for us to tell them how to go about this, however. Our job is to promote white racial solidarity.

          It is impossible to predict how far off in the future an ethnostate will be. It will be a number of decades at least. Our job is just to keep things moving in the right direction.

        • Rounding up and deporting nonwhites

          You are thinking too far ahead. As I wrote in my other comment, our job is to promote white racial solidarity. This will set the stage for others to seek an ethnostate.

    • Maybe she’s scared to lose all her advertisers and get kicked off youtube / pay pal, etc. and be shunned by her friends and family.

      We should allow room for people to be pro-white, without going all the way, as long as they’re telling the truth and not actively holding people back.

    • White women don’t have to be aggressive white nationalists. They just have to get out of the way and allow white nationalist men to lead.

    • One thing I’ve found is that you can get away with acting like a white nationalist so long as you don’t come out and say ‘Hey I’m a white nationalist’ and people who aren’t crazy SJWs will generally leave you alone.

    • Ultimately it’s better to have people who are more milquetoast but also refuse to aggressively counter-signal us. This is how the broader Right will acquire us as a radical core in the end. LS is someone who actually occupies and intermediary position between our own and people even more moderate than her.

      We should have our own guys who are media savvy putting out their own sanitized neo-cuckservative content who will fill that market niche while refusing to fully disavow us just like LS is doing now. Even if she is not a crypto-WN she is doing what I would have a crypto-WN do, and what we should be doing already.

  • The only reason a 21-year old blonde girl is known at all is because Levant wanted to build a brand for thirsty 21-year old males who want to “jump down her throat,” so to speak.

    Marginal eye candy with no life experience or learning. I’d be stunned to learn that her background does not echo. Else, why is she in the public eye at all?

    • I’ve considered that her break from The Rebel might be a phony way of gathering a larger audience. That she might still be affiliated with them in private.

    • The Rebel has let the genie out of the bottle and now has to cater to its audience whether it wants to or not. Their hiring of Jay Fazya helps our cause as it gives a perfect example / punching bag for why civic nationalism is dead.

  • Lots of words that beat around the bush–culture, identity, traditionalism, etc. But not many words about what is absolutely essential to us as White people: our White genome.

    We must stop running from words such as “racist,” and embrace our most essential identity as White people. All else is secondary.

    And, to be clear, this White identity is not found in culture or traditionalism–they are effects and the cause is our White genome. It is the fountainhead and source of who and what we are. We are the White tribe on this dark planet and we need to ask of everything: Is this good for White people?

    We do not go into the future in our works or our beliefs but in our genome. Without our White genome, we do not exist. Period.

    • We are the White tribe on this dark planet and we need to ask of everything: Is this good for White people?

      Diversity clearly makes white people’s lives worse, and that fact alone shows that the projects to diversify white societies fail the tests of humanist ethics. We have the moral legitimacy to demand what we need for our own flourishing, confidently and unapologetically.

      • Diversity clearly makes WHITE people’s lives worse. I don’t care what it does to non-White peoples as I don’t care about them at all. I practice non-interference and indifference to non-Whites and do not butt into their affairs, their business, their problems. They are on their own, as I, as a White, am on my own.

        • I agree. You’d think Ayn Rand’s cultists would see the morality in the Alt Right’s virtue of white selfishness, in that we face nonwhite adversaries who have their hands out and demand that we make sacrifices for them; we have the moral right to tell these invaders and parasites to go away and leave us alone.

          But then Rand constructed her philosophy with the interest of Happy Merchants in mind, not white Americans’ real interests.

          • Ayn Rand didn’t come up with anything new. “Her philosophy” is a copy of egoism (not to be confused with egotism) that harkens back to Aristotle and is a White invention.

            The difference between traditional egoism and my version is that I say Whites must look out for ourselves both as individuals and as a race. This is so because each White carries the White genome and it that which goes into the future and which is the most important part of us. This being the case, and the way we go into the future is by having pure White children, the more Whites in existence and breeding with us, the better for each of us individually. This also permits altruism but only to our fellow Whites since this also benefits us individually in the long run.

          • I went to an Objectivist conference last year and not only was it nearly 100% white (about 300 people or so), but they were the type of people with just enough autism that you can ask them about things such as race and IQ over cocktails and they won’t bat an eye. I think we should try mining their movement for converts (I’m sure many Objs are already alt-right).

  • Lauren is moving farther to our perspective with each day. She got into it with Sargon of Mossad over his milquetoast classical liberalism and journalistic “neutrality.” When Lauren finds and marries an Identitarian man, her conversion to the Alt Right will be complete.

Leave a Reply