FINAL SHOWDOWN: Andre Wanglin Debates Greg Johnson

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
August 29, 2017

You have to go to the page to view the video. You can also just download the MP3 here (no facecams anyway).

I went on Tara McCarthy’s show today to debate Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents after I had been unfairly misrepresented by him in a debate he had on that show with Vox Day.

I was misrepresented in that I never told anyone to be a literal Neo-Nazi and carry swastika flags on the street, and have in fact spoken out against that, explicitly.

I do not believe that “Neo-Nazi White Supremacist” is even a thing, outside of prison gangs, which are generally apolitical. I am certainly not supportive of dressing up like Nazis in public, or the KKK (which is even older than the Nazis), mainly because that isn’t cool. Just like those Ron Paul/Tea Party people who dressed up in tricorn hats.

Or Neo-Pagan hippies

Not cool.

In fact, I don’t think there is any way to make dressing up in historical clothing cool under any circumstances other than a Halloween party. I do support Halloween parties, as I think they are fun. But definitely, there is no political context in which that makes sense.

There is just something very try-hardy and loserish about dressing up like this, and not being connected to connected to modern fashion gives the impression that you are disconnected in general. No normal person sees people dressed up in Halloween costumes for a political purpose and says “yo those guys are with it.”

Even George Lincoln Rockwell said – straight up – that the only reason he ever dressed up like a Nazi is because that’s the only way he could get the media to pay attention to him. He was an ad man before he was a Nazi. That concept was a big part of my own strategy here on the Daily Stormer.

I also believe that at any future rallies such as the one in Charlottesville, we should be using American flags, rather than all of these different strange ones. I have no idea how that is anything other than obvious to anyone. Imagine the optics of the situation if instead of these various different flags that were carried, everyone in attendance had been carrying American flags.

So, after that correction was made, we then had a bit of back and forth over what to do about Nazis and the Holocaust myth.

Greg presented the two options thusly:

  1. Confront the Holocaust as a hoax and do not accept the “evil Nazi” narrative, or
  2. Claim that Hitler and the Holocaust are irrelevant and try to navigate around them

I accept these as the two options.

Note: Technically there is a third option, which is to not try to deny that the Nazis were evil, but to still support them. This is what the Jew media tries to claim that we are doing - just being purposefully evil.  Although I wouldn't do this, I think this is actually better in terms of mass psychology than the second option, personally, because it least you come across as honest.

You can decide who made the better argument there.

The core of my argument is simply this: everything you say is going to sound like the Nazis in people’s minds. Pretty much no matter what. So it doesn’t matter if you want to be attached to it or not, you’re stuck with it. So you might as well deal with it.

The Holocaust narrative – as Greg admits – is also very weak right now, due to just time. People whining over the Holocaust automatically look like the most repulsive sort of pathetic whiners. So triggering them into further whining about this alleged historical event is good in any context, because it is so weak.

Basically, my position is this: you always have to be on the attack. If you are not attacking, then you are defending yourself, and anyone who is defending looks like they’re apologizing and losing. Trying to say “oh but it doesn’t matter that I believe the same thing as these people who were pure evil” is a weak position to be in, and it locks you into defending that.

If you just say “sure, I support Hitler – Holocaust was a hoax,” you can then move on to further discussion of real ideas.

That is the way public discourse works. Especially modern public discourse. They try to trap you. It’s all about “gotchas.”

I do not think that people should be going out there talking about Hitler or how we need full-Nazism or any of that as part of a real life political movement, but they should overcome the lies about Hitler and the Nazis by simply dismissing them as lies.

Also, Greg’s point about how denying the Holocaust is more complicated than agreeing with it because Holocaust revisionism is complicated – this is also wrong. This is about the way public discourse works, about mass human psychology and the way they interpret people’s nature and motivations. Not about the details of history, which obviously no one cares about.

If you support the mainstream narrative on Hitler then you are defacto condemning him as evil (unless you do the above mentioned third option, and accept that he is evil but also support him). So, when you are saying basically all the same things as him – and there is simply no way to get around the fact that you will be saying the same basic things, unless you cuck out – while also admitting that he is evil (and not presenting yourself as purposefully evil), you are just going to look like a sneaky liar. Like you are trying to trick people.

And Greg effectively said that he things we should be trying to trick people, because he said that Hitler was lied about and didn’t really do anything wrong (except, he argued, invade Poland and want to dominate the Slavs), but said that

NOTE: Hitler's desire to rule over Poland is something which I don't care about, as I am a warlordist and human evolution-believer and believe the strong should rule over the weak and if the Pole don't want to be ruled over they should become stronger. Stalin certainly didn't show any mercy on the Germans or anyone else (although ultimately the communist system was more merciful than its post-war Western counterpart, as it never would have led to child trannies and multiculturalism). This "nationalism for everyone" concept is something which I strongly believe is total bullshit, because it necessarily embraces weakness in order to defend an abstract moral principle that no one ever cared about in history. The entire history of the world was various groups ruling over one another. Sometimes it switched back and forth, with a ruled group becoming the ruler. That's nature. Peace is an unnatural state for mankind.

If the media says “so you support Hitler” and you say “I don’t necessarily agree with every single thing he did and said, but I believe he was a great man who has been unfairly lied about” and you hold that position consistently you will successfully avoid that “gotcha,” and regardless of media attempts, the public will want to move on to the next thing – if the media keeps pressing that same point, the masses will get agitated, saying “well, he already said he thinks everything about Hitler is a lie – let’s move on to the next point already!”

Overall, I think at this point, anyone who shares the same goal as me questioning my techniques is absolutely absurd, given that the Daily Stormer is the most popular pro-White publication in all of history and is now the most banned publication in all of history (proving its efficiency). I understand when Greg and others used to make this argument 4-5 years ago, but I do not understand it now. If you exclude TRS, which is the number two Alt-Right site and also denies and mocks the Jew Hoaxocaust, then Daily Stormer is bigger than all other Alt-Right websites combined. We broke into the top 10,000 sites in the world before the Jews stole our domain and tried to force us off the internet.

This humorous, light-hearted and fun refusal to go along with a program that destroys us, mocking the neurotic and humorless ruling establishment, while creating a parallel culture is the correct approach. I am always attempting to refine my approach, which is why our readership is always growing.

But unless I am simply a much better writer than Greg or anyone else in the movement – and I don’t think I am, at least in the case of Greg, who is an excellent writer in an objective sense, and has gathered a group of very excellent writers on his site – then the fact that I am getting orders of magnitude more traffic proves that my approach is the better approach.

I mean, at one point in the debate he actually suggested that I change my approach to become more like his approach. Would that not make my traffic more like his traffic?

Does Greg think that is magic dirt

Because I’m about to prove it isn’t on

Other Stuff

We also went through some stuff we agreed on.

In particular, the need of the government to regulate tech companies, and the fact that everyone is going to get shut down quick as all hell if that doesn’t happen promptly.

I also went on a rant about my spiritual beliefs, which is something I am open about, though I don’t really write about them very often.

Overall, it was a good time.

It’s interesting to speak to a different audience, and hopefully I can get a chance to read some of the feedback from that other audience.