Propertarian 4th of July event, online counter-criticism.

I couldn’t attend due to family things.

For starters any attention at all (good or bad) that this event generates should be considered a plus, as I wrote prior (White Nationalism as a movement; the utility of rallies.). So absent catastrophic failure (Curt dies, or is gravely hopitalized, or a number of important propertarians are, something like that), the event was a success and a plus. It couldn’t really fail. They got signatures, attention, a little media (some online articles here and there, the CBS interview is unlikely to air), networking. Great. Well done.

But some people have to drag every positive attempt at affecting the world down with them, and they will criticize every nook and cranny of every little movement marginally associated with white nationalism, because they themselves failed, have done no better, can do no better, and they want no one doing any better. Bucket crabs. Your empty, nonconstructive criticism literally does not matter, you’ve already signaled yourselves burdensome, and honestly most of you are better off dead. Shut the fuck up, you’re no better than the enemy.

My opinion doesn’t quite matter either, alas, it’s my blog, etc. so, I’ll comment on it. Laying the bare facts first quickly:

  1. Mike Dunn, 2a advocate, Virginia Knight(s), was the organizer of the venue. Half the people were there for him/them. Police, barricades, and the space was organized by him/them.
  2. Propertarians (John Mark probably, though IDK who exactly) convinced them to lend space and/or time for propertarian speakers. The whole thing is very informal so there’s no exact allocated time or space.
  3. Mike in parallel planned some pro-2A BLM chapter guys (who aren’t marxist, whatever) to come in the event as well to do the ‘Dems are the real racist’ bit for the cameras, social media, etc.
  4. Obviously he, BLM, and other Virginia Knights were very upset by discovering the racist undertones of Propertarianism in Curt’s speech (and that other guy that spoke first, sorry forgot his name).
  5. They then started counter-protesting (their own protest… lol) as Curt was at around ten minutes short of ending his speech. Curt and the crowd largely ignored them. Curt didn’t address them, only paused intermittently.
  6. When Curt was done speaking, the green-shirt virginia knight and 2 BLM guys (the leader who spoke and another who didn’t) approached Curt
  7. There was a very minor scuffle (not caught on camera). EDIT: VIDEO HERE actually – Curt tries to explain to them the underclass culling problem (and lack thereof in the african race).
  8. The beginning of the conversation wasn’t recorded (IDK what they said), John Mark came close enough to record the end of it when Curt was praising black strength and penis size (lol)
  9. They then asked to speak and Curt handed them the megaphone.
  10. Curt does some theater, supports the pro-2A BLM while he speaks (whatever he was saying). Does the pointing up thing he asked the crowd to do, Cheer him away. In less than 2 minutes he’s done and gone.
  11. Takes the bullhorn just to hoof and tell people to sign the declaration in the nearby tent.

Most are ignoring #7 (fair enough we don’t know exactly what happened there until and if someone wants to testify about it), and are calling #8, #9, #10, cucking, equalizing to kneeling, appeasing to BLM, sucking black dick, etc.. some accusations being purely inflammatory. Below, in no particular order, I’ll try to steel-man and answer the ones that have some merit or at least aren’t completely ill intended.

“(#9) Curt shouldn’t have let them take the megaphone.” – Why, when, the venue isn’t his, he was done speaking, and the organizers wanted the blacks to speak? The organizers wanted either the propertarians to leave, for piggybacking on a non-racist event (and were being seemingly racist!), or at least defuse the situation, apologize, etc. Refusing to give the megaphone would just escalate the situation. Answer is, no, he should have and he did. More on escalation later.

“(#8) Curt shouldn’t have said blacks have big dicks.” – I actually agree with this one. Alas, it is a truthful statement (blacks have marginally bigger penises, yes), the “stronger” part is actually the more dubious one (stronger in some aspects, less in others). that was Curt’s way of being autistically amicable to a primitive demographic. And it worked, they liked and laughed and that helped de-escalate the situation.

Now, does that come at some sort of reputation cost, for white (nationalist) people, for Propertarians, for Curt’s own reputation etc? Yeah, I’d say it does. I didn’t mind it much myself but apparently people do care, so, to the extent they do, Curt ‘soiled’ that group-reputation. And he soiled his own reputation if he’s willing to say those kinds of things that wignats or even regular people wouldn’t say. Because he doesn’t care about his penis-size reputation. So yes that was a mistake. That was indeed a bit ‘cuckish’, from a public perspective, and not so from an autistic perspective. A mistake you’d expect from under-socialized people 😛

A weak defense of this is to say that these were just compliments done privately that JM inadvertently recorded, but, as far as it demonstrates how Curt would or does handle situations that doesn’t matter much. If he does detrimental autistic stuff in private, he might as well do it publicly, the bad-impression that people get about Curt doesn’t change.

“(#10) Curt shouldn’t have theatrically supported the BLM guy” – Eh I think this one is a wash. He’s just playing along to a circumstance he himself already allowed. The correct question is ‘whether he should have allowed it or not’ and that’s addressed in the former points. As part of de-escalation this was fine. Curt just wanted the BLM guy to speak his peace, feel comfortable (and be, comfortable really, he wasn’t going to be killed) then leave. Part of the whole peaceful separation thing, you know.

“(#5,7 alternatives) Curt should have escalated the issue and told the BLM and Virgin Knights to fuck off” – Well, no, that could very easily have led to a Charlottesville 2.0 and worse (considering the number of guns in there, and blacks with guns, etc.). The correct leadership thing to do is to de-escalate everything as much as possible without reputation loss, and, minus the black dick statement there wasn’t any loss of anything.

It’s very easy for people to see what happened and take it at face value without considering the actual worst outcomes and what people were aiming to achieve in spite of those risks. Curt did the right thing. He could have done it better, and ‘saved more face’, but that’s much easier said in hindsight, and taking into account his personality, he did everything as well as he could.

“Yelling out loud that speech wasn’t nice” – Well, the people there loved it. I loved it. So fuck you.

“Curt is an Asperger’s retard and has no place as a leader in the movement” – OK, I can agree with “as orator”, but as far as leadership goes, the answer can only be, give me one better. Leaders are not really “chosen”, and it’s not a binary title. Curt is already a leader, to some kind of movement, and for some responsibilities. People grow as leaders as they gain influence and power/responsibility. Curt might not become any more important than what he is, but, that’s irrelevant to what you think of him. To become bigger he would only need more people conferring more power to him for one reason or another (and not necessarily to speak in events), and as far as that goes, the event achieved that.

Curt and Propertarians in general are now marginally more competently known despite all the noise, and have more people (real life people, with more skin-in-the game thus more power themselves, not superchats, and behind the scenes gossip) conferring attention onto him. Real life attention is worth vastly more than internet attention. It shouldn’t be hard to understand this. For a quick example, see Cenk Uygur’s internet political campaign.

Is he a bad orator, bad PR person, etc.? Yeah, somewhat, but he’s aware and he’s been doing it just because no one else will (I don’t know why John Mark didn’t take that job, I was expecting him to, perhaps he finds himself no better than Curt, or Curt didn’t want him to, or, I dunno.) Either way that’s obvious to those involved, Curt and John will figure out what’s best to do for future events, who to have as speakers etc.

I’m gonna let out some steam here. What you want or expect or demand doesn’t really matter. You and the kind of people who say this shit, and some of you do this A LOT, no matter the person or cause, what you’re doing and always do is signalling for better men to come and do the things you want. Shut the fuck up really. Do better, support those who try, learn to give constructive criticism, or don’t bother. You’re not helping anyone. You’re a bitter spiteful moron who can’t control your emotions.

If you are so good, and you have all the answers, and you’re much more sociable and etc. You go and do it faggot. Shut the fuck up and lead the movement. But obviously you can’t. You that signal you can’t and that you just want Hitler to come back from the grave and grab you by the arm to take you to heaven. Eat a bullet retard, that’s the quickest way there.

Anyway I think those were all the criticisms so I’m done. The project continues, the new constitution continues, I wish everyone the best and I may try to show up for the next one, not sure. Thank you to all involved, keep doing what you’re doing, and fuck the haters. Cheers.

18 thoughts on “Propertarian 4th of July event, online counter-criticism.

  1. Thank you for this post.

    It’s surprising to hear you did not attend. Some of what you wrote feels like it’s from someone who did.

    Some general comments on the nature of events, reality, and “(social-)media-filtered reality.” (As I think this is a perfect case to show the general fact):

    If there are hundreds of people in a given place for several hours, *tens of thousands of interactions* (small and large) are going to occur. Phrased another way, tens of thousands of “things happened.” Tens of thousands of things happened at Bank Street just south of (the fenced-off) Virginia Capitol building and vicinity.

    Given that tens of thousands of things happened, from the perspective of any given person, some will have been positive, some neutral, some negative. Reducing this vast complexity to one or two ultra-narrow specific things in some video, and/or that hear others talk about seeing in some single video, is inherently going to lose a lot of value. A lot. This process is a basic driving mechanism behind “narrative building,” which has always existed I suppose but in the conditions of our era is much more possible to hijack much more easily.

    This is all a long and theoretical way to say that those who were will have had a very different experience than those who weren’t there and hopped onto the meme-train driven by bad-faith trolls (though I believe there were many more non-trolls).

    The narrative-spinners got people to believe the entire event consisted of Curt showing up, being immediately intimidated by BLM members, maybe being assaulted or simply surrendering the mic, then bowing to BLM and chanting with them, and getting the assembled supporters to go along with it. This is a pseudo-reality that bears very little resemblance to what an attendee would have told you happened that day. And it was so brief a thing amid hundreds of other major things that happened, I doubt that one thing made much difference to anyone actually there. It probably wasn’t even noticed by many. The attention level is multiplied by up to thousands of times over by the social-media effect.

    Reality, vs. 2010s-to-2020s-era (social-)Media-Filtered Reality.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “they [critics] themselves failed, have done no better, can do no better, and they want no one doing any better”

    “Curt and Propertarians in general are now marginally more competently known despite all the noise, and have more people (real life people, with more skin-in-the game thus more power themselves, not superchats, and behind the scenes gossip) conferring attention onto him. Real life attention is worth vastly more than internet attention.”

    There is another point that should have gotten more attention than it did. With so many people piling-on with either trolling or etc., it may have been missed, or it may have never been made coherently. It is this:

    *The Propertarian attendees outnumbered the other core attendees. Say what one will, this is impressive in and of itself.*

    (Forgive a long comment [2,000 words], but this is as good a place as any to record this. I may copy it over elsewhere, but your post inspired this; thanks in advance for providing this a “platform”:)


    Richmond Capitol July 4 Rally Attendees by Type

    The following is an attempt to classify, both by type and number, attendees at the Richmond July 4th 2020 event, at Bank Street in Richmond. (The event ended up on Bank Street after the governor again arbitrarily declared an emergency and closed off the Capitol grounds, where protests are usually held.) There was substantial mingling most of the time, so these are necessarily loose estimates but are based on certain signals such as the way people drifted at key times and many other factors like type of clothing, whether armed, what kind of weapons, and certain other things.

    The eight categories of ‘attendee’ (some would argue that only some of these should be considered true attendees, but this is a big picture). All numbers represent unique individuals; no one is classified twice:

    (a.) 200 Propertarian attendees (including a fair number who were only loosely aware or involved);
    (b.) 25 Virginia Knight attendees (this is not a high-profile or well-organized group, and even this number may be generous);
    (c.) 100 various armed ‘militia’-looking types who showed up but not under the banner of the Virginia Knights group, and mainly not in any cohesive whole beyond little grouplets of friends (and therefore not a “militia” beyond a series of squad size groups at best). Some were quite heavily armed, a few with really ostentatious levels of gear. Many of this category, the most heavily armed people, were seemingly almost apolitical, single-issue guns people who, it seems, would be okay in principle with a left-wing dictatorship and a (say) “30% permanent income surtax on whites for use as explicit racial reparations transfer payments” kind of system IF such a regime fiercely protected guns. While these people were piggybacking on the Virginia Knight group and formed no cohesive whole of their own (the Virginia Knight group at least has a name), they drifted towards the Virginia Knight ‘pole’ at key times. Among this number are also the media’s “anti-racist boogaloos” referred to in some press coverage;
    (d.) 50 nonwhite “pro-2A BLM” attendees, none of whom were *specifically* counter-protesters except for a time when Mike Dunn riled up a few (and supposedly some of the “anti-racist boogaloos”) to disrupt Curt Doolittle’s speech with his “We hate White Supremacy” chant-march stunt;
    (e.) 75 attendees who specifically came to see State Senator Amanda Chase (1pm);
    (f.) 200+ other right-leaning attendees and hangers-on, not necessarily otherwise classifiable into any of the above and drifted in and out between groups;
    (g.) 175 non- or less-political spectators and media, including a few large-follower-count left-wing journalists live-tweeting, and a small number of almost entirely non-confrontational BLM supporters who wandered over out of curiosity (one of these, who called herself “Queen,” was quoted in the Richmond Times Dispatch) (I think a small number of these people also joined Mike Dunn’s “Stop White Supremacy” march-stunt);
    (h.) [less than] 50 police at fairly great distance, probably many more unseen.

    There were no organized “counter-protesters,” who would merit their own category here, and the Mike Dunn stunt aforementioned was brief and formed no coherent subcurrent throughout except when he regularly condemned racism from his bullhorn. There *was* great concern about anarchist and BLM counter-protest, but it never materialized.

    Left-wing energies in Richmond have, for the past week, been entirely focused on the General Lee statue, which (still) stands, very high off the ground, in a large circle some miles to the west of the Capitol. They have dozens to hundreds of BLM supporters there in what is effectively their own little CHAZ equivalent, including illegal encampments on public land, wall-to-wall graffiti, illegal playing of music in public, illegal assembly without a permit, and more of what you’d expect. A street party following periods of rioting, a similar arc to the rest of the corona-lockdown-boredom-induced BLM protest wave since ca. May 30.

    Why was there no attempt at a Charlottesville-style counter-protest against the event at Bank Street in downtown Richmond July 4? One reason was the magnet that is the Lee statue. Another reason is the low-profile Propertarianism has. Another is that Mike Dunn and others pretty much recited BLM talking points (he went on at some length demanding justice for Breonna Taylor and condemned the police as people who were against gun rights, or something — goofy message), so why would any of them protest against that? Mike Dunn and the others pitched to elements of (b.) (c.), all of (d.), and (g.). Obviously especially with special nod to the media, which included in (g.). Mike Dunn is a fairly-easy-to-spot political grifter; smart enough to know all the correct talking points to advance within the system, ambitious and conformist. Maybe he will advance within the system, not because he’s a leader but because he is a grifter who makes regime-approved talking points.

    As for State Senator Amanda Chase, she turned out some people because she is an actual sitting politician, not a small-time grifter like Mike Dunn or an intellectual like Curt Doolittle. But Amanda Chase is definitely not going to win for governor in the new Virginia, nor is she going to even have a real shot in the Republican primary, unless the borders were redrawn with Northern Virginia sliced off entirely along with college towns. (By the way, in some ways Richmond itself is a “college town,” as it has a college and otherwise was affected a lot by post-segregation white flight. The college anchor explains how the anti-statue protests have continued; the part of Monument Avenue with statues is near the campus. The Lee statue may yet survive because the protesters don’t have the wherewithal to tear it down [it is several stories high] and the land is owned privately. Lee will remain, along with the untouched Arthur Ashe statue, unless the protesters escalate by attempting to dynamite the whole thing, or something).

    Adding up all these estimates gets into the 800+ person range. Among core groups, males generally ‘military’-age must have been 90%. John Mark specifically advised women and children to stay home. Some of the other categories did have women, at varying levels within categories (d.), (e.), (f.), and (g.). There were a handful of journalists who stood out; most were women.

    (Long sidenote: The two journalists were most active live-tweeting the event were white woman in their late 20s or 30s; maybe one was off-white but one was of classic white-christian stock and NW-European origin. The unambiguously white one at one point got into a long conversation with Curt Doolittle, who was drifting around chatting with all comers, about how to devolve power in the USA. A group gathered around to listen in. The journalist’s cameraman was next to her. A grab-bag of people from most of the delineated categories above were listening in, forming a circle around the pair, as tend to happen at public protest events like this. The journalist made points like, “But we already *have* town, county, and state governments, so…” I don’t know if she was ‘getting’ Doolittle or not. They agreed to do a follow-up interview. If that happens and is public — the girl doing this has 80,000 twitter followers — that’s no small deal. Doolittle often does very well in that kind of interview environment, though sometimes not so well. Doolittle got in lots of side conversations with individuals like this at the event, sometimes on camera and sometimes not. He was also telling people very blunt truths, though in his usual style was probably too verbose, not making “soundbites” that they like to use. He apologized to one of the interviewers for as much, and she said “It’s okay, we’ll find something to use in that.” None of these interactions ended up meme’d or creating troll-storms, of course.)

    As to the number of pure passers-by who saw anything (in the olden days, informing passers-by of something was the purpose of a public protest): This was going to be highly limited by the street closures and by the fact that downtown Richmond is empty anyway on a holiday or weekend, and lingering Corona-shutdowns. Even so, some will still have walked by. Probably the impression they got was, “It’s some kind of right-wing militia protest” given the conspicuousness of guys in camo with heavy weaponry. A handful of people did get Propertarian leaflets handed to them, and kept them. I don’t include such passers-by in (g.), the “150 spectators and media” count above.

    On July 4 vs. Jan. 20:

    On January 20 there was ahigh-profile gun rights rally at Richmond which got significant national attention. It was largely also an anti-Northam (Virginia’s left-wing governor) rally. I think estimates are 27,500 (+/- 5,000) attendees for that. A police estimate for Jan. 20, which got most attention, had it at 22,000 attendees. I wonder on the police’s methodology, given how spread out people were at the Jan. 20 event (most did not want to enter the limited-access “kill box” area the police had set up and instead wandered the streets).

    The July 4 event was 25x to 50x smaller than the Jan. 20 event, depending on how you measure it, but the crowd dynamics July 4 were similar. The Jan. 20 event had a contingent of “Gun Rights are Black Rights;” “Trans Americans For the 2nd Amendment” kind of protesters, as did the July 4 event. The biggest difference in crowd dynamics was the presence of the Propertarian supporters on July 4, which had yet to hold a public event as of Jan. 20 despite soaring soft-support online via the work of John Mark.

    The other reason to compare July 4 to Jan. 20: John Mark and Curt Doolittle met in person for the first time at the January 20 rally. There is a photo of them in front of the Capitol’s fence, a stone’s throw from the space occupied for much of the day July 4 by the Propertarian supporters, between the Capitol and US Court of Appeals buildings. (The ‘pole’ around the non-Proptertarians, the dress-up crew and the 2A-BLM supporters, which I referenced above, was off to the west between the Commonwealth Hotel and the Capitol grounds; check Google Map; the times of highest degree of sorting around those two poles is what I partly base my numbers-estimates on).

    While the total number of attendees on July 4 was not high, it should be remembered that the Jan. 20 event was being pushed for months, had the full backing of major gun rights groups in Virginia, and coincided with a Virginia tradition of “lobbying day,” of citizens going to the Capitol to petition lawmakers directly, and of course there was no media drumbeat about a virus pandemic and no shutdowns in effect, which I know for a fact kept some away. The big players behind Jan. 20 did not endorse the July 4 event, and even apparently disavowed Mike Dunn and his Virginia Knights group. All the same, up to half of core attendees — groups (a.) to (e.) — on July 4 were also there on Jan. 20, according to hand-counts people did.

    To circle back to the original point: Propertarian attendees very likely outnumbered the attendees at the gun rights rally itself,

    (a.) 200 Propertarian attendees;
    (b.) 25 Virginia Knight attendees;
    (c.) 100 various armed ‘militia’-looking types who showed up but not under the banner of the Virginia Knights group, and mainly not in any cohesive whole beyond little grouplets of friends;
    (d.) 50 nonwhite “pro-2A BLM” attendees
    (e.) 75 attendees who specifically came to see State Senator Amanda Chase (1pm);
    (f.) 200+ other right-leaning attendees and hangers-on, not necessarily otherwise classifiable;
    (g.) 175 non- or less-political spectators and media.

    (a.) [greater than] (b.)+(c.)+(d.)

    Liked by 1 person

  3. WigNats blew this entirely out of proportion
    1.The BLM guys were apparently not marxist, but a more conservative splinter group (?)
    2.Curt tried to be considerate and made a somewhat cringeworthy joke, fair enough, but it looks like it worked and kinda convinced the guy that the propertarians weren’t here to stir up shit. (And that isn’t “cucking”, since it wasn’t their intention to begin with)
    3.The black guy wasn’t confrontational at all and didn’t lecture the Whites on “White Supremacy” or some other bs, rather it made the impression he was reaching out to the Propertarians.
    4.The whole things was over pretty quickly and didn’t overshadow Curt.
    5.The reformation is about separation and letting the BLM guy speak was in the spirit of “Lets agree to disagree” of the event.
    6.It was a shared event anyway.

    But there is still some legitimate criticism. Mostly i got the impression, that there is a serious communication gap between Curt and the intellectual side of this movement and the populist base.
    If you look at the comment section, a lot of people apparently don’t even understand the basics of P and somehow believe it is a libertarian and CivNat movement or whatever.
    Would they have reacted so strongly, if they better understood the context of this event?

    Also Curt really should have better optics, maybe lose some weight and hire a coach of some sort to polish his rhetoric and social skills idk.
    For people like you and me it doesn’t really matter, i guess, but normies have very fine sensibilities and they pick up on Curts Assburgers and it offends them.

    “Bucket crabs”
    Yeah perfect analogy. Starting to wonder if E-populism was a mistake.

    PS: Whats up with the “Actually Autistic Blogs List” lmao

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Curt has listened to the valid critique (apart from the handling of the BLM/VK) and will likely stay away from speaking again. John Mark was meant to speak but couldn’t or didn’t want to for some reason (He’ll explain in the next video).

      A lot (JM said a lot based on YT commenter names he’s seen) of the response isn’t from people who have been following JM or P at all but are just trolls or angry WNs, etc.

      I dunno why they did that but I avow the avowal from “Actually Autistic Blogs” ! 😎

      Liked by 1 person

    2. What do you guys think of this idea: John Mark (the communicator) writes the speech. Others look it over, toss in suggestions, Curt rehearses with audience, then delivers it publicly. It is not live-stream but is recorded and uploaded later.

      People rarely write their own speeches. Livestream of a public speech in a public venue you don’t control etc. is not a good idea in almost any case, as far as I can see.


      1. It’s an OK suggestion but they’ve thought of this. Watch JM’s last video. He explains why they chose the riskier venue. It just backfired for reasons you know.


  4. I had a realization yesterday:

    The Youtube commenters criticizing Doolittle (in part for something almost none of us the event even saw/heard, as I tried to describe in my first comment above this is critically important, lived “IRL” reality vs. the quasi-pseudo-reality of life lived through Internet-conveyed media) — these critics are mainly “virtue signalling.” Right-wing virtue signalling. It overlaps with or is synonymous with what is sometimes called “Purity Spiralling.”

    Some are bad-faith trolls outright, but, to quote DJT, “most I assumed are good people.” Even (especially?) good people virtue signal.


    1. Yeah, they’re virtue signalling for a new Hitler to come and save them. Not very useful, and worse when hysterical, subversive – clearly detrimental.


  5. Also relevant and following on points made in the OP and by commenter Melonmuncher above:

    The Black guy who took the mic, and inspired some of the “virtue signalling,” had actually been in a good-faith dialogue with Curt Doolittle earlier in the day.

    (See 0:20 to end of the video clip hosted on twitter. This guy had politely asked Doolittle what the Propertarian flag stood for during/after one of Doolittle’s press interviews.)

    In other words, the “BLM guy” was not some kind of out-of-nowhere, marauding BLM thug who violently swooped in, shoved his way on the stage, and humiliated Doolittle, as some were pushing and as some were led to believe by the silly ‘meme’ that was created and pushed by some. He had been in productive dialogue already, and as many have said, that’s kind of one of the points, right?

    This is the problem with diving into things without complete information. It’s easy to assume why some thought as they did, but they were wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I wrote this yesterday, before John Mark announced he was deleting his Internet presence, but didn’t post:


    Maybe the histrionic-seeming negative responses were roughly equal parts of five things:

    (1) pure trolls, 20%;
    (2) simple misunderstanding of a complex situation, 20%;
    (3) non-trolls indulging in virtue-signalling despite understanding the situation, 30%;
    (4) the actual weaknesses of the rushed event, 20%;
    (5) jealousy or people guarding own perceived petty fiefdoms or perceived factions, 10%.

    Any individual can either be one category primarily, or some mix of some of these, or all four at once.

    How to deal with each?

    – Trolls: Difficult.

    – Simple misunderstanding: This is where, to my view, John Mark himself made the key mistake of doing it as an ‘uncontrolled’ live-stream given that conditions were unpredictable. A non-livestreamed, curated presentation would have prevented the bulk of the misunderstanding, deflating this 20% to near-zero. Explaining after the fact is playing catch-up, and many may never get the message. This part of it therefore could have been avoided; John Mark lost 1,000 subscribers over this.

    – Virtue-signalling: Not sure how to ‘suppress’ virtue signalling in general. Calling it what it is would probably help. Not giving them virtue-signal fodder would help, so this is tied to the explanation for “simple misunderstanding,” above.

    – Jealousy: Difficult, always difficult in all human affairs, always has been.

    John Mark was right on one thing: Few or none who actually attended had the kinds of criticisms that the legions of Youtube-commenter critics have. 80% of the problem is entirely artificial.

    That said, we did have plenty of criticisms (I assign 20% of the problem to “actual weaknesses of the rushed event”). There were a lot of things that could have been done better — though it’s also not useful to get histrionic about them. Getting things done right requires people thinking about a lot of things and organizational capacity for people to take care of them, and money (one small example of many: Provide water! BLM does). The Youtube-commenter mob seems to think, or pretends to think, that reality comes down to one or two soundbites, wham-bam-done. That is digital-pseudo-reality and not a serious approach to life, (but alas this is the Internet.)


    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think the bottom line had to be that these people would be able to self-police and not indulge in impulsive ridiculing, empty critique, jealousy, and all that. They can’t. The immaturity is too much.

      So the only options for JM I think was to stop trying, delete all the spiteful comments (a lot of work, too), and carry on with a 1/3 sub loss while being harassed by the same people sporadically.

      It would be the number loss that would hurt too since the goal was to rally as much people as possible, and these were pretty core as far as the initial intended target audience used to be. They had to at least behave until we got more centrists. They can’t. He’s screwed. ;/


  7. Why did this spic piece of shit change the title of this blog post from him admitting to it being an “angry cope” to this cover headline? We all know he isn’t gonna attend future propertarian events and if he did he’d add nothing of value. Stick to making fun of the gunt on discord while hypocritically guntshielding your own fat leader faggot.


    1. 1- I never changed the title, and I disclaim the value of my opinion by the third paragraph 2- It’s my blog, I can write whatever the fuck I want 3- If there’s any value in it people can take it for what it is 4- You’re no better so shut the fuck up retard. Thank you for the comment and viewing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s