The Power of Racination vs the Weakness of Deracination. Tale of Two White Groups: The Racinating Jews and Deracinating European-Americans

Especially since the end of World War II(though the general process began much earlier), white people in America could be lumped into mainly two groups. European-Americans(or ‘whites’) and Jews. Jews have long been considered as white people in the US even though most ‘full-blooded’ Jews(Ashkenazim) tend to be 50% Semitic. One could argue that many Hispanics are more white than Jews are. ‘Hispanics’ in America can be of any race, color, or nationality as long as they are of Latin American descent. Given that Italians(especially from Southern Italy) and Greeks are genetically more similar to many Jews than to Northern Europeans, it may seem odd that they too are being lumped with ‘white people’ while Jews increasingly stand apart. Furthermore, due to acceleration of mixed-marriages among Jews since the 1960s, a good many of today’s Jews are more European than ever and look it. Apparently, many successful Jewish men in the past 50 yrs married European-American women. Indeed, Jewish-Americans range from almost entirely white to almost entirely Semitic, and the proof is in the looks. Some Jews look more Anglo or Nordic than Semitic, while some Jews look like Groucho Marx and Alan Dershowitz. Given these racial or interracial complications, why does it makes sense, politically and culturally, to speak of Two White Americas, Jewish and ‘white’? It has to do with the factor of ‘Racination’ vs ‘Deracination’.

While it’s true that race is real and even biologically based, everything human is also about consciousness. Consider blackness. It’s biologically real that black races evolved in Sub-Saharan Africa. And yet, consciousness about blackness can change from place to place, from period to period. This is further complicated by mixed-race-ness. How people with black blood respond to their blackness differs from Brazil to Venezuela to Mexico(where most blacks became mixed into the racial brew) to the US. A light-skinned person with some blackness may identify as mixed-race or quadroon or octaroon in Brazil as such response has been the general norm. But in the US, he or she may identify fully as black for reasons of racial pride or solidarity(or exaggerated self-aggrandizing self-pity). But that is in the NOW. In the past, when the US was more race-ist, a light-skinned black person might have considered himself/herself as superior to darker blacks. Or, if possible, a light-skinned black with mostly white looks would have tried to ‘pass’ as white’. Consciousness of blackness used to be of shame than pride in the slavery era. So, cultural-consciousness of the ideological Zeitgeist goes a long way to determine whether a people emphasize(and even exaggerate) their racial/ethnic consciousness OR suppress(and even erase & deny) it.
Perhaps the most famous(and maybe shameful) case was of Germans in the US and UK during World War I. Germans have many virtues, but their subordination to authority and anxiety for social approval have been problematic. On the positive side, it could make them more unified in politics and united in purpose. But it could also mean a herd-like willingness to do anything to GO ALONG. Ironically, both German hyper-deracination in the US & UK and ultra-racination in Nazi Germany have an underlying common psychological structure. In both cases, German masses were swayed by the prevailing authority. German-Americans and German-Britons folded under pressure and out of fear all too easily. Germans under German Nationalism rallied en masse in total devotion to Der Fuhrer, the Man of the Hour, the Man of Destiny. In one respect, one could say German-Americans blended easily into Anglo-America and Anglo-Britain because of racial likeness and also because Anglos accepted them as racial brethren, indeed more than any other people. But given the rich and proud history of German Civilization & Culture, it seems rather shameful that, under pressure of a few years, so many Germans were willing to erase and suppress so much of their rich identity and culture. It was one thing for Germans to learn English and become Good Americans and Good Britons in foreign lands. But to go so far as repress or reject so much of Germanness except ‘harmless’ cultural identifiers such as beer, sausage, sauerkraut, and pretzel seems almost incredible. There are so many Americans of German stock who have nothing German about them in historical or cultural consciousness(except maybe in Holocaust Guilt). If Germans had been a tiny minority, it wouldn’t matter. But, for a long time, they were the biggest ethnic minority and contributed so much to the building of the US.
From a political viewpoint, perhaps it was a good thing that German-Americans became nearly fully Anglo-Americanized for the sake of national unity. As European Conflicts pitted Anglos against Germans in the first half of the 20th century, perhaps the US avoided similar ethno-national tensions because German identity had been successfully suppressed and subsumed into Anglo-America, especially during World War I when harsh measures were taken against the German-American community. But politics aside, what’s rather depressing is that so many Germans really took it to heart and waged war on their own identity. Germans rejected their identity beyond what was called for. It’s like there were times when Jews, under social or political pressure, had to pretend to just along. But apart from their external behavior, Jews never surrendered their Core Identity of Jewishness. Jews went along in body, not in soul. But German-Americans rejected their identity like Lutherans purge their souls of the Devil.
Does this mean that religion is stronger than race or ethnicity? Not necessarily. More likely, race + religion is the strongest identity. Jews have held steadfast onto the idea of the Covenant with God. And this sense of the Covenant, more than any political policy by Jews or ‘whites’, may have been most crucial in the resilience of (sacro-)racial identity of Jews. Wherever, whenever, and whatever, Jews primarily see themselves as Jews. They may be ‘Americans’, ‘Frenchmen’, ‘Polish’, ‘Russian’, ‘Iranian’, ‘Egyptian’, or whatever, as there are Jews all over the world, BUT the goy nationality is merely the dress that Jews wear. In flesh and blood, Jews are Jews. If an American Jew was forced to choose between being only American(and not Jewish) OR Jewish(fixed to another goy nationality), he will choose the latter. Jews value Americanism as the vehicle that brought them to supreme power. But it’s a tool, not their heart and soul. Also, as just about anyone can become an ‘American’(in mere five yrs necessary for citizenship), it’s not a very meaningful identity anymore. It is a means to material success, privilege, opportunities, and power. If something is open to everyone, it doesn’t really belong to anyone. America has become a Globo-Cow for all the world to squeeze for milk. The teats for treats for the world. And Jews now have primary ownership of the cow. Just like a farmer doesn’t identify himself as a cow even though he profits handsomely from it, when a Jew says he’s an ‘American’, it means something like "I’m a dairy farmer." ‘American’, to a Jew, is more an occupation, status, or position than an identity. The Jew’s true identity is Jewishness, not least because it is richly rooted in deep history, and it belongs to Jews alone. It is immutable, therefore precious to Jews. It is Jewishness, the binding of religion and race, that has made Jews unique throughout history(though there are elements of that in Hinduism as well, another ethno-religion. But if caste-less Judaism bound all Jews together as one people, the powerful caste-element left behind a much divided and fractured India). Religion is powerful but mainly a matter of faith, of the heart. Also, universal religions are mutable and thus weaken tribal or racial identity. After all, no race or identity owns Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam. Religions can impart meaning and inspire people to noble deeds, but in emphasizing the heart over blood, it does little for identity, roots, and history.
As for tribalism, it too has its advantages and weaknesses. Naturally tribal, people like being part of a common community that comprises members of similar looks, alike temperaments, and shared signifiers. But tribalism as mere tribalism can be crude and ham-fisted, a vision of the world where it all boils down to ‘my tribe(or country), right or wrong’. Such emotions may be powerful but not very ennobling, and in worst cases, dark and despicable, as in wars when nations mercilessly kill countless civilians of one another in an orgy of tit-for-tat macro-tribal vendetta. The great advantage of Jewishness is that their religion is wedded to their race. So, when Jews think of God, He isn’t just a universal abstraction but their own God, the one and only Deity who made them the Chosen. Also, because Jews believe that their race is blessed by God and History, they regard serving their own tribe as a spiritual and moral endeavor. As far as Jews are concerned, the world can only be blessed by Jews, the Chosen. So, Jews must reach the top and gain the most power in order for the rest of humanity to be redeemed(by serving Jews). Indeed, rest of humanity must aid and abet Jews in this endeavor because Jews are the Chosen of God. Jews claim to be for universal justice, but Jewishness can only be about Jewish mastery & supremacism since it's premised on the conviction that humanity can't do without Jews, the only people who can redeem and bless the world. The logical conclusion is all goyim must praise and serve Jews as the Master Race because Jews and only Jews deliver justice to the world. But if Jews must be elevated above all of humanity to bring about a just world, isn't that unjust? Isn't it about Jewish supremacism and mastery? (This mentality characterized Jesus as well. He thought humanity could be saved only through Him. But at the very least, Christianity calls on Jews and Gentiles to be equal and alike. In contrast, Judaism posits that each and every Jew is like a messiah who must be obeyed, served, and praised by goyim. Thus, Jews and Gentiles can never be one people; Jews must be the master race over goyim, albeit one that promise justice to goyim. But if a people insist on having total power over you, would you trust them to administer justice on blind faith? US has been a most fascinating macro-experiment in Jewish Power. Jews got near-total power, and what are they doing with it in finance, gambling, entertainment, real estate, law, liberty, pornography, foreign policy, and culture?)

This is why the most important lesson of the 21st century may be that only peoples with their own covenants will survive and grow in power. As it stands, Jews are the ONLY PEOPLE with the Covenant. And that is why their power keeps growing while those of ‘whites’ keep diminishing. Covenant is like the freezer. Frosty the Snowman can survive in the Cold but not in warm weather. Covenant does to identity what freezer does to ice. It keeps it solid. Without the Covenant, identities melt into the puddle under the heat of globalism. White identities are melting like ice outside the freezer. Meanwhile, Jewish ice remains within their own freezer and grow harder and bigger. And this isn’t just a matter of blood but consciousness. While one must have Jewish blood to be Jewish, there is an added element of consciousness. In the US, someone who is 1/4(or even 1/8) Jewish may feel more strongly Jewish than a German-American or Swedish-American who is 100% of his ethnic-stock feels German or Swedish. Why would this be? Why would someone with a fraction of Jewish blood feel so powerfully Jewish while someone who is fully German feels hardly German? The Jewish Covenant, like a freezer, hardens identity. In contrast, even 100% Germans are consciously so deracinated that they don’t know what to make of their German blood, culture, and history. Even Germans in Germany have lost their sense of meaning and purpose. Many of them think German culture is just food, beverage, music, and books, products to be marketed to or shared with the world. And since holy Jews say German history and culture are tainted forever by Holocaust Guilt and ‘racism’, maybe the ONLY way to redeem Germanness is to fully expunge it of its ethno-racial component and turn it into a ‘world identity’, like the Bahai church or Mardi Gras festival in New Orleans.

A perfect demonstration of how Jewishness has been empowered by Racination while whiteness has become dis-empowered(even disemboweled) by Deracination was evinced in Paul Ryan’s last year in Congress. He made much fuss about the need to reject and suppress white identity and white nationalism, but upon discovering through a DNA test that he is 3% Jewish, he was wild and ecstatic with joy that he had some precious Jewish blood. Racination of Jewishness has made even traces of Jewishness precious, like glimmers of gold. But Deracination of whiteness has convinced so many whites that their identity, blood, and roots have NO value. Paul Ryan reacted to the 3% Jewish side of him as if he found a gold nugget in a stream. As for the 97% of him that is white, he just treated it like dirt and sand to wash away. So, there we see the effects of Racination and Deracination on the Human Consciousness.
This is all the more ironic because, for most of the world(and even to Jews), whiteness is the ultimate gold to gain access to. Why do so many non-whites want to migrate(often permanently) to white nations, white-made nations, or white-majority nations? The reasons are many: Economic, political, moral, cultural, sexual, and material. Non-whites feel white people do things better, maintain superior social & economic systems, tend to be more fair-minded, and are more attractive as mates. And deep down inside, Jews know that they rode to supreme power on the Great White Horse. Without Europe and white-made US, would Jews be ruling the world? Could Jews have gained the kind of power and wealth they did on the backs of blacks, Muslims, Asians, or etc.? No, despite their problems with the Christian Europe/West, Jews gained most in association with white civilization that rose to heights of achievement and glory. But the relations between Jews and Europeans were tense, and not only because of religious issues but economic ones. Jews provided invaluable service as moneylenders, but it could also be parasitic and over time, Jews could amass fortunes in an almost exponential way. And Jewish loyalty was always questionable since they always regarded themselves as Jews first. Jews always bitch about discrimination, but their very identity was discriminatory, exclusionary, and even supremacist. Because of the relationship between Europeans and Jews that was, at once, productive & mutually beneficial AND wrought with mutual distrust & contempt — with Jews getting the worse of the conflict(due to numerical disadvantage) when things got out of hand — , Jews are worried that the current white-Jewish partnership may also end badly, even in bloodshed. Jews remember how they got expelled from so many nations as a beleaguered minority. (But then, when Jews had the power, they violently expelled Palestinians from their own homeland. It goes to show that Jewish expulsions were a matter of power, not noble Jewish victimhood. More numerous Europeans pushed out smaller numbers of Jews. What is amazing about the Nakba Pogroms is that the smaller Jewish population pushed out so much of the majority Palestinian population. When Jews got the power, they don’t choose to be noble victims. They prefer being ruthless victors. Of course, in their publicity campaigns, they still play ‘victim’ in the manner of ‘The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you’.) In order to maintain the partnership between Jews and whites, Jews insist on further racinating Jewishness(with pride of identity, nobility, tragedy, glory, spirituality, and awesomeness) and deracinating whiteness(as ‘nazi’, ‘white supremacist’, ‘evil’, ‘far-right’, ‘extremist’, etc). So, all US politicians singing hosannas to Israel, the US waging Wars for Israel, the media spreading Hate News against ‘enemies of Israel’ and any nation antagonized by Jews, and endless blather about Jewish This & Jewish That is perfectly ‘normal’ and ‘American as Apple Pie’. But, even the sentiment, "It’s Okay to be White" or a supposed ‘white power’ hand sign must be objects of witch-hunts. In other words, Jewishness is so awesome that we must praise and worship it uber alles, whereas whiteness is so wicked that even the slightest whiff of it must be treated like poison and sound the alarm.
And yet, people may wonder... if Jews hate whiteness so much, why don’t they just pick up their stuff and leave? Why don’t Jews depart from white nations and go resettle in non-white world of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and etc.? Get away from whites as far as possible. Indeed, if whites suck so bad, why were Jewish Immigration Patterns so often about GOING WHERE WHITE PEOPLE ARE GOING, GOING WHERE WHITE PEOPLE ARE? And why did Jewish bankers fund white imperialists who colonized other parts of the world? Why did Jews come to the US created by whites who committed ‘genocide’ against Indians? And why do Jews ask white nations above all to support Israel and praise Jews? If whites are so evil and wicked, why do Jews so heavily rely on whites as their main support system? Why do Jews want to associate Jewish interests with White Support? Why taint holy Jewishness with wicked whiteness? It’s like someone cursing Satan and then asking Satan to come to his aid at every turn. It makes no sense, at least on the surface.
What this indicates is that Jews have a love/hate thing with whites. Jews love whiteness as the gold standard of high civilization, social order, technological progress, political stability, and etc. They also lust after whites as the ‘best fuc*’. But this love of whiteness also makes them feel angry and envious. After all, if Jews are indeed the Chosen people, why are whites more attractive and more pleasant? Why do so many Jews look like Anthony Weiner(and act like him too)? Why do Jewish men prefer white women over Jewish women? Why do Jewish women prefer white men over Jewish men? Also, it angers Jews that their religion is relatively ‘petty’ and brutal compared to the loving and embracing universality of Christianity, historically the religion of whites. To resolve the issue, Jews maintain the exclusivity of Jewishness while appropriating the universal aura of Christianity that is more inspiring to all mankind. But how does one remain an exclusionary Jew while pontificating about equal justice for all mankind? How do you preach love and brotherhood while sticking to an identity that says, "WE are the Chosen, not you goy filth." Jews have been unable to resolve the issue, and that’s why we have a crazy kind of neo-universalism in the West. If Christianity offered the hope that ALL peoples could be equally precious in the eyes of God, Holocaustianity or Jew-Worship as universal-faith means All Peoples must bow down before the Jews as the Chosen(or Shoasen). It’s a total perversion of universalism whereby all peoples are made to reject their own tribalism so as to revere the uber-tribalism of the Jews. Same logic operates behind Homomania, a proxy of Jewish Power, the message of which is all the straight and normal people around the world must bend over to a tiny minority of vain sexual deviants whose idea of ‘sex’ is homo-fecal-penetration or whose idea of ‘gender’ is tranny penis-cutting. But then, consider the astronomical ascension of Jewish and Homo power precisely because their identities have been ‘racinated’ or ‘consecrated’ to such extent. Meanwhile, look at the dissipating identities of whites, Europeans, and Japanese who have accepted soulless consumerism and status-competition as their main fixations.
What this teaches us is that genuine universalism of equality is bound to fail. It has never worked. If anything, Jews have taken advantage of universalism to make all the world worship them. The lesson for each and every people is to define, shape, and guard their own identity in terms of race, range, and roots. Blood, soil, and history. Jews certainly gained power by doing just that. And finally, to turn one’s identity into a Covenant, a people need to create a visionary narrative that says they have a special contract with the Great Being, the Ultimate Power of the Universe. If Jews sought it out and got themselves the Covenant, other people can also attain a covenant for themselves through their own prophetic striving. This and only this will secure the existence of a people. It must be race, roots, and range BLESSED BY religion. As Christianity has finally come to an end, there must be an Age of White Prophets who seek the voice of the Ultimate Power, with whom a covenant can be written for the white race and for the white race alone. If Jews have their own Covenant, why shouldn’t whites have one of their own? Christianity failed for the white race in the end because its all-inclusive Covenant belongs to everyone. And if someone can be had by everyone, it belongs to no one in the end. It’s like air we breathe. It doesn’t belong to any of us but to all of us. You are not the air you breathe. You are your blood, your organs, your body, your brains with unique memories and thoughts. Christianity will continue to have meaning and purpose as a religion that preaches certain virtues and teaches certain values, but it has no value as an identity. It can be appreciated as universal oxygen for all the world that wants to breathe some blessed air. But if Europeans and whites are to survive as a people, they need a covenant that is about their particular place and purpose on Earth and in the universe. It is a covenant that must be the stuff of vision and depth but also devoid of hubris and vanity. It must be of both heroism and humility.

Anyway, why did all non-Jewish whites become deracinated in the US while Jews got more racinated? In a way, Jews were always racinated due to the nature of the Covenant. Indeed, Jewishness was always more than a matter of religious faith but of ancestry and memory. But another factor was Jews talked and read more. More talk means Jewish kids heard more from grandparents and parents about past history and heritage. Jews also read more, and they also produced much of their own literature. So, they not only learned much about history and the world but through their own lenses. Also, Jewishness vis-a-vis Christianity had a doubly reinforcing effect. Not only did Jews insist on excluding goyim from their own community but the Christian community regarded Jews as the Other. Even in the US where anti-Jewish feelings were less pronounced, there was a sense of Jewish-Christian Divide that Jews cleverly manipulated because Jews wanted to gain access to the white(esp Wasp) world but didn’t want whites to pry into the Jewish World. The formula has become dangerous in a world shaped by Jewish Supremacism. When Jews weren’t yet dominant in elite fields, the notion of 'Jewish community' simply meant their ethnic enclave or cultural community(like the one featured in Woody Allen's RADIO DAYS or Neil Simon's BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS). As such, there was no reason for non-Jews to stick their noses into Jewish affairs, just like Jews didn’t stick their noses into what was happening in Chinatown or Polish Town. But what happened as the result of more and more Jews entering elite fields to the point where entire elite spheres turned into Jewish Communities? When elite institutions were ruled by Wasps, the Jewish Community was a about neighborhoods and distinct Jewish organizations. A handful of Jews within elite circles didn’t change the equation. But when so many college departments, courts, media outlets, law firms, financial firms, and etc. are so dominated by Jews, it means the elite sphere itself has turned into a Jewish Community. Why is this dangerous? Because elite power has not only been tribalized into Jewish supremacism but into one that cannot be criticized. For example, it’s one thing to let Chinese be Chinese and do their own Chinesey things in dinky Chinatown. People in such a Chinese Community are not going to have power over us. But, suppose this convention of Leaving the Chinese Community Alone is extended to Chinese Power that hypothetically takes over the elite institution and industries of America. Those powerful Chinese will have power over us, but they will be protected from criticism on account that they constitute a 'Chinese Community'. Jewish Community now comprises the globalist-imperialist rulers over us, but we are to pretend that it still constitutes some hapless Jews eking out a living in a poverty-stricken shtetl. Jews in the Jewish Community can do their Jewish things for Jewish reasons. But as elites of a multi-racial and multi-ethnic empire, Jews in high places must take leave of the Jewish-Community-Mentality, but they haven't. They play the New Romans but while eating bagels among themselves than breaking bread with all Americans and humanity.
Jewish Community has gone from Rags to Riches, but we are supposed to see just the rags. Paradoxically, it is Jewish riches that make us see Jews in rags. Jews expend great sums to keep cranking out Holocaust movies that, GROUNDHOG-DAY-like, remind us that Jews are always poor victims of the Holy Holocaust. Jews buy off politicians to give speeches about how Jews are a hapless and powerless people in need of protection. Jews steal land from Palestinians and use IDF death squads to mow down women and children in Gaza, but the Jew-run US narrative is "We must protect Jews from Hamas."

In contrast to Jews, white Americans of all stripes have become deracinated. Because Judaism is about identity + religion, Jews still feel as Jews even as they become secularized. Even if they no longer literally believe in the Torah, they feel Jewish in the ethnic sense. In contrast, because Christianity is a matter of the heart, once the Faith begins to fade, it comes to mean very little to the ex-faithful. One can be an atheist and still feel powerfully Jewish because Judaism has a powerful historical-and-ethnic component. But once a Christian begins to feel doubt about God and Jesus, his loss of faith is near total, and there is nothing of meaning left. As Christianity once mattered so much to white folks in Europe and the US, the fading of Faith struck them much harder than such did to Jews. Even without faith in God, Jews got ethno-identity and history from Judaism. But without Faith, whites got nothing from Christianity.
That being the case, in an increasingly irreligious modern world, could whites recover their identities on ethnic, cultural, and historical grounds? This was doable in Europe with distinct ethno-states, but this ran into problems due to imperialism, communism, National Socialism, and war. Imperialism of various kind suppressed many form of ethno-nationalism. National Socialism and WWII gave white forms of nationalism a bad name. Communism suppressed national identity in the Soviet Union. But it was even more problematic in the US. Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, and Ethnic-White Americans, in order to get along together, all settled upon a very generic sense of Americanism. In order to accommodate non-Anglo-whites, Anglo-America had to water down an already rather bland Anglo-American culture even further. As a result, Anglo-American identity became near-anemic. Also, the American Myth of having broken free of the Mother Country to forge a new civilization created a blank-slate mentality among too many Anglo-American elites. As for Irish-Americans and even more problematic arrivals from Eastern and esp Southern Europe, their assimilation into Anglo-American necessitated the loss, repression, or neglect of entire aspects of their original cultures that grew weaker down the generations. Ian Buruma said that the problem of Singapore is that no single language — Chinese, English, Hindi, Malay, etc — is spoken well because everyone tries to accommodate other groups and get along. Likewise, because so many kinds of whites had to get along together in the US, White-American-ness is both everything and nothing. It was flexible and practical enough to accommodate so many white ethnic groups, and as such, was a very successful formula. But the end result was that all these White Americans came to lack a sense of distinct roots, history, and identity. Anglo-Americans with deeper roots had to pretend that late-arrivals from Eastern and Southern Europe were also part of American Civilization. And Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, and Polish-Americans had to pretend George Washington was the ‘father of my country’ when their ancestors arrived a full century later after the American Republic was founded and played no role in the creation of the essentials of American Civilization. So much depended on make-believe and consensus-thinking than on blood-and-soil and true ancestry. Same problems now exist in France where Arabs & Africans are expected to embrace French history as THEIR OWN history while the white French(the real French) are made to believe that Arabs & Africans are(and always have been) part of Core French Civilization. Such things don’t work out well. Look what happened to the Roman Empire.

Of course, there are other reasons why white identity, along with racial and national identities all over the world, grew weak in the hyper-modernizing world of the 20th and 21st centuries. Rapid urbanization that led to atomization and individualism, followed by suburbanization that led to genericism, boredom, and mall culture. While suburbs had the look of small-town-living, they were extensions of urban life, not rooted communities that developed from the soil. Also, consumerism and non-stop barrage of electronica that turned culture mainly into one of fashion and celebrity than community, values, and remembrance. And the sheer vastness of America and mobility of Americans made it difficult for many to maintain their sense of identity and togetherness. In the US, Italian-Americans could be in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and etc. Chinese-Americans could be East Coast or West Coast. Or they could be in Texas. Anglos in the West have often been at odds with Anglos in the East. According to Woody Allens’ ANNIE HALL, NY Jews and LA Jews don’t see eye to eye.
That said, the fact that Jews were able to not only maintain but, in many respects, strengthen their Jewishness despite urbanization, globalization, and modernization goes to show that a people can control their consciousness despite all material transformations. Karl Marx said material conditions determine consciousness, but Jews have certainly been an outlier in this insofar as they managed to preserve and empower their identity despite the widely held belief that globalist trends are bound to weaken all ethnic & national ties in favor of global hubbub where all people are, more than anything, atomized individuals in pursuit of pleasure, happiness, and opportunity. Then, how is it that Jews, the most globalized and modernistic people on Earth, are also the most rooted in cultural heritage, historical memory, and ethnic loyalty? It goes to show what the power of will and consciousness is capable of. Of course, plenty of Jews have fallen by the wayside. And there is no guarantee that Jewish Identity or Power will last forever. But the fact that Jews have both immersed themselves in modernity and identity demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE for other peoples IF they were to summon the will, imagination, and vision to do likewise(and with more decency and principles).

Now, we know why Jews insist on racination for Jews and deracination for whites. As Jews are a minority, their power depends on blind loyalty and obedience of whites. Jews know that whites are far less likely to obey and serve Jews IF whites have a proud and powerful identity of their own. Just like the ego of the slave must be broken in order for him to serve the master(the sole owner of ego), the identity of whites must be erased in order for them to serve the master-identity of the Jews.
But as the current morality is against slavery and master-race ideology, Jews have cleverly shaped the Narrative to suggest that it’s all about whites suppressing their own ‘supremacist’ and ‘extremist’ tendencies to lend a hand and offer protection to poor, hapless, and beleaguered Jews who are beset on all sides by irrational ‘Anti-Semites’ and ‘Nazis’. So, we are to believe that White Supremacy is still the Way of the World, and therefore, Good Whites must make an extra effort to keep the Nazis and KKK down to protect Jews and prevent another Holocaust. In truth, we know that Nazis and KKK have zero power. We know that sporadic acts of violence toward Jews in the US and EU are reactions to Jewish Supremacism and Zionist Imperialism. While these acts of violence are often unpleasant and even contemptible, Jews have the power and hold most of the cards. And Jews have abused the power in so many ways. They angered Muslims with the Nakba and Wars for Israel. Jews have angered Eastern Europeans by pushing the Great Replacement. And many Americans are angry due to policies pushed by Jews, but many of them still do not know the full truth because the media they rely on for news & info are controlled by Jews who scapegoat everyone but themselves for all the social, economic, and political problems. Because many white people don’t know what is really going on, some of them turn to dumb or crazy ideas that reek of Neo-Nazism or KKK-ism out of desperation. Why? Because they are confused with lack of information. If they were truly woke to the truth, they’d realize that the US and EU are now colonies of the Empire of Judea, much like India was once the colony of the British and like Vietnam & Algeria were once the colonies of France.

If whites really knew what was up, they’d opt for White National Liberation movements against the Jewish Empire. If they are asked what they seek liberation from, they’d say from the Empire of Judea or EOJ(aka ZOG). But because many whites are confused and ill-informed and don’t know what to think or say, some of them stupidly fall into crazy Neo-Nazi strains of thought-and-expression, which are advantageous to Jews who can point to it and say, "Looky here! Didn’t we tell you? It’s the Nazis all over again." Thus, these fools hand moral advantage to Jewish Supremacists once again.
In contrast, if they characterized their movement as White National Liberation, people would ask, ‘liberation from what?’ The very notion of LIBERATION would imply that whites are under a supremacist power from which it seeks autonomy, emancipation, and independence. And this power is the Empire of Judea. White National Liberationists want liberation from Wars for Israel, from immoral support of Zionist-Imperialism, and from Jewish Hatred toward Russia, Jewish Hatred toward Iran, Jewish Hatred toward Syria, & Jewish Hatred toward Arabs. White National Liberationists want freedom from Homomania as the new-satanic-christianity, or Queertianity, all of it invented and employed by Jews. White National Liberationists want freedom from sexual colonization by blacks, aka ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs being pushed by blacks.
There are many ways a people can be colonized. Their land can be taken and colonized by others. Their women can be taken and their wombs can be colonized by others. Their children can be taken(as Greek boys who were recruited and indoctrinated to become Janissary to the Turks, a form of mental and soul-colonization). White National Liberationists want freedom from white sports being colonized by blacks, white history being retro-colonized by blacks & Diversity who were NOT a crucial part of European history. And above all, White National Liberationists want freedom from the demands of the Jewish Master Race. White National Liberationists dare to be uppity against the Jews unlike all those cuck-collaborator House Honkey or House Goy whites who ho-de-do before their Jewish Massuhs.

But there is still a problem. What does it mean to be white? Even without(and before) PC and anti-white propaganda, the notion of whiteness in America was useful and practical enough to maintain unity & order but not strong enough to constitute a united identity of depth and meaning. It is precisely that lack of substance in cultural and historical meaning that makes ‘white power’ sound more rude & abrasive than, say, the power of rooted identity. For instance, Irish Power or Greek Power has some resonance with history and culture. It’s not just about power for power’s sake but power to defend a tradition and community. But because whiteness is so vague, both too narrow and too broad, it comes across as a nihilism of power. It’s like refined sugar, which packs lots of calories but has zero nutrients. In contrast, Jewish Power isn’t just about power-for-power’s-sake but power to defend a history and culture. It has nutrients and fiber along with the calories. As for Black Culture, it has gained an element of nobility as an identity of resistance against racial oppression. So, even though blackness is as vague as whiteness — what do blacks in the US know or care about real black cultures of Africa? — , it seems more justified as empowerment in search for justice and equality. In contrast, because whiteness has been synonymous with power and domination in the US, the notion of ‘white power’ seems redundant, like ‘power power’. What’s the point of calling for more power for what is already powerful? In the past, such an argument would have been valid. But in the much-transformed and fast-changing America, it is no longer so. History doesn’t remain the same. At one time, China was the richest and most powerful civilization on Earth. Then, it was the Sick Man of Asia beset by imperialist powers. Then, it was a poor communist nation, united but backward. Now, it is on the rise, and it would be foolish to pretend today’s China is like China of 100 yrs ago. Just as Chinese changed so much in 100 yrs — along with Jews and their status in the world — , whites today are not what they were 100 yrs ago, and this goes for both those in US and EU. Jews know very well that history is always in a state of flux(more than ever in the turbulent age of globalism), but they want to fix the Narrative and Iconography permanently with Jews as Eternal Victims and Whites as Eternal Victors NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. This way, Jews get to guilt-bait whites and manipulate them into serving the poor, noble, and hapless Jews FOREVER. And many whites prefer to go along with this Narrative because even though they must act as servants, they get to play the master. Cuck whites serve Powerful Jews, but the Drama they put on is of noble white knights defending poor noble Jews from the Dragon of Hate. It’s so much like Hollywood. Jews own the place and hold all the cards, but the movies are of Great White Knights fighting forces of White Hate and Bad Muslims to ‘save the world’.

In order for whiteness to be something other than political sugar, it has to gain in nutrients. While Jews seek to deconstruct whiteness, White National Liberationists must seek to construct whiteness into a meaning. This doesn’t mean this constructed whiteness must replace European identities such as Polishness, Hungarianness, Irishness, Russianness, and etc. Rather, it would be another plane of identity. Identity can be multi-layered or -leveled. Before there were many European peoples, there was the white race. White Race biologically and 'mytho-spiritually' pre-existed all European cultures, ethnicities, and nationalities. It is the root, truly of blood and soil. And in the US, even as so many European identities have faded and been forgotten, there remains whiteness as a biological and genetic presence. What can be done with this identity that cannot be done away by ideology or propaganda? Jews seek to deconstruct and invalidate it. But WNL or White National Liberators can construct whiteness into a meaning of depth and substance. One of blood and soil, of one history and continuity, one of evolution and environment. A Book can be written on the subject, and it can be shared and read. And then, whiteness will have justification for power and revival. It may even gain a covenant.

Relativity of Treason — How Donald Trump is both a Traitor and a Patriot

Following the summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, the Jew-run Mass Media have gone bonkers in smearing Trump as some kind of unprecedented traitor. This was to be expected because the entire Russia-Collusion-Hysteria had been engineered from the get-go to prevent the meeting of Trump and Putin. But Trump being Trump, he decided to meet with Putin and discuss important matters as World Leaders. Trump knows(and we know and even enemies of Trump know deep in their hearts) that the Russian Collusion thing is the biggest hoax in US history. It was essentially concocted by Jews and MIC(military-industrial-complex) to prevent a rapprochement between the US and Russia. There are reasons why Jews and MIC want to antagonize Russia. For Jews, it’s ethnic hostility rooted in historical animus and tribal greed. As Jews control the media and Deep State, they control the Narrative and get to define ‘American Interests’ which essentially comes to "Is it good for Jewish supremacism?" and "All Americans must like whatever Jews like and hate whatever Jews hate." Jews get to decide our loves and hates, and that means we are to be denied Emotional Autonomy. We must be like dogs that take emotional cues from their master. As for the MIC, they need Russia as the Evil Enemy in order to justify their budget for warmongering. There are other anti-Russian elements too. Globo-Homo degenerates hate Russia because of its restoration of nationalism and traditionalism. Pathologically vain self-worshiping Homos and Trannies want all the world to honor, celebrate, and praise their fussy-fancy ilk. And power-porn elite-educated mafia just love the game of power, and they figure Russia is the most credible rival in the world, especially as Jews have given green light to hate and revile Russia. For them, what counts is the sheer nihilism of playing The Game.

Anyway, the question of Treason is never a simple one because the logic of Treason and Loyalty is always relative. Consider the film CHARIOTS OF FIRE. The Olympic runner must choose between God and King. In choosing God, he is seen by some as snubbing and disrespecting the king. But to the sprinter, it is a higher loyalty. Similar conflict unfolds in the film BECKET where Richard Burton as the eponymous character must choose between loyalty to his friend & king AND a higher sense of duty.


James Comey himself reiterated the problem of treason with his book HIGHER LOYALTY. Comey violated FBI rules and conspired against the President. As such, he is a traitor to the Bureau and to the President. But Comey insists he acted out of a higher loyalty. To what? Truth and justice? To globo-homo agenda? Or to the nihilism of Deep State wrapped in bogus moralizing? In the film THE WILD BUNCH, Pike Bishop(William Holden) defends his estranged ex-friend Deke Thorton(Robert Ryan). Though Thorton is on the hunt for his former outlaw partners, he’d given his word to the Law. Dutch Angstrom(Ernest Borgnine) counters Bishop’s defense of his old friend by insisting that the ‘word’ isn’t enough; it’s whom you give it to.

In RAN by Akira Kurosawa, there are multiple layers of meaning whereby apparent treason might be a deeper loyalty and seeming loyalty could be concealed treachery. The youngest son who’d spoken bluntly against his father was the loyal one. The older sons who spoke with devotion and respect were out for their own power and even willing to destroy their own father. The biggest traitor may be Lady Kaeda who conspires to have the (Hidetora) Ichimonji clan destroyed from within. But in another way, she is also the most loyal character as she’d remained true to her own clan that had been vanquished by the Ichimonjis. As the wife of lord of the Ichimonji clan, her machinations were clearly treasonous. But she’d never forgotten or forgiven the fact that the clan she’d married into destroyed her own family.

And in NIXON, Oliver Stone dramatizes how there are competing factions behind any politician, and each faction represents its own vision of what America should be. And as a politician relies on support from various factions with conflicting interests, his loyalty to one can easily appear as betrayals to others. Especially a nation as big and complex as the US cannot have a single easily definable formula of ‘America’ or ‘American Interests’. Usually, those at the Top(especially in media, academia, law, and politics) get to decide what America is all about. Indeed, Americans cannot even agree on the heroes and villains of history. If Jews can help it, all the monuments to White Southerners will be torn down while all white people must be made to worship MLK, the Negro who sold out the Palestinians because Jews filled his pocket with money.


So, what is Treason? What is Loyalty? It’s all relative. Take Benedict Arnold, denounced as the biggest traitor of the American Revolution. But couldn’t one argue that the Revolution itself was an act of treason against the Mother Country of Britain and to the King? From that perspective, Arnold's treason was an act of loyalty to the Crown. (The Spanish Civil War was especially confused because the Leftists who were 'loyal' to the Power were radicals hellbent on turning Spain upside down with communism and anarchism, whereas the rebel forces were committed to maintaining Spanish Tradition.) Of course, the Founding Fathers argued that their higher loyalty was to independence, freedom, and dignity of man. Some have argued such were mere rosy words to cosmeticize what was essentially a naked power grab by the landed gentry of the Colonies who wanted supreme power in their own hands. Granted, the example of George Washington shows that the Founders weren't out to be the New King. Rather, what they envisioned was a new kind of aristocracy, the ‘natural aristocracy’, that would be made up mostly of themselves and their descendants who were deemed to be superior in intellect and knowledge. Though Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson are usually seen as ideological opposites, both were elitist in their own unique ways. The difference was Jefferson’s style was that of an agrarian aristocrat whereas Hamilton was more urban in his disposition and preference. Jefferson thought more like a nobleman whereas Hamilton thought more like a monarch. (Oddly enough, the two styles would be wedded together by Andrew Jackson, a crude man of low origin.)
The rise of modernity and rapidity of change made the issue of loyalty and treason increasingly more difficult to resolve. It's difficult to be loyal to anything when so much is changing so fast all around you. Constancy became obsolete.
The French Revolution was a rebellion against the King. Obviously, the Revolutionaries were traitors to the monarch, the nobility, and the Church that had defined France and French culture for so long. But the Revolution argued that the rulers no longer possessed the right to rule. The Enlightenment had revealed a higher form of justice. Also, rulers must serve the people than vice versa. To the extent that the Tradition made the French people serve the king, aristocrats, and the church(that were unresponsive to the needs of the people), it was in violation of the true Theory of Justice. Thus, treason against the Old System was necessary to bring forth a New System that was worthy of the loyalty of the people who were to be liberated and elevated. They would no longer be subjects and instead become free citizens of a republic. And then, of course the Revolutionaries fell into the lethal habit of accusing one another of treason to the spirit of the Revolution, a tragedy avoided by American Revolutionaries who were less radical and less threatened by foreign powers. Later, Russian Revolution would lead to tragedies that made the French Revolution’s failures look like a picnic.

Anyway, it isn't easy to ascertain who is traitorous or loyal because it depends on one’s perspective. Indeed, everyone could be said to be both traitorous and loyal. One’s loyalty to the Old Order is treason against the New Order, and one’s loyalty to the New Order is treason against the Old Order. And as the New Order soon becomes the Old Order, it also insists on blind loyalty and commitment. The issues of loyalty and treason have still not been resolved around the American Civil War. Though the North won the war, many in the South never accepted the Northern Narrative. Also, there had been a prolonged period when the North decided to effectively bury the hatchet and make cultural peace with the South, i.e. the North would maintain its favored Narrative and the South would its own. Live and let live. Let the North honor Lincoln and Grant. Let the South accept the fact of the Union but still honor men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. This noble understanding was subverted by Jews who, in seeking to totally cuck-castrate the white race into submission, have waged Total War on the Southern Narrative(which is ironic since Jews in the South had been mostly pro-Confederate).

So, what about Donald Trump? Is he a patriot or a traitor? If he is a traitor, we need to ask what he is a traitor to? Which America? After all, there is no single America. Surely, Palestinian-America differs from Jewish-America. Jewish-America sees BDS as traitorous, but Palestinian-America sees US support of Zionism as a betrayal of what 'America' should be about. And black-America hardly sees eye-to-eye with white America that has much at odds with Mexican-America. Many blacks revere men like Malcolm X who had harsh words for White America. And many whites in the South still feel affection for the Confederate flag that symbolized the South's rebellion against the Union. And whites and Mexicans(even Mexican-Americans) will remember the Alamo differently. Feminists, with the backing of Jew-run media, claim to represent Women's Interests. So, if women speak, act, or vote against the policies favored by Feminism Inc, they are said to be traitors to womynkind. Feminists say women must be more loyal to the Sisterhood than to their families. In reality, Power Feminists(like Elizabeth Holmes and Sheryl Sandberg) have more in common with Elite Men(especially Jews and globo-hustlers) than with lower class women without fancy careers, wealth, and privilege. The real conflict is between elite men/women and mass men/women. Feminists aren't out for equality. They want to rise high to be with and marry elite men.
And even within the same racial or ethnic community, there can be a wide divergence of interests. This is especially true among whites, among whom 59% generally vote Republican while the rest vote Democratic.Some white Republicans might see white Democrats as traitors to the race, while many white Democrats might see white Republicans as traitors to 'history' that will end when every corner of the world has been globalized with diversity and made Homo-Mulatto. Also, even though the US is a nation of 325 million people, only a relatively tiny share of the population has control over the media, academia, upper echelons of government, and the like. And they are the ones who usually get to decide what is what. They decide what ‘American Interests’ are. And they theorize what ‘America’ or ‘American values’ or ‘Western values’ are all about, and then they foist this formulation on all Americans via the mass media that are controlled mostly by Jews. Indeed, so much of the 'American' label is just a stamp or sticker for JEWISH power, privilege, and passions.
When we consider the people with the most power in the US(the Jews and Homos) and how they choose to define ‘America’, Trump is indeed a traitor to that ‘America’. The globo-homo elites are bored with nationhood. It's too petty and small for them. They want to play with and own all the world. They want the US to be not a fortress but an aircraft carrier. For them, Manifest Destiny continues with new wars, new propaganda, Homomania as the new missionary-crusade, Afro-worship as the New Cool, demographic imperialism, and spread of Jewish hegemony(with Anglos and Homos as favored sidekicks). Globalist elites of many nations pool their resources to gain control over the world, and all the masses of the world become mixed-up peons and helots with no right of identity, territory, or history. (Only Jews, especially in Israel, are to have that right.) The elites don't need a specified identity, territory, or history because they got what gives them the most jollies: Wealth, connections, privilege, and VIP status wherever they go. The elites speak of 'equality' and 'inclusion', but it's really just 'elititude', an invocation game of certain agreed-upon symbolism not unlike the practice of Christianity in aristocratic Europe; all those kings and noblemen hardly led lives that could be construed as genuinely Christian, but they didn't have to because they carried on with the symbolic rituals of sanctimony that shrouded them with the aura of piety. Elititude. Today, all those Western elites don't have to give up their wealth and rub shoulders with the wretched of the earth to be 'progressive'. They merely need to take selfies at a ceremony commemorating Nelson Mandela. How do you like them photo-ops by Bono with African children? After playing Pop Christ, he goes back to live in his mansion.

This ‘America’ that is favored by the Mass Media is not a sovereign nation but a jewel-in-the-crown of the real superpower in the world, the Empire of Judea(or EOJ) that has neo-imperialist globo-homo networks all over the world. Jewish power is connected via New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Moscow, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Tel Aviv, and etc. Jews have powerful presence even in nations that are deemed as the enemies of the US. Jews are so powerful that even Russia, a nation that is constantly defamed by vicious Jews, must allow a bunch of Jews to hold great wealth and power. (Russians are spectacular underachievers who are so lazy, stupid, and incompetent that a handful of Jews have run circles around them time and time again. Indeed, consider the difference between the Russian Revolution and the German Revolution. Both turned out to be evil, but German Revolution of the National Socialists gained power for Germans against the Semites whereas the Russian Revolution led to the Semitic & non-Russian minority domination over vast numbers of Russian Slavs. Germans, being more capable, outmaneuvered the Jews, whereas Russians, being drunk and stupid, came under the rule of Jews who made up a tiny cabal. Alas, even though Germans were more capable, their recklessness led to WWII and their downfall, and Germans have never been able to regain their footing since. In a way, German conscientiousness came to be a thorn on its side. Though conscientiousness is generally a good thing, the relative lack of such among Russians seems to maintain their resistance to the Jews. Ironically, both Germany’s choice of National Socialism and Shoah-Guilt[or National Shame-ism] were the product of German conscientiousness. Overwhelmed by mounting poverty and degradation during the Great Depression, National Socialism seemed to offer an opportunity for Germans to rise up and do something hard and constructive to repair and rebuild the nation. It was National Will in action, and a people without conscientiousness couldn’t have chosen such a path. Germans, unlike stupid and lazy Greeks in the financial crisis several years back, were not bitching and asking for easy fix. They were willing to unite and work hard to restore German greatness again. This called for lots of work, unity, and collective sacrifice, and Germans were up to the challenge. So far so good. But then, the man the Germans put in charge, Adolf Hitler, turned out to be a mad visionary and degenerate gambler with history. Hitler exploited the conscientiousness of the Germans. He promised them a New Beginning based on hard work, sacrifice, and unity. Germans trusted him, and things seemed to be going well... until Hitler decided on imperialism, and then all hell broke loose. After the war, Germans chose the path of conscientiousness once again. They came to realize that their blind trust in Hitler-as-savior-of-Germany had led to a catastrophic war that not only destroyed millions of German lives but millions of non-German lives as well. Among the great horrors was Shoah, the killing of millions of Jews. So, Germans decided to be mindful and redeem themselves. If in the 1930s they’d put all their trust in Hitler, after WWII Germans increasingly put their trust in Jews as a holy people. When Jews didn’t rule the world, it didn’t much matter, but as Jews increasingly became the masters of the US, the most powerful nation in the world, Germans came under greater pressure to prostrate themselves before Jews as the Holy Holocaust Race that must be obeyed and worshiped like gods. And as Jews gained even more power, they went from rulers of the US to the rulers of the Empire of Judea, of which the US was the main prize. Flush with all this power, Jews are now in supremacist Judeo-Nazi mode, and they’re rabid with power.)

Given who really rules America and gets to decide what is ‘American’ or what are ‘Western values’, one could say Trump is indeed a traitor to this ‘America’. In the Brother Nathanael video above, it’s obvious that many anti-Trump voices in the media are Jewish. But then, the media are owned mostly by Jews. It’s an incestuous and inbred Jew-owned-and-run Media that hire lots of Jews to tell us that whatever Jews hate, we must hate too. Whatever Jews like, we must like to. Jews dictate to us what to hate, what to love. If Jews say it is American-as-apple-pie to support IDF death squad's killing of Palestinian protesters(calling attention to the fact that 2018 is the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map thanks to Jewish mass migration-invasion), then cheering for Zionist killers must be red, white, and blue(or red, white, and Jew). The so-called Mass Media offer us endless ‘two-minutes of hatred’, and according to Jews, Putin is the New Goldstein or Goldputin. According to the PC Narrative, one's willful deviance from this Agenda constitutes 'treason'. It's like a master shaming a dog as 'bad doggy' for refusing to fetch the ball or fight another dog.

Basically, the Mass Media is Hate News against whatever Jews hate and is Love Media for whatever Jews love(or thinks is useful to their supremacist power). All this Russia brouhaha is so much nonsense, and the ONLY reason it exists is because Jewish globo-homo imperialism hates nationalism or national autonomy/independence/sovereignty of goy peoples, especially whites. Jews are viciously hostile toward white Americans whereas Putin & Russia feel no such hostility. Jews are also hostile toward Russians. Because Russia refuses to obey Jewish Supremacists, Jews feel that Russia is 'hostile' to the Jewish Agenda; therefore, all of us(as obedient dogs) are also supposed to see Russia as hostile to us. According to Jewish logic, refusal to obey the Jewish globo-homo agenda is 'hateful' and 'hostile'. It's like Harvey Weinstein's sexual logic. Any woman who said NO to him was offending him than he was offending her. Like they say, "Jews cry out in pain as he strikes you." Jews lie about Russian Collusion when, in fact, they are the ones who colluded with Deep State and EU to get Hillary, their bitch-whore, elected. According to Jews, the only approved 'allies' of the US are its bitch-whore puppets like Japan, Canada, UK, France, Sweden, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and etc. Any nation outside the orbit of US hegemony is friend or enemy depending on how JEWS feel about it. Jews are the final judge of which nations the US can be friendly with. Jews say Israel is America's closest ally, and that must be true because... Jews say so. Jews say Russia is the #1 enemy, and it must be so because... Jews say so. Jews are masters, we are dogs. Woof. Imagine someone who says he gets to decide who gets to be your friends or enemies. If you decided to find your own friends, he calls you a traitor to yourself. Jews are like the insane jealous lover in PLAY MISTY FOR ME who tries to claim the Clint Eastwood character all to herself. A truly vile people. Jews need to own the white race in order to sustain Jewish supremacism.

After all, Jewish supremacism depends on whites serving as horsey to the Jewish rider. Jews are to serve as the mind, and whites are to serve as the obedient body. Though Russia isn’t free of malevolent Jewish influence, it is freer than the US is. Paradoxically, Russians both fell under and resisted Jewish power more fully than White America did. If German conscientiousness made Germans both radically anti-Jewish under National Socialism and excessively pro-Jewish after WWII — in both cases, the Germans were trying so very hard to do the Right Thing — , the Russian lack of conscientiousness made them easily fall under Jewish Bolsheviks and later bluntly irreverent to Jewish power. After the fall of the Tsar and under the rule of the Provisional Government, the only thing Russians cared about was ‘land, bread, and peace’, or ‘what is in it for me?’ Most had no idea what was happening or didn’t care. They just wanted ‘my little thing’. So, Russian masses were willing to throw their lot with the Bolsheviks even though the latter was calling for national defeat to the Germans. Russian masses couldn't care less. They just wanted "what’s mine". Russian moral and intellectual laziness led to this morass, something that energetic and radical Jewish Bolsheviks took advantage of. Lack of Russian conscientiousness could be manipulated by Jews. But then later, this very trait worked against Jews. Upon Stalin's outmaneuvering the Jews and later when his heirs promised More Stuff to the Russians at the expense of Jews, the Russians readily accepted the bargain. Russians didn’t care if Soviet version of ‘affirmative action’ hurt smarter Jews. They were into "What’s mine?" than for higher principles and meritocratic fair play. Also, being less conscientious, Russians are harder to guilt-bait. Besides, communism made it difficult to guilt-bait most Russians. After all, communism said capitalism is evil. Most Russians never got to practice capitalism. If anything, even communist Jews had more savvy for enterprise and came to be associated with stuff like black markets. Also, WWII meant Soviet/Russian victory over Nazism. So, that meant Russians deserved moral pride over having defeated Nazi Germany. Against such mule-headed bluntness, it was difficult for Jews to guilt-bait and manipulate. It’s more constructive to work with ‘conscientious’ dogs than with boorish bears.
Post-Soviet Russia repeated this pattern once again. Because Russians were so lazy, stupid, and slovenly, clever and greedy Jews found it easy to manipulate the Russian economy and loot much of it in the 1990s while too many Russians were drunk on vodka or imitating American pop culture. If Russians had been more conscientious, like Germans or Japanese after WWII, it would have been more difficult for Jews to pull off such a stunt. But then, Russian boorishness and crudity turned into an advantage beginning in the 2000s. Emotionally gruff and rough-n-tumble in sensibility, Russians decided to say hell with Jews and their homo puppets. They said hell to 'liberal democracy' and what the globalists were hailing as the New Normal in the 'most evolved' progress. (Paradoxically, Anglos and Germanic types can fall for immorality-as-the-new-morality more easily because they are more conscientious. Most people don't think hard about right-and-wrong. They outsource such meanings to the elites and are mainly concerned with seeming to do the right thing in the eyes of the official power. They are more concerned with Moral Approval than Moral Thought. So, if the Power says 'gay marriage' is 'more evolved', Anglos and Germanic types try so very hard to appear More Moral and win status approval. In contrast, Russians, being less conscientious, are less concerned about seeming More Moral. So, they tend to be more oblivious to the latest Official Line. And yet, this outlook maintains genuine morality because it is less sensitive about keeping-up-with-the-joneses of morality-as-fashionable-virtue-signaling.) Russian rejection of globo-homo agenda was a morally important decision but not one that was made morally. Russians stumbled into moral action because things got so bad with Jews at the helm. They wanted a strong hand to rein in the oligarchs and gangsters, and that man was Vladimir Putin. Most Russians didn’t care what Putin did as long as he made things better. Lucky for them, Putin turned out to be rather sane and sound leader with good sense for things. Anyway, because Russians tend to be neanderthal in their ways and emotions, they are harder to psychologically or morally manipulate. Jews found it easier to gain power over lazy and stupid Russians but also more difficult to maintain control over them for the long haul because Russians are so disorganized, lazy, incompetent, and lacking in conscience. In contrast, Jews found it far more difficult to gain power over Anglos and Germans, a talented hardworking people with strong sense of moral pride. But once Jews gained an edge over them, they found it easier to manipulate them psychologically and morally because Anglos and Germans really care about the principles of right and wrong(or are obsessed about seeming to care about such things as a matter of status). In the short run, it was easier for Jews to take power in Russia but, in the long run, it was harder for Jews to keep the power because Russians just wouldn't play along as they’re too lazy, childish, boorish, and difficult. In contrast, Jews were met with truly stiff competition from talented Anglos and Germans. Thus, Jews required far more energy to gain dominance in their world. Jews gained supreme power in Russia in 1917. Jews gained comparable power only in the 1980s in the US. But once Jews gained power in the US, it was easier to keep because Anglos and Anglo-ized whites did a very good job of keeping things running for their Jewish masters.
After all, the very craziness of Russia in the 90s that enabled Jews to steal so much also led to the downfall or exile of many Jews. It’s one thing to grab a lot of loot, but unless there is law and order, it’s difficult for the looters to keep all their loot. Certain Jewish oligarchs of the 1990s met a fate similar to that of Jewish Bolsheviks in the 1930s in the Great Purge. Even though Jews grabbed so much power so fast in Russia following the October Revolution, the sheer lack of Rule of Law meant that what the Jews took violently and unscrupulously could be taken from them in the same manner by someone even more cunning and ruthless than them, and that man happened to be Josef Stalin the Georgian. Russia has always been a land of bandits, peasants, gamblers, and bear-wrestlers. Jews could get such people drunk and steal their wealth, but drunken mobs can easily turn on the very people who supplied them with the drink. Jews always played on lack of conscientiousness among Russians to gain power over Russians. Jews always saw Russians as idiots and boors to whom to sell vodka, either literally or metaphorically in the intoxication of the Revolution(communism) or Riches(privatization). But the danger was that Russians-as-boors might get pissed and go 'pogrom' on the nasty Jews.
In contrast, the US was the nation that once came up with Prohibition. And the Brits, even as they allowed the Jew David Sassoon to sell opium to China, banned the sale of opium in Britain itself. Therefore, if Jews played on lack of control and conscientiousness among Russians, they played on the strong sense of self-control and conscientiousness among Anglos and Anglo-Americans. Jews did the hustle on the Anglos. Initially, Jews were full of praise for White Anglo America. Jews flattered the Anglo-Americans for having created a nation better and more just than any in Europe. But that was a bait. After all, if the US was supposed to be so wonderful and great, why did it have such-and-such problems and why did US fail to live up to all its promises? So, what began as Jewish praise turned increasingly into Jewish condemnation of White America's failure to fulfill its true 'proposition'. And Anglo-Americans, especially the Episcopalian elites, being so conscientious and sensitive about their self-image as Good People, turned into moral putty in the hands of Jews(who rarely applied similar kind of critique on their own kind and power). Anyway, even though it was far more difficult climb for Jews to take over the US(than a nation like Russia), the victory has been more complete and total because (1) white Americans can maintain a system of Rule of Law that Jews can manipulate to their own advantage and (2) white Americans are earnest about their conscientious redemption and atonement to be ‘good people’ as, of course, to be defined by Jews who control the academia, media, and pop culture(which is the only remaining culture).

When we consider the US as a vassal of the real superpower in the world, the Empire of Judea, Trump is indeed a traitor. His rapport with Putin was an act of Treason to the ‘America’ as a prized colony of the Empire of Judea(or EOJ). While there are plenty of non-Jews who also denounce Trump’s summit with Putin, most of them take their talking points from Jews. In other words, Jews lead, others follow. If Jews were to change their tune tomorrow and say Russia is no longer a problem, most of these non-Jewish dogs will stop barking. In any power system, we must distinguish who’s the master and who’s the dog. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, it would have seemed that Stalin and all his men were equally united in their passion for or against something. But was it really a consensus? Or was it Stalin’s hatred that others had to agree with. So, if Stalin hated A, his henchmen also had to hate A. If Stalin then decided to love A and hate B, his henchmen would do likewise. Same logic applies to the US. Don’t mind the barking dogs. They lack agency. They will bark to the tune of their masters. As Jews rule the US, they get to decide what is to be hated. Jews hate Russia and Putin at the moment, so ALL OF US are supposed to hate along. And because most non-Jews in the Deep State and Mass Media won’t have a career unless they obey Jews, they also spout along. Sure, they sound sincere in their hatred, but so did the henchmen of Stalin and Mao. And of Hitler. Whatever the Fuhrer said, the Nazi henchmen had to go along with. Just about everyone in the American Deep State and Media has to APPEASE their Jewish Masters if he wants to have career, reputation, and status.

The rise of Russian Nationalism led to the slipping of Jewish monopoly power in Russia. The Russian masses decided to support Putin and Russian nationalism. Putin then lent special support to the Russian Church. Jews were alarmed by this and sought to counter the development with Pussy Riot and Homomania, but Russia said Nyet. This infuriated the Jews. In contrast, Jews were able to guilt-bait, castrate, browbeat, brainwash, and heart-worm American whites(and Western Europeans) into worshiping Magic Negroes, embracing cuckery, rejecting their own racial/cultural identity, remembering Holocaustianity, and celebrating Homomania. American Whites were told they have no identity or culture of their own, and even if they did, it must be bad because whiteness is ‘racist’ and must be destroyed. But Donald Trump, the Alt Right, and Populism began to turn the tide on the Jewish Supremacist Power. More Americans began to wake up to the Globo-Homo agenda. They came to be more aware of Jewish power. And even conservative white Americans who continue to have warm feelings for Jews and Israel increasingly said NO to social and political agendas favored by Jewish elites. And this is why Jews are all panicked about Russia. Jews are no longer worried about survival. They are addicted to supremacism. After all, Russia is friendly to Jews, and lots of Jews are fabulously rich there. Even as Jews denigrate Russia and spit on Putin, Russia and Putin have been nice, welcoming, and protective of Jews. While Putin moved against the nastiest Jewish oligarchs, he kept some of them around, and if anything, he’s come down hard on outspoken anti-Jewish elements in Russia. But that’s not enough for Jews who must have supremacism. Jews believe non-Jewish nations belong to them. Since Jews cannot take them over demographically like they took over Palestine, Jews promote mass invasion-immigration on all goy nations so that the native peoples will, under the Diversity regimen, lose their sense of identity, territory, and history. And then, Jewish globalist elites will find it much easier to penetrate and take over nation after nation, not least by exploiting the art of divide-and-rule among Diversity created by mass invasion-immigration.

While Trump is clearly a traitor to the Empire of Judea, he could be seen as a patriot to America that has been envisioned as a sovereign nation with a specific history, core demography, core cultural themes(mostly rooted in Europe), and well-established borders. According to this view, the Core Americans are the European settlers who conquered, founded, and built the nation. While non-whites did their part in the development of the US, America is essentially an extension of European Civilization, and in order for the US to remain that way, its core must be white-European, especially Northern European. Patriots believe that this America must be preserved. After all, America was not founded and built by the world. Rather, it was founded by a specific group of Europeans, and later, other kinds of Europeans adapted and assimilated to this Core America that was essentially Anglo-Germanic. It has been this success story that made the US a magnet for the rest of the world that was far less successful in creating nice societies. If indeed the US belongs to all the world and must become all the world, why should people of the world have to come to the US? If the US is not a specific nation but The World, then people around the world should just stay put because US, as the World, would hardly be different from the rest of the world. On the one hand, the globo-homo-pushers say the US is an ‘exceptional’ nation, but then they say the US must become like the rest of the world. If US is so exceptional, why must it become so much like the rest of the world? Or are they saying the world is made better if they come to the US and become ‘Americans’? But what would this ‘American’ be? If US no longer has a core demography, no core culture, and no core anything and if US is always reinventing itself with more and more Mass Immigration, what would make it so ‘exceptional’? Indeed, the US narrative went from 'immigrants from the world must assimilate to American-ness' to 'American-ness must assimilate to the world'.
Of course, Jews have it all figured out. The reason why Jews welcome more Mass Invasion-Immigration is because they believe themselves to the be smartest people. If Jews really believed that newcomers could take power from them, they would say NO to more Mass Immigration. Suppose Mexicans and Muslims have an average IQ of 130 and very pushy personalities. Suppose they were to come to the US, outsmart the Jews, and take over as New Elites. Would Jews really want More Immigration then? Of course not. Jews welcome more Mass Invasion-Immigration because they know the newcomers will only be their helots, servants, and new voters. Jews know the newcomers won’t be able to compete with Jews. Asians are smarter than most immigrant groups, but East Asians are too dull-in-personality to win against Jews-with-chutzpah. And Hindus are too exotic and weird for most Americans to accept as the New Elites. Indeed, Jewish Power works a perverse duality vis-a-vis whites. On the one hand, Jews berate and shame whiteness. Jews tell whites to know their place and not act uppity. But Jews also count as ‘white’, and that means they are more acceptable to whites as elites than other groups are. So, even though many whites may increasingly sense that Jews are pretty nasty toward them, they still regard Jews-in-power as whites-in-power since Jews officially count as whites. But many whites wouldn't feel likewise if a bunch of Hindus took elite power in the US. Hindus are just too exotic. And of course, Jews understand this psychology, which is why they don’t fear Hindus very much. And Hindus understand this too. They know that whites(and blacks and browns) are less likely to accept the 'dotkins' as New Elites. For one thing, it would be seen as cutting in front of the line as most Hindus in the US are relative newcomers. So, Hindus stick close to Jews in their attainment of power and privilege. They dare not try to gain the upper-hand over Jews. In this Jewish vision of America, more and more ‘immigrants’ means more underlings of Jews. While Mexicans can out-compete ‘white trash’ and Asians can out-compete white middle class, neither will be able to out-compete Jews. Jews are too smart. They are too well-connected. They are too tribal and viciously chutzpahstic. Also, even if they shit all over whites, whites would still prefer Jewish masters than non-white masters. At the very least, white Christians can remind themselves of Judeo-Christian Values and go on pretending that Jews and White Christians are brothers-under-the-skin even though Jews continue to kick them in the balls. Jews as New Elites seem like an alien power but not entirely because Jews and white Christians go back a long time. But if the US were to come under the power of non-whites, there would be far less support for the new elites among whites. Whites will take shit from Jews(and from blacks as Magic Negroes) but not from any other people. Even as Jews berate whites for not being sufficiently welcoming to MORE non-white immigration, they aren’t looking for to parity and equality between Jews and non-white immigrants. As far as Jews are concerned, the non-whites are merely Diversity army to be used against whites. Now, what if whites side with non-whites against Jews? Jews figure that won’t happen because whites, especially white conservatives, will always favor white Jews(no matter how nasty they are) to non-whites. This is the conundrum facing the American Right. Its racial consciousness leads to preference of ‘fellow white’ Jews over non-whites, but no group is as hostile and vicious toward whites in the West than Jews are. It’s like black bears siding with brown bears in the spirit of fellowship-of-the-bear against wolves and coyotes but being attacked most by brown bears that also welcome coyotes and wolves to beat on black bears too. Jews denounce white-consciousness as 'racist' but also rely on this 'racism' as it makes whites favor Jews over others. After all, most white conservatives tend to see Israelis as WHITE Jews and Palestinians as BROWN 'ragheads'. And it is why whites generally favor Jewish power over other kinds of power. Whites aren't bothered by College admission policies that favor Jews over Asians because Jews are seen as fellow whites. So, Jews are playing a contradictory game. They revile white consciousness as 'racist' but also subtly appeal to it to keep whites favoring Jews over non-whites(such as Palestinians in the Middle East and Asians in competition for colleges).

One thing for sure, Trump’s meeting with Putin sure smoked out the true nature of the Deep State. It is so totally Jewish or cucky-wuck. All this alarm about ‘evil Putin’ and Trump’s treason is about Jewish Supremacists demanding that the US remain as part of Empire of Judea than regain independence as a sovereign nation, like Russia and Iran. Jewish supergroup supremacist imperialism hates Russian nationalism and American nationalism because nationalism is anti-imperialist. Nationalism seeks autonomy and independence from imperialist domination. The Thirteen Colonies once belonged to the British Empire. When the Colonies declared independence, the British Crown and Parliament howled TREASON. The Colonies relied on the aid of the French to fight the British. (If Russia wants to help American patriots like the France aided the American Revolutionaries, why should we care? Did the Founding Fathers say NO to French aid on the basis that France was a monarchy?) At this point, the US is no longer a free nation. After the Cold War, Jews cemented their power as the supremacist element in the US, and they steadily and surely incorporated the US into the Worldwide Network of Jewish Supremacist Power. The US is now a colony of the Empire of Judea just as the Thirteen Colonies were once the possession of the British Empire. Just as the British Empire was furious with the uppity daring of the American Revolutionaries who declared independence, Jewish supremacists are freaking out over the fact that Trump and patriotic Americans(who’ve emerged from Jewish hypnosis) are effectively demanding independence and emancipation from the Jewish Supremacist Imperialism. According to Jews, ‘America’ must remain in the Image of Jewish Power. America must obey Jews. And especially White Americans must hate their own race & culture and cuck out to blacks and be ‘inclusive’ of unceasing non-white mass invasion that will reduce the historic core population of the US into a permanent minority. This is the Jewish vision of America, and it can only see Trump’s effort at rapprochement with Russia as a threat to Jewish domination. After all, Russia was once a part of the Empire of Judea but managed to tear itself free(though not entirely) from Jewish claws. If Russia could do it, why not the US? Why not the nations of the EU? If Russia is no longer a part of EOJ, why should the US remain a vassal? EOJ, more than NATO and EU, is the real curse of the world. Though Trump is coming under lots of fire, the sheer hysteria of the Jews is giving us a clear picture of who really rules America and what their real agenda is.
All patriots must be willing to be treasonous to the Empire of Judea. To be loyal to one's nation and people requires one to commit treason against the alien overlords. For Gandhi and Nehru to be loyal to the idea of Indian Independence, they had to be treasonous to the British Empire and refuse to serve as subjects and agents of British Imperialism.

Indeed, imagine the chutzpah of these Jews who make up 2% of the US population but deign to define what is 'America' and shove this concoction down our throats and up our anuses. These Jews, so nasty and lacking in self-awareness, seem to believe that America exists to serve Jewish vanity. Any vision of America that says NO THANKS to Jewish domination is deemed as 'treason'. Well, loyalty to nation calls for treason against globo-homo empire. Such is true patriotism. And we must praise Donald Trump for having tried against all odds against the vile and vicious Jews. He is wrong on many things, but his counter-chutzpah can be amazing.

Richard Spencer and the George Bailey Rule — Why Clarence’s Law matters in Politics — Why No One is saying "I am Spencertacus"

If anything seemed certain at the time, Jesus got whupped real bad. He was captured, tried, whipped, stripped, crucified, and humiliated. It’s hard to imagine a worse whupping. The Romans didn’t take Him seriously. He was just another Jew who had to be executed. Most Jews rejoiced as they regarded Him as a heretic and blasphemer. And peoples of various other tribes who assembled to watch the punishment and death of Jesus may have found entertainment value in the spectacle. After all, Romans had crucified scores of people. So, the death of Jesus should have been just one more among the countless, and that would have been that.
But what made a difference? The fact is Jesus inspired such love, devotion, respect, and reverence among His Disciples and followers that even after they scattered, denied, and/or renounced Him, they were overcome with guilt that slowly hardened into a resolve to serve His spirit. And that small but steady fire would gradually spread and even convert & conquer the souls of Romans. Many of Jesus’ followers suffered and even died in their service to the spirit, but they were willing to do so because of their deep love and respect for Jesus. Without such devotion on their part, Christianity wouldn’t have had a chance.

We see something similar in two films, IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE and SPARTACUS. What George Bailey realizes at the end is that all his good deeds and good works made him a beloved figure in the community. Sure, he had to sacrifice his personal ambition, and there were rough roads along the way, but the things he did for the community were remembered by the people of Bedford Falls. Furthermore, people respected him for his intelligence, conscientiousness, and self-sacrifices. In the end, even the capitalist enterpriser Sam Wainright sends him money in time of need. So, when Harry Bailey toasts his older brother as ‘the richest man in town’, it’s not about money. It’s about respect, gratitude, and trust. It is what Mr. Potter will never have despite his immense riches. Even though Bailey had been ground down by daily routine, the fact is every good thing he did earned him respect among members of the community. In the end, he reaps what he’d sown... in the positive sense.
In the case of Spartacus, his rebellion fails. The slaves are killed or enslaved once again. Or they are captured and crucified. The captured men are promised mercy IF they name Spartacus, but none of them does. They respect and admire him so much that they’d rather die with him than spill the beans to the Romans. Spartacus earned such respect because he’d proven by words and deeds that he was for all of them, for freedom and dignity.

Since Charlottesville, Richard Spencer has faced a rough road. And his deplatforming has gotten worse and worse. He is being targeted and isolated for the Kill by the Powers-that-be. A frivolous lawsuit has been made against him, but it carries weight because some of the most powerful Jewish Supremacist law firms and the Jewish-supremacist media are working hand-in-hand to bring him down to set an example for the world. As such, Spencer has asked for support and help, and some have been willing to donate funds to his defense.

But what is most striking is the general lack of care and concern for Spencer despite him being the most well-known face of the Alt Right. There is little affection and love for Spencer, and not much respect or trust either. In his time of need, Spencer is mostly an isolated figure... even though perhaps some might see value in Anti-Spencerism(by the elites) as a welcome lightning-rod. After all, if so much Establishment thunderbolts are aimed at Spencer, then OTHER Alt-Right and Dissident Right figures will be spared. They may figure, "Let Spencer draw and take bulk of the heat while we remain relatively safe and carry on with the conversation and financial transactions." Indeed, lightning rods have spared many communities from being blasted by heavenly rage. Because Spencer is the most recognizable figure of the Alt Right, much of the violence(physical or rhetorical) by everyone from the Establishment Elites to Antifa bottom-feeders has focused on getting HIM. Also, there is the Eastwood factor. Notice that in many Eastwood action movies, we learn that the hero had been nearly lynched by the Mob. It’s as if the mediocre-looking types want to destroy, out of subconscious envy, the figure who looks better than them. Indeed, much of Antifa rage is steeped in what might be called ‘Fassbinderism’(after the famous German director of the 1970s). It is the War of Ugly on Aesthetics. Anyway, the elites generally think a movement can be neutralized or destroyed by taking out the head honcho. So, the French thought their troubles were over in Algeria when they took out the rebel elites. And the Apartheid government of South Africa thought Mandela would be helpless behind bars. But in the end, the Algerian uprising returned with greater fury. And Mandela eventually triumphed. But then, even as those revolutionaries had been vanquished, exterminated, or captured, there was much love and respect among the masses for those people. It’s like the love for the dead rebel leader among the poor folks in UNDER FIRE.

But has any White National leader won such respect and devotion among his fans and followers? I can’t think of one. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that most of Modern History was one of domination of the Rest by the West. It’s far more difficult to feel sympathy for the over-dog or top-dog than for the underdog. And even when white warriors were on the margins and fighting an uphill battle, like the remnants of white colonialist types in Vietnam, Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa, they were regarded as struggling to maintain white privilege in lands that were not theirs. Jesus and Spartacus were clearly underdogs. And even though T. E. Lawrence was an agent of the British Empire, he took on an ‘underdog’ role by leading the Arabs against the Ottoman Empire that was allied with Germany.
In contrast, despite the uphill underdog struggles of men like David Duke and Richard Spencer, it’s hard for them to garner wider sympathy because the History and the Narrative for so long has been ‘white hegemony’ over the world. Also, David Duke ruined his chances as a White Advocate by doing stupid stuff like joining the ridiculous KKK and blaming EVERYTHING on Jews. Jewish Power is immensely important as challenge and threat, but Duke turned it into a cartoon. As for Spencer, it’s hard to see him as a man struggling for justice for his people when he spouts off about how the West must be like the Empire in STAR WARS, how super-rich Bruce Wayne(Batman) and amoral James Bond are Alt Right archetypes, how Africa must be conquered again under neo-Kipling-ism, and how the only game left is an endless struggle for Power in a globalized world of constant flux. Spencer’s idea is that the Classic West is over because the Dark Invasion cannot be stopped, therefore, the New White Right must learn how to conquer the world as the world conquers the West. It’s really a futurist-right variation of Soros-ism. In a world where borders and security can no longer be taken for granted, there is an endless struggle for domination, and Spencer thinks the white race can win this game and rule over the world like Darth Vader over Ewoks and Jawas or something. Well, at least Darth Vader had massive starship fleets to mess up entire star systems. And at least Batman had tons of money and all sorts of gadgets with which he could beat up ‘bad guys’. And at least James Bond was so favored by luck that even when he fell out of an airplane, he was sure to land on his feet on a yacht with bikini-clad babes. But reality is another matter. It just sounds ridiculous for Spencer to pontificate about Vaderian greatness when he can’t even pay for a drink with a credit card. It’s close to being comical, even pathetic.

Now, I don’t say anything with glee or personal amusement. I do respect Spencer to the extent that his life could have been smooth sailing IF he’d taken thirty pieces of silver and played the game like Peter Keating in THE FOUNTAINHEAD but did not and took a bold path in life. Spencer could have been someone like Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney. He could have been a well-paid shabbos goy toy of the Jews. Unlike some people who gravitate toward ‘radical’ politics or ‘extremist’ views because of they are ‘losers’ with low status and no talent, Spencer could have had a much better material and social life. He could have played the game. Though no genius, he is intelligent and had written some thoughtful and penetrating pieces about the nature of US politics. And he has the right personality and image that could succeed in politics or the corporate world. So, even his critics have to give him credit for giving up a lot to pursue a risky cause in our PC-dominant world. But like the character of PRINCE OF THE CITY, Spencer hasn’t given up enough, and that, ironically, is one of the main sources of his problems.

If you want to lead a cause, you have to dig deeper and push further. By this, I don’t mean ideological extremism or what is called ‘purity spirals’. If anything, his contacts with Andrew Anglin were unwise to say the least. It was handing ammo to the enemy to shoot him with. What I mean is Connecting with the People. The problem with Spencer is he grew up affluent, pretty, and popular. Though not uber-rich, his family was rich enough. And his childhood and youth were pretty easy. Due to his privileged status, image, and personality, lots of doors could open up to him if he made half the effort. Much of his life was about FUN. As long as he kept his radical politics under wraps, he could be a liked guy. That is all very nice but the wrong attitude(and expectations) to have in the calling of ‘radical’ politics. It’s like one can play toy-soldiers far from battle but not in a real war. And one can play around as a professional wrestler, but it’s real contest of will and muscle in true wrestling or boxing. There is NO MERCY from the enemy in a real war. And Spencer entered a real war but failed to understand this... despite having written time and time again on the Carl-Schmitt-ian theory that Logic of Power than Rule of Law really governs how things work.
How did Spencer fall into this deer-in-the-headlights illusion? For those who had social and economic advantages in life, there is a tendency to believe that destiny is on your side. It leads to vanity, narcissism, over-confidence, and ultimately hubris, usually the deadliest of all sins when the prize or grail is within view.

While Spencer must be credited with heading off the Alt Right movement with his first Alternative Right website, the fact is its momentum soon stalled. While some of the writers were provocative, many were either too fringy(especially Jack Donovon, the ‘machomo’ theorist) or ‘cringy’(especially the second-rate Neo-Nazi Alex Kurtagic). The original Alt Right failed to attract a core staff of first-rate thinkers, theorists, critics, or opinionists. Thus, its quality fluctuated wildly from thoughtful to downright insane. Whatever one may say of THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, it is consistent in tone and quality(even if one disagrees with its general drift and core positions). The original Alternative Right website was like the boat in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST where no one has firm grip on the steering. It kept veering off in many directions. Also, the fiasco with Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki(and the bad blood that exists to this day) was the first clear sign that Spencer was capable of ‘betrayal’, as with the character in THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY.

Perhaps, ‘betrayal’ is too strong a word, but he pulled down the site that he’d effectively handed over to Liddell and Nowicki to edit-and-manage without consulting them properly. Why such impetuousness? The answer probably lies in Spencer’s character flaw developed in the formative stages of youth when he coasted through life and generally got what he wanted from loving parents, supportive community, easy connections, and physical likableness. His one liability, especially as he entered college and graduate school, was his un-PC politics, but his natural charm surely allowed him to weather the storm better than others without genetic advantages. The downside of such personality is egotism that may run out of control and sacrifices friendship and loyalty out of personal whim.
This is ironic since Spencer hasn’t been willing to compromise or sacrifice his principles or overarching vision. And yet, precisely because he’s enamored and committed to his Higher Vision, he has tended to grow impatient and indifferent to those around him when things don’t pan out as planned. The first Alternative Right site was supposed to create waves but generally failed to. Instead, it became the vessel of two Alt Right ‘nerds’ Nowicki, the beta-male saint at war with ‘whanking’, and goofy Liddell, the naughtier version of Mark Steyn: Liddell will Name-the-Jew.
This side of Spencer, a willful nature all too dismissive and inconsiderate of others, would set a template for things to come. He made unnecessary enemies of allies. Or, if not exactly ‘enemies’, he lost the respect and, more importantly, the trust of those who’d devoted their time and energy toward serving his project. At this point, Spencer shut down the original Alternative Right site(soon to resurface as a separate venture of Nowicki and Liddell in Blogspot) and started a new site called Radix Journal. In essence, there was no difference between the original Alternative Right site and Radix site except the change in name. In other words, it was as if re-branding could ignite what the original Alternative Right site had failed to. But Radix Journal met the same fate. It failed to generate buzz and didn’t become the focus of conversation in the political and ideological discourse. It was one of the many alternative or dissident political voices and sites on the internet. But far from the first.

Still, Spencer did contribute to a broader awakening that was happening independently of but not entirely disassociated from Spencer’s basic concept of an ‘alternative right’. On their own, many young and fresh voices began to create their own sites, make their own videos, and form their own ideas(and ‘memes’) on sites like 4chan. Though Spencer was far from being the only or the central figure in the new awakening — HBD, Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor, Paul Gottfried, John Derbyshire, Brett Stevens, Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, David Duke, Keith Preston, and many others had played their role — , he had played his part in getting some of the ideas across. It’s arguable and probable that Spencer hadn’t contributed much to the movement in terms of theory. His piece on Donald Trump, "Napoleon of the Current Year", possibly the single best article on the Trump phenomenon, suggests that Spencer could have been a more important figure as thinker, theorist, and pundit, but his main energies were expended on forming a movement and creating networks. If many Alt Right figures prefer to remain in the shadows, focus on theory than practice, or feel more comfortable with words than action, Spencer liked to be out there as the shaker of hands and organizer of men. Such personality types tend to be Natural Politicians, and this was both an advantage and disadvantage for Spencer. If Spencer simply wanted to make it as a political figure, he could have chosen to be more diplomatic and strategic. And this opportunistic side of Spencer is precisely what led to the fallouts between Spencer and others whose dedication to the cause was more earnest and straightforward.

And yet, there is another side of Spencer that is determined and resolute(on the Big Picture), and this has made him rigid at times in strategy, leading to huge miscalculation of the power dynamics. In a way, Spencer’s breakdown of Paul Nehlen’s implosion applies to himself as well. According to Spencer, one can choose the radical way with all its risks and dangers(but also the reward of pride of principle) OR the practical way of serving implicit Alt Right positions by playing it mainstream, a kind of Saul-Alinsky-tactic of the Right. Nehlen simply didn’t have the mind or manners to go the radical path and would have been better off shaking hands and kissing babies. Nehlen didn’t know what he was getting into and badly mixed All-Americanism with Alt-Right Awakening. Spencer’s insights on Nehlen were pretty much spot-on, but the same rules could apply to him as well. Spencer never seemed to ask himself whether he was in the Alt Right movement in a hardcore way to be its theorist & ‘prophet’ or in a middle-of-the-road way to be its manager & diplomat. Was he really in it for Fury or for Fun? If the former, why hasn’t he written a definitive book or tome to explain his position and vision? Why has he been so all over-the-map like a dilettante who does a bit of this, a bit of that, but almost nothing to completion? Or, if he wants to be the suave and smooth diplomatic figure of the Alt Right, why all the squabbles, controversies, hard talk, and hubris(bordering on megalomania of creating an Alt-Sphere as a galactic Darth-Vaderian empire)? It’s as if Spencer is trying to be Hitler and Speer at the same time. Or Mao and Zhou. Or Lenin and Molotov. He wants to come across as the rational, sociable, and approachable face of the Alt Right but then can’t resist personifying the Mad Man Theory. He goes Dr. Jekll and Mr. Hyde. For Jesus to have done what He did, He couldn’t play it like Paul. For Paul to have done what he did, he couldn’t have played it like Jesus. Spencer, like Nehlen, has never chosen a definitive role in the movement. The totally principled theorist, visionary, and/or prophet OR the savvy man of pragmatism attuned to the nature of power and playing the keys accordingly. And it may be this confusion on his part that has been responsible for his ‘betrayals’, i.e. Spencer didn’t mean to betray others, but it felt that way to those who lost faith in him because Spencer’s confusion stemming from a desire to do too much led to a kind of self-betrayal. A man who tries to do everything ends up doing nothing at all, just like a man who tries to save the world will end up saving nothing. In the end, one has to find one’s role or niche in the movement and stick to it. Even Jesus, supposedly the Son of God, couldn’t do everything. He needed the Disciples and especially Paul. Few men in history have been as Total as Muhammad, a man who managed to found a new great religion, inspire countless masses spirituality, and conquer huge areas via diplomacy, conversion, and war.... which is why a certain book considered him as the Most Influential Man that Ever Lived. http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/thetop100.html?id=61. Perhaps, Spencer's Commitment-Deficit-Syndrome owes to an easy childhood where, very possibly, he got whatever he wanted. He grew up feeling used to having things go his way. So, when things don’t work out as he’d planned or hoped, he either loses heart, gets confused, drops allies, and scrambles in new directions as if something else might be more ‘fun’. This lack of constancy and equilibrium seems to have attracted similarly confused personalities, like the half-mad Kyle Bristow who totally crashed and burned. And others in his inner circle seem to have lost heart or a clear sense of direction. Spencer’s general cockiness tends to attract others who are either equally cocky(like Gregory Conte) or toady-like. While a marginalized movement needs men of confidence and will, cockiness can easily turn into arrogance and over-inflated ego. As for toadies, they never know what to do on their own.

If Spencer wanted to play the role of intellectual and visionary, he should have worked on his tome or at least a manifesto, a testament to the world. Instead, there are only bits and fragments of articles here and there, speeches, and youtube debates. Those are all nice but not enough to constitute the Big Mind of the movement. Even if most people these days don’t read books and rely more on social media, the smaller ideas flow from big ideas. It’s like most people get their water from rivers, streams, and brooks BUT it all flows from the Great Source. The film MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON is about the adventure to find just that: The very source of the Nile. Does Spencer want to be a river to his people or not?


Karl Marx chose the lonely path of a scholar and prophet, but he did lay down the core principles of what would become the modern communist movement. He became the source of all future rivers and streams of the Radical Left. But something about Spencer prevents him from playing that role. He doesn’t have the right temperament. He’s too addicted to Fun, the action, the spotlight. There’s too much ‘batman’ and ‘007' in him, too much of the drama queen.
So then, if Spencer prefers the role of people-person, he should have been extra savvy and resourceful in building bridges among the sounder elements of the movement while burning bridges with those who are bound to cause the most trouble or cast the movement in a negative light. And here, Spencer and Daniel Friberg messed up big time. I don’t know what exactly happened between them and Greg Johnson(and John Morgan), but it just made no sense to divide the movement in such nasty manner. Even if Johnson is a jerk — I have no idea whom to trust on the matter — , there’s no doubt that his contributions to the movement have been considerable. Then, the differences could have been resolved among them in a more civil or dignified manner. Even if purges are eventually necessary, keep in mind Stalin’s purge happened AFTER the Bolsheviks came to power. And Hitler purged Rohm AFTER political victory. Clearly, Spencer and Friberg overestimated their power when they began to talk big and wage internecine warfare. Worse, such a move not only created bad blood between Spencer-Friberg Group and Greg Johnson & Counter-Currents but alienated many who remained loyal to Johnson. Also, for most of us who aren’t privy to who-did-what, the mudslinging at Johnson led to counter-mudslinging at Friberg. So, not only was Johnson dirtied but those involved with Arktos. Given rough times ahead, how sounder it would have been if Spencer had done a better job of building bridges. Then, he would have had much greater sympathy and support after the Charlottesville debacle. But because Spencer headed into the movement after having burned too many bridges with other members of the Alt Right — Nowicki & Liddell, Ramzpaul, Greg Johnson & Counter-Currents gang, and etc. — , many in the Alt Right were hesitant to lend him support, especially as their sites had also been attacked or deplatformed despite the fact that they hadn’t been consulted about the rally at Charlottesville. Even though the fiasco was the doing of the nasty Jewish mayor and corrupt city politics, Spencer had really put himself in a bad spot. At Charlottesville, he became associated with too many nutty figures like Andrew Anglin & Chris Cantwell or mediocrities like Baked Alaska. Indeed, why did Spencer approach Anglin at all? Whatever use Daily Stormer may have as a larp-nazi troll-farm, Anglin cannot be taken as a serious individual as thinker or leader. And there was Matt Heimbach, who turned out to be a total bust, which is especially upsetting since Heimbach had set out to do something of great importance, i.e. address issues pertaining to white working class and small-town America. Whether Charlottesville was sound or unsound as a plan, the fact is Spencer found himself mostly isolated afterwards because his egotism had stepped on or rubbed too many people the wrong way. And there are times when he seemed to be lost in the clouds. In the post-Charlottesville press conference, Spencer spouted off about how the media will continue to pay attention to him because what he stands for is so much more interesting than what Conservatism Inc. has to offer. Now, it is true that Alt Right has far more interesting things to say than the GOP and Establishment Conservatism do, but what made Spencer think that the Mass Media give a damn about meaning or truth? The ONLY reason why the Media had paid attention to the Alt Right was to build it up as the Evil Bogeyman with which to smear Donald Trump. The media’s interest in the Alt Right was simply that. But Spencer’s narcissism had led him to believe that the media were showering him with all the attention because they were really fascinated with his views and ideas. On the individual level, maybe some journalists were tantalized or provoked. But by and large, media policy comes from the top, and once the Alt Right was no longer useful to the Establishment as a political tool but instead threatening to emerge as a genuine ‘radical’ white national movement, the media decided to clamp down on Richard Spencer and Co., especially with the full cooperation of Law firms, Big finance, Internet Platforms, and the power of the State.
Spencer seemed even more deluded in the speech at Michigan St. University when he talked about the Power, how it is the real force that controls everything and tramples over principles. Now, if Spencer is cognizant of the fact that the Power trumps any set of principles, how could he have been so naively trusting of the Constitution and the Media to accord him the niceties of fair play and equal treatment?

Indeed, Spencer’s moral position fails because his ultimate vision is simply to be George Soros of the Right. As we all know, Soros is a globalist-imperialist, an empire-builder of the highest order. He creates chaos all over the world to create opportunities to install a new order to be manned and managed by minions educated and funded by his institutions. Soros has no respect for nations, cultures, borders, or sovereignty. He seeks to trample on everyone and everything to get things his way. And he isn’t alone but joined by other globalist Jewish-supremacist oligarchs who see the world as their oyster.

Now, the ONLY reason Spencer opposes such people is because he wants what they got. Ultimately, he wants to play god-emperor and have the Anglo-Roman-empire rule the world with new wars, colonizations, and occupations. Also, just like Jewish supremacists pay lip-service to ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, and ‘rule of law’ but actually resort to ANY POWER MOVE to push their supremacist agenda, Spencer’s vision of the future is no different. His Order will ban or severely curtain free speech and use the brute force of the law to make us conform to the Order in thought and action. So, Spencerism isn’t about combating Jewish globalist tyranny for freedom & sovereignty for all nations but about replacing Jewish hegemony with Anglo-hegemony... or, it’s about restoring Anglo-hegemony that had been usurped by Jewish hegemony. After all, Jews didn’t create the modern hegemonic world. Rather, they inherited or stole it from those who did. Among the six great empire builders in modern times — Spanish, Ottomans, Anglos, French, Russians, and Japanese — , only the Anglo/Americans triumphed over all others. Ottomans were finished with WWI. Spanish, once very great, had retreated to second-rater status. The French lost WWII and then their empire. Japanese empire was spectacular if short-lived but, at any rate, all gone by end of WWII. Russian empire came crashing down with the fall of the Soviet Union. Now, the British Empire met the same fate as that of the French empire, but the US-Canada-Australia had developed eventually as a super-Anglosphere empire, and that meant UK, even in shrunken state, had a certain prestige that France and Spain no longer had. When 20th century was declared as the American Century, it essentially meant the World Domination by Anglo-Americans. They, not the Jews, had built this order. But Jews took it over with their control of the media(that shaped view of reality), academia(that determine the narrative), finance(that could make or break businesses), entertainment(that created idols and icons, heroes and villains), vice industries(that addicted whites and others to drugs, gambling, and pornography), real estate, and law firms(that could wage lawfare and bankrupt people). So, in a way, it’s not so much that Spencer wants to create a new empire but wants to take it back from the Jews who had stolen it from its rightful owners, the Anglos, who’d done most to build the modern world with its trade routes, networks, and bases of power.
So, Soros and Spencer are essentially on the same page. The main difference is Spencer is, either candidly or foolishly, brazenly honest about what he wants whereas Soros(along with fellow Jewish globalists) is utterly dishonest about his grand vision. Soros is motivated by insatiable power-lust. He wants to be the dark Emperor of a Globalized World. But unlike Spencer who confesses his intoxication with Will to Power, Soros and his ilk wrap themselves with talk of ‘liberty’, ‘openness’, ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, and ‘justice’. In terms of integrity, Spencer wins hands down with honesty, but in terms of strategy, the Soroses of the World win because Power is most effective when camouflaged and weaponized in deceptive ways. The Corleones didn’t come out on top in THE GODFATHER by stating their intentions. Spencer, like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART 2, laid it all out.

It may feel good, but others know where he’s coming from and what he is about. So, Michael is able to easily outmaneuver Geary. Hyman Roth is a different fish altogether. A slippery eel, very smooth but slimy and ready to shock the enemy when least expected. Spencer’s candor and lack of deviousness are refreshing from an ideological perspective but not very savvy in the game of power. The problem is his position in the movement is confused. If he wants to be the ultimate visionary, he must speak candidly and lay it all out. He must be like John the Baptist who never minced words and paid the ultimate price: He lost his head but gained the respect of others who regarded him as a straight-talking Prophet. There is this side of Spencer, the neo-Nietzschean would-be-visionary of the Alt Right. But there is another side that wants to play the role of someone like Bill Buckley. He wants to rub shoulders with the right kind of people, be chummy with the media, be the go-to-guy for the Establishment on issues pertaining to Alt Right or White Nationalism. To play that sociable role, one has to be far more diplomatic, devious, and deceptive. This is why Bill Buckley couldn’t be as brazen as Joe Sobran, the real thinker at the National Review.

Be that as it may, Spencerism cannot be the basis for any meaningful movement because his ultimate vision is nihilism than moralism. He favors power over justice, and that means his vision is just Soros-ism for the white race. While it’s true that nothing is possible without power, power must serve something higher, and that is justice. Now, justice is a loose term, and there are many kinds of justice. Also, every kind of ‘justice’ means ‘injustice’ to others. There never was a perfect justice. The figures who came closest to conceiving of such were Buddha and Jesus. But Buddha’s justice calls for the eventual extinction of all life because life itself is the problem, i.e. life exists through destroying other life, and desire/attachment of the ego favors one’s pleasures & priorities that trample on the needs of other lives. As for Jesus, His practice of perfect justice led to Him getting whupped and killed real bad.

For the rest of us, we need a more practical, useful, and limited concept of justice. Without the concept of justice, there is just might-is-right, and in a way, people like Spencer have no right to complain because the current troubles befalling the white race has less to do with excessive justice than might-is-right. Sure, the globalists(especially Jewish ones who wield most power) mask their might-is-rightism with PC talk of equality and justice, but that’s just the usual rhetorical smokescreen. It’s really about Jewish Supremacism. Just ask the Palestinians if Jews really care about equality. Just ask the Ukrainians if Jews really care about redressing historical wrongs. Just ask the Russians(whose economy was raped by Jews in the 1990s) if Jews care about fairness. Jews are just 0.2% of the Russian population, but 20% of the richest Russians are Jews, but even THAT isn’t enough for World Jewry that now wages Total War on Russia. Jews bitch about ‘white privilege’ but only as misdirection from the real problem of Jewish power and privilege that rules the US despite the fact that Jews are only 2% of the population. The current system is not about ‘Social Justice’. That is just a front used by Jews to sustain their might-is-rightism. Deep down inside, even so-called ‘leftist’ Jews like Paul Krugman are really Ayn-Randians-at-heart. It’s just that they figure their supremacism is better served hiding in the shadows than being out in the open. When Obama, the pet monkey of Jews, bailed out Jewish banksters on Wall Street, Krugman and fellow ‘leftist’ Jews sure didn’t complain much.
Imagine a theater. Suppose it is owned and managed by Jews who take in all the profits and exploit the performers and workers. But when the spotlight comes on, does it shine on the owners and managers? No, the light goes on the performers on-stage who seem to have all the glory and power. But in fact, they are just tools of those with the real power: People who finance, produce, and manage the production and the building.

Jews are all about Might-is-Rightism. So, all this talk of Power by Spencer is old hat to them. If anything, they find Spencer stupid for spilling all the beans. Deep down inside, Jews agree with Spencer. Yes, it’s about the Power. And they got it. And they will keep it by any-means-necessary. The differences is that, whereas Spencer admits what he is all about, the Jews go for the same thing — THE POWER — but pretend they are nobly resisting SUPREMACISTS like Spencer in the name of defending poor helpless Negroes and other folks of color.

This matters because Spencer has NO moral justification to decry all the nasty things that have been done to him. Spencer’s world-view is POWER MATTERS, therefore THE SIDE WITH POWER MUST DO WHATEVER TO KEEP THE POWER. He says, if and when the Alt Right does come to power, they will ban free speech, lock up enemies, and act like Batman-as-Darth-Vader allied with white clone-army of 007's. Well, if that’s Spencer’s vision of how the world is and must be, what moral argument can he have against Jews doing to him what he would gladly do to others IF he had the Power? It’s like the opening scene of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID where the editing suggests the circular logic of Garrett’s life, i.e. when he turned against freedom and went after Billy and crew, he was effectively killing himself because the very power dynamics that hired him to kill Billy and crew will eventually bring him down as well. But Spencer seems to be blind to all this because of the ‘spoiled brat’ syndrome. He grew up with affluence and affection, and he seems to have this idea that you can have the cake and eat it too. It also looks ridiculous because it’s a near-comical sight to watch someone without Power rant on and on about Power. It’s like all those Randian nobodies fantasizing they are Howard Roark of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, which is useful as a dramatization of archetypal personalities but useless as guide to life.

Given Spencer’s stated world-view, he has no good moral or ethical defense against all the wrongs done to him because, by his own Logic of Power, the Jews did nothing wrong. If those with Power must wield it by-any-means-necessary to secure their power, then the Jewish elites have done the right thing in deplatforming Spencer and denying him myriad financial services. The Jews are right to use Lawfare against Spencer since, by his own account and preferred power-logic, the Ruling Power must do whatever necessary to secure their position. Such political-philosophical rigidity on Spencer’s part makes it difficult for people to feel any sympathy. After all, he’s just being forced to taste his own medicine. He wants to be Batman-Darth-Vader ruler of the universe and do as he wishes with The Power. Well, since Jews now have The Power, they will act like Emperor Palpatine and treat Spencer like a mouse trapped in a maze with no exit.
Indeed, when Spencer said Alt Right is like ‘Zionism for white people’, he was falling into the same trap as the one that ensnared Jared Taylor. Even though Spencer is more hostile to Jewish power than Taylor(who foolish offers a fig leaf from a position of weakness, which is useless) is, a side of him still longs to be recognized and approved by Jews. He understands that Jews rule the world, and he wants to be where the Power and Prestige are. He wants to be like the Jewish globalist hegemonists or wrest back the empire from the Jews(who’d usurped something really built by whites). If Jews have rejected Taylor, there is no reason they will be any nicer to Spencer. Taylor wishes for an alliance between Jews and whites on equal footing. But Jews don’t think this way. Jews are steeped in Covenant-thinking and the idea that their God is the only God and they are the Chosen. Even secular Jews have this habit of mind and personality. Jews cannot allow equal partners. They must dominate, they must rule. So, even though Taylor reaches out to Jews, it’s no use. If anything, Jews have targeted him more than David Duke(who still has presence on Twitter that is now supervised by ADL and SPLC). If anything, Jews hate Taylor more precisely because he comes across as so urbane and reasonable(compared to David Duke who can be cartoonishly goofy with his one-note bash-the-Jew message). Jews want whites to SERVE Jews. They don’t want to be equal partners. In order to make whites serve Jews, Jews paralyze whites with the venom of ‘white guilt’. Thus, having no pride of their own, whites must latch onto the Holy Three — Jews, Homos, and Negroes — to be redeemed. Furthermore, Taylor reaches out to Jews from a position of weakness. He has no support in media, academia, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, or the government. He is all alone with his small band of followers at American Renaissance. He can’t even use Paypal. If Taylor were powerful like Anglo elites of old, Jews might be willing to cut a deal(if only temporarily until they gain total power), but there is no need for all-powerful Jews to respond to Taylor’s overture. After all, Taylor has nothing to bring to the table whereas Jews got everything. A poor man cannot hope to deal with a rich man.

Anyway, if Jews loathe Taylor, imagine how they feel about Spencer. At least Taylor wants Jews to be equal partners. Prior to Charlottesville, Spencer put forth 20 Alt Right principles, among which one was JEWS MUST GO THEIR OWN WAY. So, in a New White Power Order, the rule would effectively be No Jews Allowed. And yet, Spencer still seems to think there can be an UNDERSTANDING between whites and Jews. He went on Israeli TV to explain that Alt Right is Zionism for whites. Now, Spencer isn’t entirely wrong. There are parallels between white nationalism and Jewish nationalism. But why try to convince Jews of anything, as if that’s going to do any good? If anything, the Alt Right, in the current situation, is far closer to the plight of Palestinians or the BDS movement. But Spencer, being so conceited with Nihilism of Power, would rather associate the Alt Right with Zionism and Jewish Power than with Palestinians and BDS. After all, Jews = Winners whereas Palestinians = Losers. But losers can’t be choosers. And in the current order, Alt Right are big losers and MUST ACCEPT the reality of their loser-status. It’s like a boxer doesn’t become champion by comparing himself with the Best right away. He works up the ranks by fighting the palookas and losers. He starts out as one of the lower-rung losers and then gradually claws his way up to higher ranks. In the current order, the Alt Right is much better off identifying with Palestinians and BDS movement. No amount of stated admiration for Jews, Israel, or Zionism will convince Jews to be any nicer to the Alt Right.

So, from a tactical viewpoint, the Alt Right is better off focusing on Justice than on Power. The powerless that goes on and on about how they’re going to have the power and rule over everyone is like a poor man yammering about what he’s going to do with his millions upon winning the lottery. It’s a pipe dream. Also, it’s crass and arrogant as well as delusional and ridiculous. But even apart from tactical considerations, the idea of justice is necessary because might-is-right is rule of thuggery and megalomania. Even if we could have an all-white society, without a powerful idea of justice, the end-result will be something like North Korea or Animal Farm. Granted, the cult of justice can be invoked and manipulated by the power-hungry. Communist tyranny began as a movement for justice. And Jews always hid behind the shield of justice to dupe goyim into falling for Jewish mendacity and agendas(mostly for Jewish supremacist power). But then, ANYTHING can misused and misapplied by humanity, especially if it's turned into a cult. Communism became more a cult of justice that act of justice. It led to vanity of justice. This is all the more reason why we must fight for true justice.

True justice can be universal, mutual, or pragmatic. Catholicism and Communism present universal visions of justice though, to be sure, in different ways. Catholicism says there is only one God and one path to Salvation: Through Jesus Christ who redeems souls and allows them into God’s domain, Heaven. To be saved, one must hear the word of God and accept Jesus. This is open to anyone, rich or poor, white or non-white. In contrast, classic communism says class dynamics will eventually lead societies to develop capitalism that will culminate in accelerated contradictions that will finally result in communist revolution. Even though communism spread around the world with missionary zeal, Marx didn’t think any people or nation could be ‘converted’ to communism. Instead, they needed to have the necessary material conditions that will lead to economic contradictions that can only be resolved by communism. So, by classic Marxist theory, what happened in relatively backward Russia and very backward Asia(and later even Africa) were not true communist revolutions. Still, Marx thought this Theory of History and Justice would eventually visit much of humanity as economic forces tend to go from primitive to barbarian to feudal to capitalist to socialist to communist.
At this point, it’s fair to say it makes no sense to conceive of a Universal World Order. The world is too big, and there is no authority that can reign over all peoples. Still, universal values don’t have to be executed or managed universally. For example, even if democracy is considered a universal political ideal, it doesn’t mean all the world has to be under a single democratic government. Instead, each nation can have its own government that is elected on the national level, e.g. Mexicans elect their own government, Turks elect their own, and so do Iranians and Taiwanese. Also, a universal value like ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill(meaning murder)’ doesn’t mean all of humanity has to live under one order. Each nation or community can enforce such justice on the local level. So, universal value doesn’t necessary mean universal power. Just because we reject Universal Power doesn’t mean we need to reject every facet of Universal Justice. ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’, ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’, and ‘Thou Shalt Not Rape’ are pretty good universal moral standards for all peoples(though I doubt if a bunch of Negroes could practice them well).

The relation between justice and power is a complicated one. Power shapes justice but is, in turn, shaped by justice. Power uses justice to its advantage but is also restrained by justice. It is the idea and authority of justice that allows saner and sounder relations among the various groups that make up society. Without justice, power can only rule by fear, as in the animal world, or by fooling people into believing the power is divine & infallible, as in Stalin’s USSR. But rule-by-fear and rule-by-fooling don’t last very long. One relies on servile cowards and the other relies on dupes and dummies. Ideally, the Power must not only rule and judge but be judged and restrained in turn. The idea that certain people should be Above the Law or Above Justice is bound to corrupt or destroy society. Totalitarian societies stagnate and rot from the inside. A demagogue with god-like powers can do what Hitler or Mao did. In the US, Jews are now Above the Law and Above Justice. They judge others but cannot be judged. They need not face the consequences of all their foul behavior because Jews are virtually worshiped and obeyed as a godlike race. This is why the concept of Justice is necessary. We need to bring Jews to justice. (Spencer's Theory of Power overlooks the fact that the most effective societies are ones that allow adaptation of power to change and progress. The Ottoman and Chinese East was more effective than the West in maintaining the Power status quo, but that also meant stasis and lack of progress in so many fields. In contrast, the power in the West ebbed and flowed among various elites or brought forth new systems, and this led to greater progress and advancement in everything from political theory to agriculture to weaponry to chemistry. And the parliamentary system was devised to ensure legal and peaceful transfer of power from one group to another. And contract laws and property rights made possible the rise of capitalism that led to great transformations in economic might. After all, would it have been better if the once-dominant railroads had prevented the rise of automobiles as a threat to trains? Would it have been right for IBM to prevent the rise of Microsoft in the name of maintaining its power? The advantage of the Western/American system was not in the rigidity of power but in its fluidity, flexibility, and change. The genius was in the system of transferring power from one group/sector/industry to another without violent wars of resistance vs change. Rather, political contracts and norms would allow the losing side to peacefully concede to the winning side that, in turn, would respect the rights of the lesser power. That system allowed far more dynamic change than autocratic system in Spain and Latin America where the traditional elites clung to power by suppressing change, even in science and technology, that might threaten the prevailing way of life.)

But instead of leading a moral crusade against Jewish supremacist power, Spencer’s position has been "We want what the Jews got", which is globalist hegemony. This is all the more ironic since it gives Jewish supremacists an opportunity to blame Spencer and Co. as the supremacist specter haunting mankind. Jews with supremacist power are condemning Spencer for supremacist ambition, thereby making themselves out to be the forces of justice defending mankind from neo-Nazi menace. This is why Alt Right should have moved forward as a Justice Movement for the national liberation of white folks from Jewish supremacist globalism. Framed in that way, the Alt Right would have had firmer moral footing in theory of justice. Instead, Spencer steered Alt Right into some futuristic-sci-fi-Batman-007-Star-Wars fantasy where Alt Right guys, as superior natural-aristocratic specimen, would rule the universe. Such delusional arrogance also had a way of corrupting and poisoning souls. Take Kyle Bristow. He could have been a good guy, a conscientious lawyer working on behalf of white national liberation from Jewish supremacism. Instead, with his head in the clouds just like Spencer, he made a lot of ludicrous and repulsive statements like he’s the prophet of doom or something. What was he on? Drugs? You’d think the Alt Right was led by guys not unlike the nutjobs in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.

Instead of sobriety, decency, and morality, the Alt Right got doped high on delusions of grandeur, vanity, and reckless egotism. It was like the Boxer Rebellion in China where Martial Arts experts thought their bodies would be shielded from bullets by magic. One way or another, Alt Right vaped on too much self-delusion. Instead of choosing the National Humanist path, it chose the Crypto-Nazi Peter-Pan path. Granted, strictly speaking, Spencer wasn’t directly responsible for much that happened. When he said Hail Trump at the post-election conference, I’m sure he didn’t expect several morons to stand up and give the Nazi salute. There’s nothing wrong with being a bit provocative and enfants-terribles playfulness. Also, strictly speaking, the fiasco at Charlottesville was the doing of the local authorities. Still, given Spencer’s past statements about the nature of power(based on Carl Schmitt), he was naive to trust that the Power would accord his movement the same rights as that of AIPAC and Antifa. As for Spencer’s interaction with Andrew Anglin, that was just plain dumb. Why associate a nascent movement with such utter trash? Now, Anglin and DAILY STORMER may be useful for trolling and mocking PC shibboleths, but it’s best to let them do their thing. They are too crazy and toxic to approach as allies. As for Heimbach and Trad Worker, it’s understandable why Spencer came to rely on them. They were the only ones willing to risk life and limb out in the open against Antifa thugs shielded and enabled by the Power. Still, there was bound to be a huge downside as fatboy Heimbach made no bones about his movement being Neo-Nazi.

Things would have been much better for the Alt Right if it had a humanist and nationalist basis. Instead, Spencer chose ubermenschism and imperialism. When Spencer said the movement needs something more than ethno-nationalism, he was right to the extent that the globalist threat forces all white folks to look beyond their ethnic kin. When all of Europe is threatened by the Afro-Islamic tide, Europeans must think and look beyond ‘saving my little nation’. Just like the combined unity of Christendom that stopped the Muslim tide at the gates of Vienna, every white/European ethnic group must think not only in terms of ‘my ethnic nation’ but ‘our racial sphere’. It’s like various Hellenic city-states had to put their differences aside to defend against the Persian invasion. Such a perspective is compatible with the more nationalist-oriented views of Greg Johnson who prefers to stress the sovereignty of each nation and culture. A people can, at the core, safeguard and preserve their own ethnic kin and nation while also cooperating with other whites to defend the wider Western world from non-white threats and challenges. Whatever divisions may exist among various ethnic whites, they should be able to make common cause against the non-white world. As things stand at the moment, there is no pan-European or pan-white consciousness. American whites are mainly allied to the Empire of Judea. Western Europeans also serve the Empire of Judea and are merging with Africa and Islamic world. Macron calls for Eurafrica. Merkel wants to darken Germany with Muslims and Africans. Anglo-Saxons want to go ‘black’ and turn into Junglo-Saxons. Also, as vassals of the Empire of Judea or EOJ, they are hostile to white Russia, thereby pushing Russia into alliance with Iran and China. Ideally, white North Americans, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and Russians should be working together. But the West has been set against Russia, with Eastern Europe caught in the middle — Eastern Europe is anti-Russia but anti-EU on immigration and demographic replacement. Eastern Europe joined EU to be part of a larger Europe but is discovering that EU is now about union of Europe with Africa and Muslim world as orchestrated by Soros and other Jewish oligarchs.
Asia suffers the same problem. Ideally, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and etc. should all work for the common good of Asia, but China is now allied with Russia while Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam remain servile to the US. Such divisions are most useful to Jews who don’t want racial unity among any people. Indeed, consider how Jews messed things up in the Middle East so that Arabs will fight Arabs and Muslims will fight Muslims. Now, all these divisions had existed for a long time — they were not created by Jews — , but Jewish globalism exacerbated them far beyond what would have been the usual run-of-the-mill tensions and differences. For example, the mess in Ukraine wouldn’t be half-as-bad IF Jews hadn’t interfered in local affairs to set one bunch of Slavs against another. Notice the various kinds of Jews, though divided on many issues, mostly stick together and don’t allow non-Jews to exploit the divisions. Indeed, even during the Cold War, the leftist Jews and rightist Jews felt closer to one another than with any non-Jew. Capitalist Jews covered up for Socialist Jews and vice versa, eventually merging together under Zionist globalism.

Anyway, if Spencer saw the need for wider racial consciousness than just a narrow ethno-nationalism among whites, it would have made good sense. After all, despite all the ethnic conflicts among Europeans, they must surely realize that they all share the same challenges when confronted with demographic imperialism(mostly from Africa and Muslim nations) in a globalized world. However, it is now clear that Spencer meant something far more, and this makes his position untenable both strategically and morally. Spencer isn’t just calling for white unity and sense of shared purpose world-wide but for white hegemony over the world. He’s calling for the white race to do what Soros is doing. On the strategic level, it is crazy because the world today isn’t what it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. Imagine France trying to colonize Vietnam, Algeria, or any other nation today. Imagine UK trying to take over India, or even nuclear-powered Pakistan. When Europeans spread out over the world prior to the 20th century, they had a huge technological advantage and, furthermore, there was a lack of nationalist consciousness among most non-white folks. So, what had been cannot happen again. Also, the idea that white Europeans can be inspired once again to go around shooting people left and right to gain imperial hegemony is really kooky STARSHIP TROOPERS stuff.
But it’s also strategically stupid because it makes the Alt Right sound like a supremacist movement that wants to conquer and rule the world. Who can sympathize with such movement? It also makes Spencer sound like a deluded Don-Quixote-like figure because of the huge discrepancy between his actual status and his dream. It’s like a mouse talking like an elephant. It’s like the story of the dog with bone looking at its own reflection x 1000. Spencer can’t even have a Paypal account but he dreams of ruling over the Third World like the Empire in STAR WARS over the planet Naboo.

But it’s also repulsive from a moral angle. The Age of Empire must not return. Granted, Western Imperialism did a lot of good for the world. It discovered and united all the globe. It forced stagnant, repressive, and backward civilizations/societies to open to new ideas, developments, and opportunities. The process was traumatic and violent but ‘necessary’ and inevitable to the extent that SOME people had to do it. The West did it. It’s like a forest fire is destructive but also clears the way for new growths. But eventually, a people don’t want to be ruled and pushed around by others. Also, now that the entire world is cognizant of the benefits of science, technology, world trade, and communication, there is no more need to FORCE other peoples to open up and learn from others. All the world have opened up and learn from others. If anything, nations like Iran have been prevented from trading with the wider world because of the nastiness of Jews. When all of humanity can benefit and learn from one another through peaceful means via modern communication and agreed-upon rules of trade, what need for more imperialism and empire-building? Why not have each nation defend its independence and sovereignty? That would seem like the sane and moral thing to do.
And, to the extent that globalism prevents such by imposing the hegemonic will of the Empire of Judea on much of the world, the Alt Right could have been an effective MORAL voice for the pragmatic and mutual Justice of National Rights. A Nationalist Theory of Justice is one that works best. Why not let Hungarians decide what is right for Hungary? Why not let Russia decide its own values? Who are Jews to insist that Hungary take in tons of migrant-invaders or that Russians worship Homomania(hatched as a replacement religion in the West by sinister Jewish globalist elites)? It is hubris for Jews to act like they own Universal Justice that applies to all of mankind... which is especially repulsive since what Jews force on other peoples/nations, they don’t force on Israel. Jews turn a blind eye to IDF shooting Palestinians in Gaza but screams ‘far right’ and ‘neo-Nazi’ about Hungary refusing to be inundated by tons of African and Muslim invaders. But with Spencer, such moral logic has no meaning because he’s all about reviving a STAR WARS version of Kipling’s White Man’s Burden policy. It is having one’s head up in the clouds. (Of course, even in a world of universal nationalism, some nations will hold greater sway than others. Russia will be more powerful than Armenia, China more than Burma, and the US more than Costa Rica. But with basic respect for the sovereignty of all nations, the future can be of peace. Contrary to Spencer's view, World Peace doesn't require an empire. If anything, US neo-imperialist financial or military meddling since the end of the Cold War has led to more instability and blowback. Russia, which gave up on empire with the fall of communism, has been a far more stabilizing force than the US on imperial footing.)

Now, I’m not knocking the need to dream. Most dreams don’t come true, but then, no dream ever came true without it having been dreamed in the first place. But there are good dreams and there are nightmares. And Spencer’s dream, if realized, would be a nightmare. Worse, it is already here in the form of hegemony by Empire of Judea, and it sure ain’t pretty. The world would be much nicer if all nations respected one another. But under the Imperial Hegemony of Judea, the US is used to militarily invade nations to serve Israel’s interests. Result is humanitarian horror. And this set off waves of Muslim and African invasions to the West. Of course, Jews want both the ‘invade’ and ‘invite’ aspects of the New(or Jew) World Order. Jews want the US, as lone superpower, to pound all nations hated by Israel. And Jews want to flood the West with Diversity so that Jews can play divide-and-rule over the many goy groups. Jewish Empire also uses financial gangsterism to threaten and destroy nations. It uses Homomania as the New World Religion. It imposes a mono-culture of Hollywood, Rap music, and Jewish-controlled pornography. And many nations are either helpless or loathe to do anything about it because they are so under the thumb of US power(that is controlled by Jews). Jews treat most of humanity like garbage because Jews see goyim as inferior. To the extent that Spencer and his cohorts have such a low opinion of non-white races, how would they be any better in treating the rest of mankind?

Now, as far as I’m concerned, it’s perfectly fine NOT to like other peoples or even to despise them. But at the very least, leave them alone in their own worlds, and let them have their sovereignty. It is not up to the US to be telling Georgians to have homo ‘pride’ parades or pressuring Iran to become more like some degenerate part of Los Angeles. Jewish hegemony is a nightmare for much of the world, and I fail to see how a world ruled by Darth Spencer would be any better. I don’t have a high opinion of Zimbabweans, but at least I don’t want to rule over them crazy ‘groids’. Just leave them be. If they want to trade with some nation or beg for aid, let them. But there is no sense in the West seeking domination over the Rest. China seems to have the right idea when it comes to places like Africa. Just regard it as business. Build them schools and roads in exchange for raw materials. End of story.

Spencer is right that one of the distinguishing features of the Modern West, especially among Anglos, was the spirit of adventure, the daring to go beyond what is deemed impossible. The will to try to run the mile under 4 minutes. The will to climb Everest. While other races had also been great conquerors — Zulus in Africa and Mongols in Asia — , there was an element of Discovery and Quest that went far beyond mere hunger for land, loot, and women. After all, the voyagers who first circumnavigated the Earth did it just to do it. Many Europeans went on ventures not for power or money but to accomplish what no one had done before, what others thought was impossible. Charles Lindbergh embodied this spirit, and indeed Americanism turned that spirit into a formula across a vast continent that seemed limitless in potential. We see that spirit in George Bailey in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. He’s a romantic bursting at the seams with imagination and energy. He wants to do wild things and build stuff. He’s been that way since he was a child. And in the novel THE CALL by John Hersey, an American farm boy wants to Evangelize China and bring all those hundreds of millions of heathens to Jesus. That kind of spirit, drive, and passion characterized much that was great about the West.




A man’s dreams and visions can be unreal, even foolish, but still noble and inspiring. All the men who lost their lives in the invention and development of avionics were maybe a tad too reckless, but without such men, we wouldn’t have flight. And the reason why communism got some sympathy despite its horrors was its dream of social justice. And as long as National Socialism remained nationalist and patriotic, it too had plenty of sympathizers among both Conservatives and Liberals. After all, Hitler had restored Germany from the economic and political brink. That was a good and noble kind of dream. But when Hitler turned to war and conquest to create his ‘Aryan’-supremacist empire, it was a nightmare, not a dream. The horrors that ensued couldn’t even be redeemed by nobility of vision because the vision itself was rotten to the core.
Now, I don’t think Spencer ever called for Nazi-like domination of the world... though some of his associates do sound more radical and even amoral. (I get the sense that Gregory Conte actually wishes that Nazis had won in Russia. He seems not to care what would have happened to Russians had that been so.) Spencer’s neo-imperialism is more along the Old British style. But times change, and a new Western Empire would be as foolish as Mussolini playing Roman Caesar. How did that turn out? Or, it’d be like the Russians trying to reconstitute the Soviet Empire. Not going to happen, and even if it were to happen, there would be just more bloodbath and bad blood. Not worth it.
Spencer may argue that globalism is now unstoppable and that the New Normal for All the World is invade-invite, i.e. every nation will be swamped under globalist financial, cultural, demographic, and military domination; there will be no sanctuary. In the New World Order of No-More-Borders and Constant-Invasion, the only game left is to form strong identities(like Jews) and seek dominance over others because, otherwise, they will gain dominance over you. Now, if indeed that were truly the ONLY option left, then Spencer’s argument might have some merit. But, the future is far from certain. Also, globalism may be on the wane in many parts of the world. There seems to be a rise of nationalism in parts of Europe as well.
Furthermore, Spencer’s pro-imperial argument isn’t merely defensive but outright offensive. He seems to believe that it is the white man’s destiny to conquer and rule. It’s just part of the white DNA, and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Whiteness is dynamic, and unless whites conquer other worlds, their energies will be invested in radical social experiments at home that will turn everything neurotic and crazy. Just like young boys have to burn their energies with sports, white energies must expand outwards(and even to the stars). Boys who aren’t allowed to play outdoors end up doing harm to themselves because their energies have no outlet. And perhaps, white energies are now doing so much self-harm because they haven’t been allowed to expand outwards. If whites in the 19th century conquered the American West, too many today expend their energies on tattoos, piercings, and bad drugs.
But then, the main reason for all the nuttery is maybe PC and Jewish domination. After all, there have also been many examples of sane and stable white communities that have long said NO to imperialism. Hungary and Poland seem to be relatively sane in nationalist mode. Also, in retrospect, expansive white energies did good only where the winning was easy and permanent. It was easy for whites to conquer mostly empty North America and Canada. But America’s ventures in Philippines, Korea, and Vietnam have been painful and traumatic. And the more recent neo-imperialist ventures in the Middle East and North Africa have been utterly disgraceful. Spencer opposed the Iraq War as a neocon affair, but would he have supported it as an Anglo-hegemonic venture? Either way, it would have caused too many deaths and heartbreaks. Worth it? No.

Where Spencer failed most was in his inability and unwillingness to connect with the people. A lot of this has to do with his vanity, narcissism, and obsession with aesthetics. He is attracted to the stage, the spotlight, and the glamour. He finds most ordinary and average people to be boring and humdrum. He has no rapport with the white working class or underclass. At most, he wishes them well but doesn’t want to be associated with them. His sensibility is too much Bruce-Wayne-Batman and James-Bond-007 to have a humanist feel for real peoples and cultures. His aestheticism hankers for celebrity and pizzazz. And that’s why his Alt Right fame and notoriety came to rest on ‘favorable’ coverage by the Big Media. (By ‘favorable’, I mean giving him a modicum of benefit-of-doubt and using him as the Face of the Alt Right.) His initial success with the college tour filled his head with the idea that it’s going to be FUN. He’s going to do the tango with the media network that loves-to-hate-him. He would be James-Bond-and-Villain-rolled-into-one. And he figured this would last forever. He would be the new edgy Bill Buckley on the up and up.
Now, there was surely an advantage to this approach. But there was one huge disadvantage: Spencer’s fortunes would come to rely TOTALLY on the whims of media. He’d invested so much on dillydallying and playing cat-and-mouse with the media that he neglected the more important business with connecting with the people. He fell into the Buckley Trap but didn’t even know how it worked. Buckley, as we know, depended totally on the media. Most conservatives didn’t get him. He talked in a snotty way and seemed too ‘intellectual’. He was charming and all but didn’t mean much to an average patriotic American. The Buckley Charm was a media thing. If he had a place in the media, he was still in the game. But if he were shut out of the media, he was nothing as he had no popular backing among the hoi polloi. Like Buckley, Spencer came to rely almost entirely on media access and attention. As long as the media put the spotlight on Spencer, he was a somebody. But the minute the spotlight was turned off and when even the bare minimum benefit-of-doubt vanished(whereupon Spencer was simply vilified as ‘Neo-Nazi’ and ‘white supremacist’), Spencer was suddenly Less-than-Zero, indeed lower than even Milo who could, at the very least, keep shilling for shekels by waving the Israeli flag.
Now, it’s understandable why Spencer didn’t want to work at building a base among the people. Most people are dull, unintelligent, ignorant, and pain in the ass. After all, even Jesus was often frustrated with simple minds who didn’t understand Him. And healing all those sick and wretched made Him want to throw up. And George Bailey in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE finds it a drudgery day in and day out to deal with regular people. It’s not glamorous. It’s not fun. But then, humanity is what it is. In the end, we need connection to reality. A doctor goes among the sick, not the healthy. Likewise, a leader must go among the needy and gain their trust than mug for publicity from the greedy and powerful.

But Spencer put all his eggs in the Big Media basket. Blinded by vanity and narcissism, he thought the media would keep treating him as the go-to-guy, the glamorous ‘bad boy’, the indisputable leader, and ‘interesting’ personality(contra those boring dullards of the GOP), but in fact, when the Big Media either had enough of him or deemed him too dangerous(especially after Charlottesville), there was a concerted effort across media, finance, law, and internet to silence him and shut him down. And the sad thing is Spencer doesn’t have much support, affection, or sympathy from the people or from his ideological peers. The nasty business with Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents crowd just led to feelings of Schadenfreude. Perhaps, that’s going too far, but the attitude of many seems to be, "Richard Spencer got his comeuppance."



Not only did Spencer fail to connect with white masses — necessary for a political movement as opposed to merely an ideological agenda — but he seemed to pick fights, often unnecessary and petty, with other people in the same political sphere. For example, he insulted Peter Sweden who, though limited and one-dimensional, does good work in informing the world about the troubles of Diversity. There are times when one must be forthright and critical of others in the movement, but it can be done without creating bad blood. As for guys like Peter Sweden, it’s just best to let them do their thing. But too many barbed attacks and insults didn’t endear Spencer to a lot of people who came to either dislike or distrust him. So, in this most crucial time of need, there aren’t many people to express support for Spencer or come to his aid. A scrooge of vanity than a Bailey of humanism, Spencer has isolated himself. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero connects with the Arabs who come to feel affection for him and trust him. They are even willing to die for him. Spencer never attracted that kind of affection because everything about him is about him. Arabs realize that Lawrence really does CARE for them. It makes all the difference. Lawrence says the Best of Them won’t come for money but for him. The Arabs respect and trust him that much. But how many would come for Spencer? This was never about Fun.



Remember Clarence's Law: "No man is a failure who has friends." Spencer has spectacularly failed at friendship by being a selfish player too often dismissive of the advice and feelings of others.