Notes on Review of AMERICAN HISTORY X(dir. Tony Kaye) by Trevor Lynch in Counter-Currents — Art vs Propaganda — Art as Conceit vs Art as Conviction

https://counter-currents.com/2021/02/american-history-x/

Director Tony Kaye’s anti-skinhead morality tale American History X (1998) is proof that propaganda is far from an exact science. Just as Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket caused a surge in Marine recruitment, American History X actually increases audience sympathies with neo-Nazi skinheads, despite its best efforts to present them as hateful hypocrites and losers.

Art or entertainment takes on a life of its own. Especially in cinema, the visceral elements often override the cautionary tale. This is no less true of art as of propaganda. Martin Scorsese's GOODFELLAS is a work of art, so revealing about the world of Italian-American hoodlums, but the riveting style and wall-to-wall music make it a thrilling experience. Tommy(Joe Pesci), though clearly a loathsome psychopath, is colorful and entertaining. Even as we reject Henry Hill's worldview about 'wiseguys' who live it up and the suckers who work 9 to 5, we can't help reveling in the sheer audacity of the criminal world. John Boorman critiqued this aspect of the film and made a corrective with b/w THE GENERAL that features relatively dour Irish goons. Art can make the 'bad guys' sympathetic or even 'cool'. Entertainment even more so. Audiences LOVED to hate the Terminator(a 'bad boy' as a well as a bad guy), who was made into the 'good guy' in the sequel. Hannibal Lecter the sociopathic killer is admired for his taste & class(unlike the crude and gross 'Buffalo Bill') and superhuman brilliance(which makes him to humans what humans are to sheep).
DOWNFALL is a work of art, and it features the Nazis facing doom as all-too-human characters not without qualities of honor and courage.

The audience has a dual attitude toward the Bad Guys. On the one hand, the audience roots for the Good against the Bad. The Good represent the viewers' superego. And yet, they are fascinated by the Bad because it represents their Id, their repressed darker nature. So, fiction narratives serve as a kind of psycho-therapy where the audience is allowed to indulge in their dark fantasies(via the bad guys) but have them snuffed out by the forces of light(the good guys). Have the cake and eat it too. Alfred Hitchcock understood this aspect of art/entertainment, especially in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN where the villain is detestable but also irresistible in his unrestrained egotism. He will stop at nothing to get what he wants.
It poses a question as to the true nature of the Good. Is it an innate glow within every soul allowed to radiate or simply a matter of repressing the darkness in every heart? Some believe men are innately good but corrupted by society, whereas others believe men are innately bad(or beastly or animal) and, therefore, what we call 'goodness' is really a matter of repressing and regulating the worse devils of our nature — keeping the birds in the cage because, otherwise, the scenario in Hitchcock's THE BIRDS. Judaism and Christianity say man is tainted with the Original Sin, and goodness is a constant struggle in devotion to the Torah(Judaism) or acceptance of Jesus as the final arbiter and savior.

At any rate, it's misguided to see AMERICAN HISTORY X as failed propaganda. It's better to see it as failed art. If Tony Kaye simply wanted to make a piece of propaganda, he could have gone the route of Alan Parker with MISSISSIPPI BURNING or made something like FRIED GREEN TOMATOES where blacks are aglow with sanctity whereas Southern Whites are mostly semi-neanderthal rednecks. So easy to do. Or, consider all those anti-Muslim movies where Arabs are little more than screaming terrorists who blow things up along with themselves. Making a propaganda about the evils of skinheads would have been the easiest project, especially as even most members of the White Right consider skinheads to be demented morons. (Are skinheads even around any more?) Tony Kaye certainly fancied himself as something more than an entertainer or propagandist. He wanted to rise above the business of advertising(that made his name) and be renowned as an ARTIST, and art has to seek and reveal the truth. Art is simply more demanding than entertainment or propaganda.

Entertainment is usually about sticking to the tried-and-true formula that pleases the audience. Propaganda is about pushing a certain dogma, agenda, or worldview regardless of truth. It's more about faith or interests. Catholic Church pushes pro-Catholic propaganda, corporations push advertising(commercial propaganda) to make profits(though, of late, the PC 'woke' types use ads to push the idolatry of globo-homo and ideology of diversity regardless of their commercial value). In contrast, art calls for an inner struggle. It's like there are two meanings to Jihad. One is a physical war against the infidel. It is Islam as war propaganda. But there is another meaning, a wrestling with one's own soul and conscience to arrive at the higher/deeper truth. A writer or filmmaker working as propagandist merely needs to push his favored agenda/ideology or that of his employer. He's either an activist or hired hand. His main objective is to win the game than to know the truth.

So, if Tony Kaye merely wanted to make a piece of anti-white propaganda, it would have been easy. But Kaye most certainly wanted to work in the mode of an artist, and this pushed him to probe deeper and look further; he chose to consider angles he could easily have avoided as a mere propagandist. It's like Oliver Stone's egotism as an artist has fueled some remarkable works or, at least, remarkable moments. He was never an admirer of Richard Nixon, but he produced an empathetic portrait of the man that only an artist could have delivered. Stone has pro-black sympathies but was artist enough to show the ugly side of black behavior in PLATOON and especially in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY where the VA hospital run by blacks is a hell hole. He came to sympathize with the communists in the Vietnam War, but he showed how the Viet Cong could also be brutal and atrocious in HEAVEN AND EARTH.
Oliver Stone is perfectly capable of being a propagandist, as with the insane JFK, a work so over-the-top and contradictory — a paranoid fantasy made with Capraesque earnestness — that it amounted to little more than tabloid-cinema. Sometimes, Stone couldn't make up his mind whether he was an entertainer/sensationalist or artist/investigator. This was especially true of WALL STREET, supposedly a condemnation of Greed but, to any honest observer, a celebration of unfettered egotism. Who cares about Martin Sheen's wooden symbol of the Honest Working Man when Gordon Gekko steals the show from beginning to end? A work about financial fraud that comes closer to art is Scorsese's THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, though its over-the-top comical tone results in something closer to Animal House + Stock Market. Unlike GOODFELLAS that perfectly set the knob between the alluring and the appalling, THE WOLF OF WALL STREET mostly works as an amusement park for vice. (Also, it is dishonest in de-emphasizing the Jewish aspect of the gang of thieves, indeed far more egregious than the pimp not being black in TAXI DRIVER. It just goes to show, even those committed to art must tiptoe around certain matters in any given order with its sacred cows and taboos. It's been said many artistic-inclined Chinese film-makers chose to make works about the hinterland or non-Han ethnicities due to fewer taboos associated with such subjects. HORSE THIEF is a prime example.) A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is another film where the sheer visceral elements overwhelm the theme. For many viewers, Alex was more like a rock star than lowlife punk, and not surprisingly, Mick Jagger was considered for the role.

Now, the cult of the artist spans from conviction to conceit. Because the artist gets more respect than there mere entertainer or propagandist, many in the business strive to be one, if only for vanity-sake. There's more money in entertainment, but your average film-maker would rather be a Kubrick(or even a Tarantino) than a Michael Bay. Ambition says, it's all about the 'motherfuc*ing money', but vanity says it's about respect, and artists(or at least 'auteurs' like Hitchcock) own the veneration.

No wonder Woody Allen and Steven Spielberg aspired to make 'serious' works as well. Allen wanted to be more than a clown or comic. And for all his movie-making magic as entertainer, Spielberg wanted to be the next David Lean(though some would question Lean's credentials as an artist). But then, is the desire to be an artist a matter of virtue or a matter of vanity? Art comes naturally to some people. Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni were no fakers. Scorsese was born to be an artist. Even as a young man devoted to Catholicism, he wanted more than the official dogma. He had to find his own truth and meaning about God and goodness through through the Mean Streets of life. In contrast, Spielberg was a born entertainer. From a young age, he loved fantasy and escapism, and this accounts as to why even his serious works go only so far. Even when Spielberg dons adult glasses, his heart beats with the rhythms of a child. SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are artful in their brutal depiction of history but almost childlike in their moralism and sentimentality. It's like watching MR. SCHINDLER GOES TO WASHINGTON and SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS FIGHT THE NAZIS. The violence in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is powerfully authentic and infinitely more brutal than anything featured in the works of John Ford or Sam Fuller, but the emotions are from Norman Rockwell and the Muppet Movie.

There are some people with genuine artistic souls but have an allergy to honesty, or openness. David Mamet is such an artist. He is obsessed with Jewishness but worried about giving the game away with too candid an approach. David Cronenberg is in equal parts natural entertainer and natural artist, but his artistic side shares the same neurosis as Mamet's. He too is obsessively Jewish-centrist but worried that goyim might get the 'wrong idea' if he shows too much. And yet, they turned this limitation into an advantage. They ply their art as games in which the audience must actively participate. Thus, their films are more engaging and provocative. Also, there is plausible deniability as the truth is pieced together by the audience. Mamet and Cronenberg can say the audience came to such-and-such conclusion on their own. In a way, Mamet and Cronenberg are less dishonest than cryptic. Instead of telling lies, they play hide-and-seek, also true to a lesser extent with Stanley Kubrick, especially with THE SHINING. Indeed, one might argue that it is this very hide-and-seek game of clues-about-Jews that make their works more rewarding.

Then, there are fakers posing as artists, and Aaron Sorkin really takes the cake. He has talent, a knack for elevated hackwork. But Sorkin's 'art' is all surface and no substance. His talent is for dressing up propaganda with the look of 'truth', rather like those people who turn plastic into items on the menu. It looks like food but is for the eyes, not the stomach. SOCIAL NETWORK has the look of a serious work about Mark Zuckerberg but is nothing but an apologia for Jewish Power. MARGIN CALL and THE BIG SHORT are similarly phony baloney, 'serious' works for unserious people. Upon closer inspection, they are essentially Jews blaming everyone else for the mess in which they played a prominent role.

On the evidence of AMERICAN HISTORY X, Kaye doesn't seem the out-and-out faker like the Sorkins of the world. Sorkin is actually worse than a honest propagandist who, at the very least, doesn't hide what he's doing. Sorkin, a tribal propagandist in artist's clothing, is a real slimeball who doesn't even have the conceit of an artist. Sorkin operates like Neil Simon in pretense of being another Mamet. He's just a con-man. In contrast, Kaye, though clearly lacking the true conviction of an artist(like Scorsese, Shohei Imamura, Jan Troell, Emir Kusturica, etc.), at the minimum exhibited the conceit of an artist, and that conceit drags him to uncomfortable truths in AMERICAN HISTORY X. Glorifying himself as an artist than mere entertainer or propagandist, Kaye didn't want to fall back on tired PC cliches about 'racism' and skinheads. (Also, it was clever as self-promotion because an overly simplistic movie would have been less controversial, thus less a topic of discussion.) Kaye wanted to show that he at least tried to understand, even empathize. As an artist, he felt an obligation to see the world through eyes of those he loathes. After all, there is good in everyone, and the world isn't made up of angels and demons.

Furthermore, he might have felt that the film would be more convincing and moving if it showed a character struggling to break out of his comfort zone. After all, it's natural for a man in a desert to look for water. He wants to find an oasis. Derek(Edward Norton) feels at home with his skinhead neo-nazi crew. There is a sense of place, a sense of belonging. In a way, they are more his family than his mother is. And yet, Derek must rise above that to attain a higher grace. It's like the final segment of THE LAST TEMPATION OF CHRIST. Jesus on the cross is in a hell of pain and suffering. An 'angel' arrives and offers him respite and relief. Jesus doesn't have to suffer and sacrifice himself for mankind that taunts and jeers at him. He can be a normal Jew with wife and family with a sense of belonging. And yet, at the end, Jesus rejects all that and seeks pain on the cross.
Likewise, for AMERICAN HISTORY X to make sense, one must consider its neo-spiritual element. It is a quasi-christian tale told by a Jew. Derek becomes like a christ-figure who must rise above family and race to stand for the higher truth. Now, why would a Jew do that? Was Kaye the Jew encouraging the deracinating aspect of Christianity on whites? Or, is there a hidden/repressed element within the Jew who dreams for the messiah that can bring an end to the tribal conflicts that have marked Jewish existence from the beginning.
In a way, the white vs black tensions in the L.A. of the film could be a reflection of the Jewish vs Arab/Palestinian conflicts in the Middle East. Many Jews, like neo-nazi skinheads, are totally tribal and territorial. They are Jewzis, and they see the world in terms of us-versus-them and take pride in that. But there is also a side of Jewishness that is deeply troubled by this seemingly never-ending conflict stemming from Jewishness's us-vs-them worldview. Despite all their wealth and power, Jews are outnumbered, and for how long can they carry on with these tribal wars and dirty tricks? On the one hand, Jews hate Jesus as the great traitor. But on the other hand, Jews can't help feeling that they missed the one great opportunity where Jews and Gentiles could have become one people through salvation offered by Jesus. (The second opportunity was with communism that sought to erase distinctions between Jews and gentiles, as among the classes, but in the end, capitalism won out, and rich Jews chose Zionism uber alles.) In a way, the neo-nazi skinheads in the movie represent the worst nightmare of the Jews, but in another way, they could be metaphors for Jews, the much vilified and hated minority. Indeed, Derek sounds more like a white Zionist than a white nazi at times.

Another thing. AMERICAN HISTORY X offered a convenient way for Jews to express their own angers and doubts about blacks. Because of the political/symbolic alliance between Jews and blacks, most Jews toned down their real feelings about black problems. But many Jews have known all along about the blacks. Howard Stern, the Id of the Jewish Community, spoke of how black thugs attacked Jews. From the 1960s to the early 90s, many Jews were victimized by black crime or just plain loutish behavior. Crown Heights mayhem was fresh in the memory of Jews when the movie was made. And the L.A. riots dampened the mood of the new decade. In the 90s, Al Sharpton was still strutting around and howling about 'diamond merchants', and Louis Farrakhan had his Million Man March. Also, many Jews felt blacks were ingrates, and of course, many blacks felt exploited by rich Jews.

But because of the political alliance, Jews couldn't express their anger about blacks as Jews. So, why not make a movie like AMERICAN HISTORY X that offers a no-holds-barred depiction of blacks as the thugs, louts, hoodlums, and punks that they be? But as the movie is about white skinheads vs blacks, these possibly 'racist' views would be white than Jewish even though Jews shared many of the same fears and loathing about blacks. It's like how Jews used Archie Bunker on ALL IN THE FAMLILY. On the one hand, Bunker was a simple-minded bigot, but then, he also said what was on the minds of older Jews in regards to the boomer generation and the 'shvartzes'. But since goy Bunker said it, Jewish prejudices were laundered as 'white goy' bigotry. This way, Jews could have the cake and eat it too. Air their very Jewish grievances but through goy figures who took the blame. Just like 'privatize the profits, socialize the losses', 'spew Jewish rage, blame goy hate'.

Another black figure who pissed off Jews in the 90s was Spike Lee. While many Jewish critics highly praised DO THE RIGHT THING, others were troubled by such an incendiary film set in a city that seemed to be on the edge. Though DTRT doesn't have Jews, it threatened New York(aka Jew York) with riots and mayhem in the name of black rage. (Black and Jewish relations reached a nadir with Mayor Ed Koch's brazen remarks about black criminals as 'animals'. And there was the matter of Bernie Goetz in the mid-80s and the Central Park assault-rape in 1989, the same year DTRT was released.) No wonder Hollywood went with DRIVING MISS DAISY than DTRT for the Oscars in 1989. Spike Lee didn't improve matters with Jews when he praised Louis Farrakhan and featured Jews as swindlers in MO' BETTER BLUES. In the early 90s, NY Jews had enough of blacks and went with Rudy Giuliani than David Dinkins, the first black mayor of NY.
Indeed, there was a reason why Jewish Power favored globo-homo over black interests over the years. Even the presidency of Obama proved a bigger (ba)boon for the 'gay' community. If anything, Jews cleverly used Obama to mute the black community. With a Negro as president, many blacks thought they were winning when all Obama ever did was bend over to Jews and homos and pushed for more mass immigration. At any rate, as long as Obama was the candidate, black vote was overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, and Jews need not worry. But many black voters stayed home in 2016, and furthermore, Donald Trump was gaining black vote with his anti-immigration-stance and his swagger as the 'first ni**a president'. It was out of this desperation that Jews in 2020 favored BLM over globo-homo to keep blacks reliably on the Democratic side. Another reason why Jews revived black identity politics was out of fear of white populism triggered by Trump and the internet. For Jews, 'America First' and its railings against 'globalism' were code words for 'white people need to break free of Jewish control', and so, Jews decided to ramp up hysteria about 'white supremacism' to suppress white identity and interests. And what better way to attack White Pride than by using the Negro Card because the Narrative have long featured blacks as saintly victims of slavery & Jim Crow and as the Idolatry-Industry have celebrated blacks as top athletes & rappers? But this is now, and things were different then, when AMERICAN HISTORY X was made, a time when many Jews were worried far more about blacks than about whites, most of whom seemed rather restive and apathetic.

Tony Kaye and Spike Lee have one thing in common. The vain desire to be acknowledged as artists(or at least personal 'auteurs'), but when push came to shove, it was more conceit than conviction. DO THE RIGHT THING, for example, has the look and feel of reality but is full of BS on many levels. One scene has every group badmouthing every other group, but in reality, despite all the differences and distrusts among diverse groups, the overwhelming racial tension in NY or any big city is white vs black, brown vs black, yellow vs black, Jewish vs black, Arabs vs black, Hindus vs black, and etc. Even Jews and Arabs get along more peacefully in NY than do Jews with blacks or Arabs with blacks.
As with AMERICAN HISTORY X's empathetic treatment of Derek and skinheads, DTRT shows the human side of the Italian-American pizzeria owner and his sons(though it seems calculated than curious). They are not portrayed as simpleminded goombas or knee-jerk 'racists' and have their own rationales. So, their seemingly jaundiced views aren't entirely without reason, and Lee does show just enough of stupid black behavior to justify the prejudice. But when push comes to shove, Lee is a black tribalist first-and-foremost and sides with Buggin' Out and Radio Raheem when they are clearly the instigators of all that goes wrong. Buggin' Out's complaint that the walls of the pizzeria have pictures of Italian-Americans but no blacks makes about as much sense as a white guy complaining that a black man's rib or chicken joint has pictures of famous black bluesmen and sports stars. And yet, Lee in his interview thinks Buggin' Out has a point, which goes to show the kermitty-the-frog-lookalike-mofo is a real idiot. Lee is no Martin Scorsese. Though Italian-American with a deep feeling for his heritage and community, Scorsese cuts no slack for his kind, nor does he round up the narrative with some pat 'message'. Tony Kaye and Spike Lee do understand what it means to an artist, but it never carries over from conceit to conviction. As such, even as so many gritty details in DTRH and AHX ring true, the over-arching narratives and messages are unconvincing.

Derek is highly intelligent and articulate. He is also a natural leader. With Cameron’s help, he builds up a serious and well-organized skinhead gang.

It's possible that an intelligent man of some talent could be drawn to a movement of such idiocy. People naturally gravitate toward community, and if the only white-conscious one happens to be extreme, what choice is there? Also, it's easy to tower over idiots, which makes Derek's natural leadership qualities even more compelling.
Still, more interesting would be a story about a white-conscious community that isn't extreme or deranged. It's like what Aldous Huxley said in BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED: The satire in BRAVE NEW WORLD offered only two extremes, savage authenticity and bogus artificiality with nothing in between. Likewise, movies about white identity tend to offer only two possibilities: 'Anti-racism' and radical racism, as if there's nothing in between. But the example of David Duke shows how white people can overcome this. Duke joined the KKK and dabbled in Neo-Nazism as a young man because he found nothing white-and-proud out there, but he later formulated a new movement of white identity/interests that paved a course generally free of Neo-Nazis and the KKK. And the saner elements of the Alt Right also represented this path. There are also Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald. And yet, in the popular imagination, if you aren't a self-loathing white 'gulliberal' who waves BLM and sucks up to Jews, you must be a 'white supremacist', a KKK, a neo-nazi! And AMERICAN HISTORY X, despite its somewhat humanizing portrait of skinheads, falls into the same trap. There is no in-between option, no rational course that balances white identity/interests with respect for other groups. Rather, white identity must be synonymous with racial extremism.
It's like serving a menu where the soup comes icy cold or boiling hot but never warm. Goldilocks option is denied to whites. Unless whites are total self-loathing maggots, aka 'gulliberals' or 'cuckservatives', they are total 'white supremacists'. Sadly, many on the Dissident Right have internalized this dynamics and feel they must go 14/88 to be authentic as proud white folks when, if anything, they've fallen into the Jewish Trap of either/or for whites.

Derek refers to Murray as a “Kabbala-reading motherfucker” and reveals a huge swastika tattoo which he says means “not welcome.”

I wonder if the scene was alluding to the dinner in THE HEARTBREAK KID where the Jewish guy talks about honesty of the cauliflower. It's a powerful scene, and the hurt in Elliott Gould's character is convincing enough. He could be a nice guy, but Derek, so consumed with a race-war worldview, can only see him as The Jew, the enemy. Chances are the man never read the Kabbalah and happens to be a milquetoast secular Jew. And yet, there's a certain truth to Derek's attitude as well. Even though he, his mother, and the Jewish guy all share in the generic Americanism, there is a vast gulf at the deeper level, especially because Jews do have roots whereas most whites don't. Derek seeks to reconnect with roots but sadly connects with poisoned ones. To his mother, the Jewish guy is just another date. And on some level, he is just that, an American who happens to be Jewish.
And yet, even regular Jews are somehow different in their deeper sense of heritage and loyalty, in their stronger sense of grievance. So, in some ways, Derek knows the Jew better than the Jew knows himself. Derek knows that, when push comes to shove, even regular all-American Jews are Jews first and American second. And yet, Derek isn't fully honest about his feelings because, apart from the real animus, there is a certain envy. After all, if whites had a similar sense of roots and heritage, they would not have lost to the Jews. When Jews came to America, they remained Jews first, Americans second; they kept with their deep loyalty. When white Europeans came to America, they became Americans first, Europeans second(or none at all). Jews didn't abandon their Old World ties, white Americans did. But then, European betrayal goes back to the adoption of Christianity. For a Jew to be Jewish means to preserve heritage, memory, identity, and loyalty. For a European to be Christian meant thje rejection of indigenous cultures in favor of a cult of a Jew as Messiah. Furthermore, to be Christian means a white Christian must regard a black Christian, brown Christian, and yellow Christian as more his brother than a white pagan is. Thus, Christianity was the first Americanism that made Europeans reject their own for something Other.

PRESS TV'S THE DEBATE - WHITE SUPREMACY MOVEMENT'S THREAT - E Michael JonesMbr>

This is why E. Michael Jones and people like Nick Fuentes are foolish to cling to Christianity as the source of Western identity and pride. While a proud white person can be Christian, Christianity must be treated as one's personal ideology than core identity. It's a matter of creed, not breed. Jewishness in contrast is creed wedded to breed. E. Michael Jones faults the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, and Kevin MacDonald finds problems with the Jewish Culture of Critique, but the problem is less that Jews have them than that goyim lack them, or at least they lack them as their own. Without revolutionary spirit, there is stagnation. Without the culture of critique, there is only dogma and conformism. The problem for the white race isn't the Revolutionary Spirit and Culture of Critique per se but that they've outsourced them to Jews.
Furthermore, is it even true that Jews are somehow unique in this revolutionary spirit? Didn't the Christian West try to revolutionize the whole world by spreading the Gospel to every corner of the planet? If Christianity is anti-revolutionary, why didn't it leave other peoples and cultures alone? Why introduce the Faith into non-Christian lands and try to turn the culture and values upside down? Long before Jews became communists and other kinds of radicals, Christianity in the West and then across the Non-West spread spiritual and social revolutions of far-reaching consequence. Furthermore, perhaps the revolutionary spirit owes more to certain factors in Northern Europe that made both Christians and Jews more bold, restless, aggressive, and impatient. After all, most Christian orders in North Africa and Near East were ultra-conservative and stagnant. And most Jews in the Middle East were hardly like the firebrands Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky. The real revolutionary spirit took off in Western Europe, especially in Northern Italy, France, Germany, and southern Britain.

Since the purpose of this film is to warn us against Derek’s ideas, one wonders what director Kaye and screenwriter David McKenna were thinking.

Yes and no. The film isn't merely an indictment of white 'racist' extremism but of the social conditions that make it fester and grow. To the film's credit, it doesn't shy away from the harsh realities that drive white kids into forming their own gangs. While the message is against white 'racism', it has the courage to admit that hatred doesn't exist in a vacuum. In a world of black and brown tribalism, whites have no choice but to band together, though whites in the film do it in a self-destructive way, though not as much as the fellas in ROMPER STOMPER.
Trevor Lynch is being disingenuous in pretending that Kaye set out to make a simpleminded anti-white and 'anti-racist' propaganda and only accidentally stumbled on some inconvenient truths. No, Kaye set out to make an 'anti-racist' work of art, but the truths dredged up by artistic commitment didn't sit well with the favored narrative. This has long been a problem with scholars who are at once committed to truth and ideology. David Puttnam who wrote BOWLING ALONE set out to gather facts in support of Diversity but arrived at the opposite conclusion, which was painful for him. He was scholar enough to admit his thesis was disproven but ideologue enough to have written another book expressing the hope that Diversity could somehow work. But then, as reality never fully jibes with any single worldview or ideology, there is always bound to be some degree of conflict between what one believes and what one sees(if he has any interest in the truth).

Thus, AMERICAN HISTORY X is partly right, partly wrong. It's true that far-right neo-nazi types of movements in the West have been toxic, useless, and self-destructive. And yet, the film falters in posing only two possibilities: Far-right extremism and wishful hope in the Dream. But why should it be so? It's like there is a middle course between militarism and pacifism, and one doesn't have to be a total hawk or a total dove. In a way, this whole left-vs-right discourse has poisoned the blood politics. The great promise of fascism was the left and right could be fused together constructively, and the early successes of National Socialism were a testament to that. But Adolf Hitler's radical racism destroyed the future.

However, if they are going to present Derek as fearsomely intelligent, then they need to match him with a more capable opponent, and they don’t. This means that Derek Vinyard can win any fair debate, which matters to some movie watchers.

Edward Norton seems to be very smart(though also overly eccentric), but is Derek really fearsomely intelligent? Or does he seem highly intelligent in contrast to the morons he hangs with? Even a hill seems pretty high in the plains. Derek is certainly far above average in IQ, but he doesn't seem to be a genius. And if indeed he was truly smart, he would have seen through the problems of Neo-Nazism on his own. Derek is smart but not smart enough to avoid falling into his own traps of ideological fanaticism and dogmatism. In becoming so hardline based on his rage, he creates his own stupidity instead of advancing an alternative and superior ideology and worldview that rejects both naive Liberalism(& spineless 'conservatism') and far-right nuttery that attracts losers and ne'er-do-wells.
In a way, he seems drawn to the skinhead world because he wants dominance, and it's easy to be a lion among hyenas. If you want to serve, you seek out the superior. If you want to lead, you seek out the inferior. Being the all-too-rare smart 'white nationalist' has gotten to his ego. But worst of all, he doesn't just adopt an extreme ideology but an extremely demented lifestyle of ugliness and degeneracy. In this, the skinheads weren't much different from Antifa, a bunch of druggies and degenerates.

Brooks(Sweeney_ has made a career reading lines in his resonant, well-modulated black man’s voice. But he doesn’t come off as particularly intelligent. Derek’s father Dennis dismisses Sweeney’s pontificating as “nigger bullshit,” impressive only to the witless and gullible. When Sweeney actually argues against Derek, it turns out that dad was right. Sweeney’s arguments are terrible.

Negro Sweeney may be a silly-ass jiver, but what makes a teacher special isn't necessarily his beliefs but his willingness to engage his students, encourage discussion, and provoke argument. So, the reason why Derek is impressed by Sweeney may have less to do with the Negro's brilliance(real or not) but his willingness to at least have a conversation with the 'enemy' that calls him a 'ni**er' behind his back. Today, so many Negroes want the 'conversation' to be monologues. Sweeney, at the very least, is willing to listen to 'racists'.

But Derek is a bit abrasive and autistic about “principles.” The Aryans tire of Derek’s preaching, so one day, their leader forcibly sodomizes him in the shower. This leads Derek to change his whole worldview. But that is just dumb and out of character. Derek keeps getting himself into trouble because he is a stickler for principles.

It's not just about principles but about authority. Prior to his prison term, Derek was always the alpha, and others looked up to him. Being part of the skinhead gang wasn't just about 'principles' but the pride of princehood. Derek spoke, others listened. He gave orders, others followed. They were his disciples. He felt he had the White Pride movement in the palm of his hand. No one among his peers dared to give him lip. He was the head wolf within the pack.
In prison, he continues to see himself as the natural leader, and other whites should look up to him. But he realizes that guys in prison are harder, tougher, older. They are seasoned veterans of thuggery and criminality. If Derek went to prison for over-zealous behavior while foiling a crime, other 'Aryans' are probably there for brazen criminal acts. Derek was a leader of boys and girls on the outside, but he's faced with real men inside the prison. And when he begins to look down on the 'Aryans' as unworthy of his attention, others feel offended and put him in his place. He is ironically made the 'bitch' by fellow whites.

But nothing that has happened challenges his basic principles. Lamont proves only that every group has likable outliers... As for the Aryans: they are not supposed to sell drugs and rape one another. But is it realistic to expect sterling characters in prison? Besides, when people betray their principles, couldn’t that be because the people are bad, not the principles?

All very true, but we have to remember that Derek is an extremist with hardcore view of the races. It all depends on one's starting point. Reality allows for outliers and variances, but Derek developed a fanatical view of the world where whites are his brothers and non-whites are his enemies, pure and simple. Derek began to reject Political Correctness because he came to notice reality for what it was — lots of blacks are scum, and white people have grievances too — , but then he went far beyond noticing reality by creating his own fantastic worldview based on the iron laws of race. He didn't go from social naivete to principled commitment to reality but to a rather delusional iron law of the Aryans vs everyone else, especially the Jews and blacks. And for that reason, it is plausible that he is disillusioned by the behavior of the 'Aryans' in prison and grateful for the Nice Negro. Derek got to hating blacks so much that he was unwilling to admit that not all Negroes are insane bunners.
Also, Lamont, buffoonish as he is, shows that decency isn't really about learning, intelligence, or highfalutin stuff; it's about people connecting on the level of openness and friendship. So, it's not really about 'basketball and pussy' but about being honest and forthright. It's like Zorba the Greek isn't a learned man but wise in instinct. Of course, contra Zorba's argument, it's much easier to see the good-or-bad in a man when peoples have their own nations. It's true that Greeks shouldn't hate all Turks, and vice versa, but it's good for Greeks to have Greece and good for Turks to have Turkey. Nationalism(minus imperialism) is the best means by which people can judge others by their character than skin color or ethnicity. After all, a Greek in Greece feels secure and need not worry about extinction of his people, culture, and land. Greeks and Turks once butchered one another because of the insecurities and anxieties created by the Ottoman Empire.

...it is merely a shaming tactic to liken complaints about white dispossession to blacks blaming the white man for their own failings. It might appeal to an older generation of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” conservatives, but Derek would see through it. What matters is the question of truth. White dispossession is real. The solution is not to “try harder” in a rigged system but to change the system. Blacks who still fail in a system of objective black privilege can’t blame the system for that. They can only blame themselves.

Not quite. Sweeney is different from most Negroes who only blame whitey(with encouragement from Jews). Sweeney is saying it's not enough for blacks to blame everything on white because of 'muh history'. Blacks as individuals must examine their own behavior and ask what they've done to make the world a better or worse place. And this rule should apply to whites as well. While Derek is right about the social problems caused by blacks and non-whites, his solutions have been lousy. Adopting extremist views, turning hate into a virtue, and reducing the world into a Manicheanism hasn't done anything for him or his crew. Derek's extremism made him blind to even the good things about other races while blinding him to the failures among his own kind.

After all, Derek didn't suffer merely for his ideas. He's not a saintly martyr. He made his own life miserable by adopting a cartoonish view of the world where it all boils down to heroic skinheads vs everyone else. Blacks and Jews didn't make him get a stupid Swastika tattoo on his chest. With his smarts and ability, he could have served his race in more constructive ways, but he chose the lifestyle of a skinhead lout, and this rubs off badly on his younger brother. For all his superior intelligence and leadership qualities, he didn't try to elevate his racial comrades but descended to their level of crude thuggery. Ironically, skinheads are totally 'whigger' material.

...when Sweeney chooses to focus on his individual life rather than questions of social justice, this is not moving from the “wrong questions” to the “right questions.” ...focusing on your own life doesn’t make social problems disappear. It simply distracts you from noticing them. Individualism is just escapism. It is a form of cowardice.

I don't think Sweeney is arguing for individualism. He's not saying focusing on one's individual issues will make larger problems go away. Rather, a better world begins with yourself. So, even if one has a generally low opinion of blacks, it simply wouldn't do to act like a lout and blame the world for it. There are too many things that Derek and his mates do that are self-destructive. And this was certainly true of the Alt Right. True, Jewish Power has done everything it could to destroy white identity and interests, BUT did Richard Spencer and Co. have to indulge in drugs and alcohol and act like louts? Did they have to get together and give Hitler salutes while screaming Sieg Heil? Did Spencer have to mess up his marriage in the most spectacular way? Did Matt Heimbach have to boff his mother-in-law and beat up his father-in-law? What was that? Jerry Springer hour? Does Chris Cantwell have to be a cantaloupe-head? Hating 'ni**ers' is one thing; must so many white-nats act like 'whiggers'? Especially when Jews are out to get you and smear you as a 'white supremacist neo-nazi', how about not acting like cartoonish clowns? If Jews use the rain machine to make you wet, the last thing you want to do is break your own umbrella. But that's just what Spencer, Heimbach, and Cantwell did.

Jordan Peterson, goofy guy that he is, did have a good point about making-your-own-bed. The world has lots of problems, and they won't go away however a good person you try to be on the individual level. That said, making the world a little better has to begin with you. If the world is full of lies, you-as-individual must stop telling lies. Derek was right about the rottenness of race relations in the US, but he made things worse by not only regarding others as crude stereotypes but becoming a crude stereotype, as if to confirm the propaganda of SPLC: "Look, they are nazis!" The best way to combat Jewish supremacism is not to embrace white supremacism but to reject all forms of supremacism and call for a limited nationalism for all peoples.

The movie explains this miracle with a ridiculous deus ex machina: the spindly black buffoon Lamont somehow has enough credibility with the various prison gangs to “protect” Derek.

This is actually far more plausible than people might think. Having been around plenty of Jews and blacks, I know how they think and operate. Blacks are not only about thuggery and apelike behavior, though there's plenty of that. There's a scene in DO THE RIGHT THING where the usually unpleasant Radio Raheem has a soft spot for Mookie(played by Lee). And Mike Tyson, the lout and thug that he is, could break down in tears thinking of Cus D'Amato. So, it's possible that Lamont, a much-liked figure among the blacks, could have asked for favors among the brothas who, out of favor to him, left the white boy alone. Unlikely but far from implausible. It's like the scene in THE KILLING FIELDS where the skilled pleading by Dith Pran with the Khmer Rouge leads to Sydney Schanberg being spared. Things like that do happen. Negroes are craaaazy, but if you know their psychology and treat them like children-who-are-bigger-and-stronger-than-you, you can get along. It's like the meanest nastiest black biatch will melt in your hands if you tell her how she looks so lovely in that weave, shoo. They suddenly go from crazy gorilless to happy gorilless.

Danny gets in trouble when he writes a paper on Mein Kampf for the civil rights portion of Murray’s class on American history.

That is the funniest thing in the movie.

Once Derek is paroled, he does not want to get back into the gang. Instead he wants to get Danny out of it. This is irrational. Derek killed two Crips. They will be seeking revenge. He has a better chance if he has the gang behind him. If he really wants to extract Danny and break with the gang, then he needs to be diplomatic about it.

He did try to be diplomatic and walk away on friendly terms, but things fell apart. The problem is it's not easy to bid farewell to a lifestyle like that. It's like the system keeps calling Deckard back to be blade runner. It's hard to walk away from gang life. It's like a family, a brotherhood. Also, the gang hero-worships him and has no clue as to his transformation in prison. As for the crips being out to get him, if they really were they would have gotten him in jail. Crips, lowlifes that they are, know that Derek didn't kill the blacks in a gang war but in a foiled robbery. It's like the mafia make a distinction between 'business' and 'personal'. Negroes are like that too.
Also, it's not about being rational or irrational but being sensible. Derek has walked away from that life; he's outgrown it, much like Mark Wahlberg folded his career as a rapper. His priority is to save his younger brother from the lifestyle, and he knows they must go Cold Turkey. It's like when Lawrence of Arabia finally calls it quits, it's total and absolute. He's no longer a fellow Arab but a British soldier back on duty.

Also, whatever one thinks of Sweeney, he didn't have to do what he did. But he did it for someone who hates blacks because he believes that, on some level, there is something better inside Derek. So, on that personal level, he owes something to Sweeney who went the extra mile for an enemy.
In a way, it's like the reverse situation of RIDE WITH THE DEVIL. Why does the black guy ride and fight alongside the Confederates even though it's the North that promises freedom for blacks? Because the Negro's master, unlike typical white Southerners, has set him free and treats him as a dear friend. On the personal level, the Negro feel indebted to him even though he would rather be on the other side. Rationally, the Negro should use the first opportunity to run and join the Northern side, but his sense of personal indebtedness to his master/buddy keeps him fighting for the South. He is both grateful and bitter. Their bond of friendship is also like a bondage. And Derek feels similarly about Sweeney. Much of human nature is personal, not rational. Consider the sentimentalism that affects even the Dissident Right, especially among the boomer types. Why are they so incapable of naming the Jew?

Also, Derek's transformation is a testament to the power of pain. What finally breaks Cool Hand Luke in the end? The grueling agony. He simply couldn't take it anymore. Likewise, Derek's transformation owes as much to pain & fear as to better understanding. Thus, it is both noble and ignoble. Through prison experience, he did become wiser and more broadminded. But he also became more fearful and desperate. But then, so many choices we make are not pure but compromised, a blend of courage and cravenness. Take Puyi in THE LAST EMPEROR. He really did change but under considerable duress. The story of Jesus is an outlier because He didn't cave to the pain.

...Danny’s bloody murder in a school bathroom by a Crip. Again, I am not sure what the filmmakers were thinking, but this conclusion does not support their anti-“hate” agenda.

The ending would indicate that AMERICAN HISTORY X is not a simple anti-hate message. It is disturbed by the radical politics of hate but is aware that hate is not a one-way street. There is plenty of black hostility and thuggery. Why not give the film its due in addressing this truth instead of being so incredulous that a propaganda movie subverts its own message? While the film isn't entirely truthful and invokes certain PC shibboleths, it has just enough courage and daring to break free of ideological dogma.

Tragedy of history is that sentiments are rarely in sync. Jean Renoir made THE GRAND ILLUSION as remembrance of the tragedy that was the Great War and as warning against another such conflagration, but Nazi Germany banned the film and embarked on war-footing. So many in UK and France didn't want war, but Hitler regarded their decency or moderation as weakness. Likewise, so many whites wanted to bury the hatchet and be nice to Jews following WWII, but Jews decided to destroy the white race. Sentiments out of sync in history.

AMERICAN HISTORY X ends on a note of tragedy. Derek really did change and tried to turn his brother around, but the immediate world remained as it is, with sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It was the hard lesson learned by the lord in Akira Kuroawa's RAN. As an old man, he'd seen enough battles & bloodbath and wanted to retire peacefully in an orderly world, but war was still raging in the hearts of man. In EXCALIBUR, Uther wants to call it quits and settle down. He's 'weary of battle', but his enemies are ready for more. The ending of AMERICAN HISTORY X is well aware of this ironic tragedy, and it was intentional. It's like when the sun is in the east, the west is dark, and when the sun is in the west, the east is dark. Rarely are humanity and history in sync. The film ought to be lauded for the courage to end that way.

Derek bears some responsibility for his brother’s death: not for exposing him to “hate” but for pulling him out of the gang. As a member of the gang, Danny enjoyed some protection, because the Crips knew that attacking him would lead to retaliation.

Being a member of a gang is a double-edged sword. It can mean protection by your buddies, but it can also mean carrying a target on your back. Notice how blacks who joined the Bloods or Crips had a higher chance of getting killed than blacks who didn't. Same with Mexican gangs. Some may join as a survival strategy, but chances are it will reduce their chances of survival as gang life is about guns and knives, like in WEST SIDE STORY.

Memory will not heal the divisions between blacks and whites in America, because there was no common community before slavery. There is enmity all the way down. Memory only polarizes race relations in America, which in turn polarizes whites against each other.

It all depends on who controls the memory. When proud whites controlled American Historical Memory, there was something for everyone. Anglos and Europeans deserved respect for having conquered and settled North America, creating a great new nation. But American Indians were ennobled in time as brave and worthy warriors who'd put up a courageous war against the white man. Cowboy and Indians were both honored. Black American experience was recognized as one of slavery, struggle, resilience, and color. And yet, White South was also admired for its loyalty, courage in battle, honor code, and its rich heritage. Every group got its due. But then, Jews came along and took control of the Memory and Narrative; the result has been total sacralization of the Negroes and total vilification of whitey, especially Southern whitey.

True, even with white control of memory, blacks were bound to be problematic due to evolution. Having evolved for 100,000s of years in wild Africa teeming with gorillas, rhinos, elephants, hyenas, lions, hippos, cape buffalos, leopards, and wild hogs, blacks evolved to be tough, fast, strong, nasty, wild, and crazy. Black women emphasized butt-shaking, and black men emphasized dong-swinging, and that's why black culture is mostly about the beat and beating up people. What were whites thinking when they imported so many of these black savages? But because blacks were so tough, they could be made to pick lots of cotton and carry big bales on their shoulders. Going was good for whites as long as it lasted.

Even though whites and blacks came to co-exist only relatively recently, there is a strong bond between whites and blacks because whites are so into black-derived music, so admiring of black athleticism, and so into black-buns-and-dongs. White race is into serious jungle fever.
Just consider: Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, and etc. are all Slavs, but are Poles into Russian culture, are Russians into Polish culture, are Czechs into Serbian culture, are Serbs into Slovak culture? Chances are NO. But I'll bet they're all into rap music and 'twerking'. Or consider Japan, China, and S. Korea. They are all East Asian, but the chances are they don't much care about one another's cultures or histories BUT they are all into worshiping NBA Negroes and imitating rap music. What do UK, France, Holland, Poland, and Germany have in common? Jungle Fever. So, even though whites and blacks are racially different and even though many whites(including 'liberals') don't want to live with lots of Negroes, so many whites, cons and libs, are enamored of the rambunctious Negro. UK cheers for black athletes, France cheers for black athletes, Holland cheers for black athletes, and etc. Because blacks are so good at sports & hollering and because they excite whites with buns & dongs, whites have come to idolize blacks as the magical race, and this idolatry is what most whites have in common across entire continents. An Armenian may know almost nothing about Belgium, and a Belgian may know nothing about Armenia, but the chances are both are into worshiping Negro athletes and shaking their butts to rap music. What does a white Parisian have in common with a white Texan? They are both into black sports and black music. And they both celebrate ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs.

The most likely hypothesis is that the filmmakers were just smug. They thought that Derek’s views are self-evidently evil and that their own views are self-evidently good.

Or maybe Trevor Lynch is being a bit smug in thinking the Jewish Tony Kaye simply had no art in him and only propaganda in mind. Rather than seeing AMERICAN HISTORY X as failed propaganda, it makes more sense to see it as failed art. Like some of John Sayles films, it is willing to go further and dig deeper than your average Hollywood movie, BUT it doesn't go quite far enough and falls back on one too many time-worn formulas to fill in the gaps. Thus, it doesn't quite make it as art(which would be something like MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE), but the effort, even if half-hearted, is there.

Now, a failed work of propaganda would be Sam Fuller's ludicrous WHITE DOG that doesn't make sense even on its own grounds.

Some Thoughts on "An Open Letter to the ‘Alt-Right’ and Others" by Ron Unz -- Charlottesville, Jewish Power, Richard Spencer, and Deplatforming

For the Ron Unz article: "An Open Letter to the ‘Alt-Right’ and Others", click the link:
http://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/

Some on the Alt Right do raise alarm about Brown Violence, but 'Latino' crime isn't their main worry. They believe that, even if all browns are good people, the demographic transformation will profoundly alter the national character of America. Also, even if most browns are rather nice and make okay neighbors, they supply votes for the globalist elites who, ensconced in power, wage more wars abroad, promote cultural decadence as the New Normal, and push economic policies that concentrate more power at the top. The effect of immigration in CA has been a one-party dictatorship with the biggest socio-economic inequalities and PC lunacy, especially when it comes to issues of 'gender'.

After all, Alt Right doesn't believe Asians are criminals or terrorists but opposes Asian immigration too because, again, Too Many Asians alter the national character of America. Also, given that Asians tend to be servile to the Existing Power and obsessed with status, they are likely to become the managerial class for globalism, like Francis Fukuyama, Amy Chua, Nikki Haley, John Yoo, Sarah Jeong, etc. The result will be Jewish globalists lording over Asian upper-middle class as commissars over the white masses.

Trump's alarmist rhetoric about Mexican criminals and Muslim terrorists actually appealed more to Normie Conservatives. But then, Trump didn't start this rhetoric. Hollywood has been making lots of movies featuring Muslims as terrorists. The SICARIO sequel begins with Muslims crossing the US-Mexican border and blowing up US shopping malls. In the 90s, the movie villains were usually South African 'racists' or Muslim Terrorists. And who can forget RULES OF ENGAGEMENT that is downright genocidal in its message toward Muslims over there. KILL THEM ALL. Even before 9/11, many white working class kids grew up watching Hollywood movies with evil Muslim villains. So, when they entered the military, they were more than happy to go over there and kill them 'savages'.
While some in the Alt Right like to pass around the Muslim Terrorist and Mexican Gang meme, this is much more the feature of Alt Light and God-and-Country Conservatism. The anti-Muslim stuff is actually a way to gain sympathy from Jews(and homos), i.e. Jews and homos(and even feminists) should side with the Right because Liberals don't care about Muslims who want to wipe Israel off the map, enslave women, and throw homos from roofs. Alt Right cares far less about this line of argument because it cares far less about forging alliance with Jews, homos, and feminists. Alt Right's position on Israel is 'none of our business'. Some in the Alt Right cheer for Palestinians just to 'return the favor'. Also, Alt Right believes that Jewish power and influence in US and EU are so baleful that alliance is near-impossible. And Alt Right thinks feminism is terrible and rejects the homo agenda. It is the Alt Light and 'cuck' Right that go for the "Liberals are the true anti-Semites, Homophobes, and misogynists because they don't condemn Muslims" polemic.

Also, even though Alt Rightists are aware of Muslim Terrorism(esp in Europe), most trace the problem between the West and Muslim World to Western invasion of Middle East & North AFrica(that angered and radicalized Muslims) and immigration policy controlled by Jews and globalists(that let in millions of Muslims into the West). So, while the Alt Light and Normie Cons tend to blame Muslims, Alt Right is more likely to blame the People behind the Invade/Invite Strategy that turned the Middle East and North Africa upside down and then 'welcomed' all the refugees and other riff-raff(pretending to be 'refugees') into the West. While Alt Right has its share of bozos and morons, its overall understanding of foreign policy tends to be more sophisticated than that of the Alt Light and Normie Conservatives who are stuck in 'Liberals are the real racist' mentality. Alt Right's view of foreign affairs is probably closer to that of the Saker or Paul Craig Roberts even though neither is part of Alt Right.

In Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, we do see some Alt Right influence on their views of foreign policy... though, to be sure, one could trace their change of views to Paleo-Conservatism as well(of Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried) or Libertarianism(of Ron Paul). Both Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter waved the red, white, and blue during the Iraq War. Coulter's warmongering fever was so out-of-control and hyperbolic -- turn them 'muzzies' into Christians -- that National Review let her go. It was the hope during the Bush II years that, if the American 'Right' does something spectacular in the Middle East and remakes the whole region into an oasis in which Israel will especially be safe, the American Jewish power will move over to the GOP. Never let a crisis go to waste, and 9/11 offered an opportunity for GOP Wasps(fast losing power) to make a move to recruit Jewish Power by doing the bidding of Neocons as middlemen power-brokers between GOP wasps and the larger Jewish Community. The idea seemed so tantalizing that even NYT and Liberal Zionist Media came to support the Iraq War based on WMD hoax. (The massive protests against the war probably had more to do with the trepidation that it might indeed be a great success and lend credibility to the GOP-Neocon Right.) But the whole thing blew up spectacularly, and Bush II ended his presidency as one of the worst presidents ever. The economy also collapsed. Still, the fact is the GOP and people like Coulter had tried so very hard to do whatever to win over the Jews. But most Jews went for Obama. Worse, feeling that the GOP as the white party was dead forever, Jewish Liberals(and even Neocons) began to show their true face and spew anti-white vitriol not unlike Tim Wise. The OBAMA CONQUEST Newsweek cover said it all. While 'cuck'-servatives remained timid and servile, figures like Ann Coulter just about had enough. Even though she has always known that most Jews were on the 'left', she had no idea how much the great majority of the Jewish community really hated, hated, and hated the white goy majority. The anti-white rhetoric became ever more strident and boastful with sadistic glee at the prospect of White America's demise. Jews, who'd been demanding that whites respect Jewish identity and support Israel, were gloating not only about the fall of White America but, incredibly, even the Islamo-Africanization of Europe, the ancient homeland of Europeans.

Though neither Coulter or Carlson is Alt Right, their main concern was demography, not crime or terrorism. Sure, because it's deemed 'racist' to defend the preservation of White America, people like Coulter and Carlson will tend to mention issues pertaining to social/economic costs of immigration, but their main worry is End of White America. They can't and won't say it(though Coulter flirts with outright racial consciousness), but it is where their views intersect with the Alt Right. Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson say it has nothing to do with color of the skin and only with values -- the problem is not the race of the newcomers but the values they bring with them -- , but Alt Right disagrees. Alt Right and Jared Taylor(not quite Alt Right) have an emotional or near-spiritual attachment to White/Western Civilization. Alt Right tends to see Jews as the Other, whereas Taylor wishes for Jews to be partners, but for them, Western Civilization isn't merely about moral values and monetary value but about genetics and aesthetics: Western culture is an expression of European blood in both spirit and form. So, Western music is an expression of the white soul, and Western art depict the unique beauty of the white race. It's not just about what's in the head but what's in the heart, face, body. This is why Faith Goldy opposes Asian immigration in Canada. Most Asians are not criminals. Many study and work hard and contribute to the Canadian economy. And because most Asians(especially from East Asia) tend to be bland and servile, they readily soak up the latest PC fashions in 'Western Values'. They assimilate all-too-well to current fads and fashions of the West. But, they are still racially different, and too many of them will permanently alter the European character of Canada.

Now, some white people don't care about such things. They either see all peoples as just individuals/economic units OR believe that whites are so uniquely guilty of historical 'sins' that their nations deserved to be taken over by non-whites. (As for white elites, they figure their vaunted positions are secure and that newcomers will mainly serve them. Their main identity is 'elite' or 'privilege', not white. And, their idea of fighting 'white privilege' is not surrendering their own privilege but beating up on un-privileged whites as 'racist' for not being properly welcoming of mass-immigration to replace the white population and loyally serve the 'progressive' white elites.) Anyway, while one can argue with Alt Right ideas, one cannot argue with Alt Right passions. Ideas exist in the mind, passion exists in the heart. It's like reason is a mind-thing, whereas religion is a faith-thing. Even though Alt Right is essentially a secular movement, it has 'faith' and soulful passion for European identity. It's the same with Zionists, even secular ones. They can argue and debate about ideas and values, but the notion of Israel as a Jewish state is 'sacred' to them, a historical covenant. It's a matter of the heart. It is non-negotiable. It is like a mother to them. Not for debate, not for sale, not for compromise. Israel MUST be a Jewish State to them.

Now, in some ways, the debacle at Charlottesville wasn't really unique. There was extreme violence in Berkeley(or was it UCLA?) when Milo was scheduled to speak. The violence was comparable to what happened in Charlottesville. And it took heavy police presence to allow Ben Shapiro -- an ardent Zionist enemy of Alt Right -- to speak at one of his college events. Even Charles Murray was attacked by a college mob.
If Charlottesville got more attention, it was because the Alt Right guys were bolder and cockier. Gentlemen like Charles Murray seemed confused and flustered like Mr. MaGoo. Milo's speech was scrapped. Ann Coulter also canceled her speech soon thereafter. And many college professors self-censor themselves out of fear of the NPC mob. Steven Salaita was fired from U of I for expressing rage about Israel's attack on Gaza. Norman Finkelstein's career at Depaul was derailed by Dershowitz and gang. And recently, a Palestinian-American female teacher was fired because she wouldn't sign an anti-BDS pledge. (It almost seems as though what Jews did to Palestinians was dress rehearsal for what they are doing to white people. But white cucks go out of their way to suck up to Jewish Supremacist Power. White Nakba is happening all over, but these white cucks suck up to Jewish Power that does to whites in Texas what Israel does to Palestinians in the West Bank. The cucks must really be well-paid, or maybe they are so dumb blind as born-again Evangelicals that they regard Jews as holy Chosenites no matter how many times Jews shit on them. They are like dogs that serve the master after being kicked over and over. Consider how the Jewish media raked John McCain over the coals in 2008, but he spent his remaining years doing nothing but serving Jews, Jews, Jews.)

Now, a worthless idiot like George Hawley, the so-called scholar of the Alt Right, will say all sorts of nasty things about 'white supremacism' and 'racism' but will not say ANYTHING about Jewish power and its abuses or how homo supremacist activists have destroyed lives and careers all across America. So, what happened to Alt Right guys at Charlottesville was part of a pattern, except that the hammer came down much harder because Alt Right didn't back down as it burst on the scene. So, the only way to deal with the movement was to smash it like God destroyed the Tower of Babel. Especially because Populist Trump was seen as the bold unapologetic candidate who rode to victory on the Alt Right magic carpet, the Power decided to use Charlottesville as an opportunity to wipe the Alt Right off the political map. So, the Constitutional Rights of free assembly and free speech were denied by the powers-that-be in full collusion with the corrupt media.

That said, the Unite the Right was a moral disaster as well. Spencer, filled with vanity as edge-lord 007 enfant-terrible hero, allied with some really loathsome characters. Many of us didn't know then, but we know now. Chris Cantwell the Cantaloupe-Head is a deranged 14/88 clown. And Fat Matt Heimbach turned out to be not only a neo-nazi idiot but a perfect Jerry-Springer-show guest: "I fuc*ed my father-in-law's wife." The fact that Spencer allied with such idiots meant his brand of Alt Right, which got the most media attention, was scraping the bottom of the barrel than patiently building a new political and intellectual base. Ramzpaul saw the writing on the wall earlier at Hail-Gate(or Heil-Gate) when Spencer foolishly emboldened some of his minions to give the Hitler Salute. It's likely that Spencer didn't foresee the reaction, but it was an embarrassing moment for not only people like Ramzpaul and Jared Taylor but for Donald Trump and Steven Bannon. Being edgy is one thing, Nazi crap is another. The whole point of the Alt Right was to find a new path away from both Neoconservatism and KKK craziness, but Spencer the edge-lord, eager for bad boy notoriety, just couldn't help himself. Not long after 'Heil-Gate', he was speaking seriously with Andrew Anglin. And it now seems his group was operating more in the manner of ANIMAL HOUSE or STRIPES than TAPS. (The misguided boys in TAPS fail, but they did put up a serious resistance.)


That said, despite the unsavory character of some of the scheduled speakers at the Unite the Right rally, the fact is the fiasco was almost entirely due to the Jewish mayor and black police chief who shut down the event and pushed the UTR attendees into a gang of Antifa goons who were let alone to tear the city apart. So, if Spencer and others had really been smart, they would have done everything to shape the narrative. With cheap video technology, they could have made their own documentary on the subject. But all that opportunity was lost. As the story of Jesus shows, even defeat can be spun into victory. It all depends on who does the storytelling. Kubrick was half-wrong about SCHINDLER'S LIST when he said Holocaust was about failure whereas Spielberg's movie is about success. True, the Holocaust was a tragic failure for Jews who were killed, but the Holocaust Narrative was a success that 'sacralized' Jewish victims while burdening Germans(and other Northern European racial cousins of Germans) with the Burden of Guilt forever. In the end, the story of the event matters more than the event itself.
But for the most part, Spencer and others did little to shape the post-Charlottesville narrative. ONLY NOW, Spencer the fool is trying to run with the Charlottesville-as-moral-victory narrative. After Charlottesville, most Alt Right people were not deplatformed. It was Daily Stormer and few other sites. Spencer and his cohorts had many months to come up with their own narrative and hammer it home over and over. But they dropped the ball and focused on other matters.

This is all too bad because if the Alt Right had remained more in the mode of Ramzpaul and Jared Taylor, it could have done so much more. After all, Ramzpaul(who has one foot in edgy politics and the other in Normie culture) and Ann Coulter/Tucker Carlson came to more-or-less same conclusion on the JQ though Coulter and Carlson can't spell it out. Coulter feels betrayed not only by the Jewish community but by Neocons whom she had loyally served for so many yrs. She feels abused, like a sex slave. She feels that her kind did everything to wave the Israeli flag, vilify the enemies of Israel, and love Jews. Like John McCain, she growled at whatever Jews hated. But in recent yrs, she has stopped barking at Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, and etc.
Despite all that Coulter & co. had done over the years for Zionism and Jewish Prestige, what did Jewish Power finally give to America? Obama, Homomania, and endless push for Diversity to replace whites. Worse, it wasn't just New York Times and CNN but Neocons and National Review as well. Even Neo-'conservatives' blasted Trump and called for white replacement. Coulter came to see Neocons as weasels and came to see most of GOP as spineless 'paycheck conservatives' who only do the bidding of oligarchs: Paul Ryan and etc. And that is why she was so invested in Trump, the only candidate who denounced foreign wars, the need for walls, and immigration reform. And he was the only GOP candidate who openly supported European nationalists and bemoaned Merkel's decision to open the gates.

So, there was a chance of greater convergence between some in the Conservatism Inc. and the Alt Right. But Spencer, too full of himself, decided to play politics like Mission Impossible. If he really wanted to be bold, he should have written a book on political philosophy than hold quasi-Nazi tiki-torch marches and make common cause with a psychopath like Cantwell and moron like Heimbach. As for guys like Mike Enoch, they have value as 'shitlords' targeting PC shibboleths on podcasts; they have no value as leaders. It's like Howard Stern and Steve Dahl can make it as shockjocks but can't be taken seriously as anything else. But somehow, Enoch took leadership position. Nazi larping can be ironic in a podcast, not in the streets when crowds gather in earnest to make a political statement. Give a nazi salute in that context, and it's a political expression, not a joke or prank.

As for people in Silicon Valley or other super-rich cities, they may not live in Gated Communities, but it's safe to say that much of the area is like an Extensive Gated Community or Gated City(or Golden Gated City). The houses are not gated like rich homes in South Africa or Venezuela, but there are social and class barriers demarcating the super rich from the very rich from the rich from the middle and the rest. It's like there is no gate around Hyde Park community in Chicago, but it is among the safest because most professors and students are white or Asian and also because there is super-heavy police presence to suppress black crime. Also, home prices make it impossible for most blacks to live within the community.
Still, because there are no actual walls or gates to protect the rich from the hordes, it's true enough that many affluent people may feel that all-is-well in America. Since they are 'good' and 'intelligent' people who've made it, everyone else who didn't make it must be lazy or stupid. And yet, there is a contradiction in their attitude because, while they dismiss the problems of the white working class and underclass as products of their own failing, they employ PC rhetoric to gush about all those poor immigrants who must be given a chance. But if white losers have no one to blame but themselves, then aren't non-white losers around the world also responsible for their own problems? Aren't the brown losers in Mexico and Guatemala merely the 'Latino' counterparts of white losers in the US? Apparently not according to elite PC attitudes. While white working class and middle class(continually sinking) that voted for Trump are reviled and ridiculed as 'populist losers', the endless hordes of browns who want to break into America are romanticized as 'dreamers'. Rich whites look down on whites who have less but idealize browns who have less. Instead of trying to boost the livelihoods of whites who have less, they focus on 'saving' the browns who want to start anew in America. Now, many rich whites didn't feel this way in the past, so maybe it has something to do with who controls the media/academia. Or, maybe it's just the sense among the rich that the poor immigrants are motivated to work harder(more compliant, less complaint) than working class whites who are now either too demanding or even downright degenerate. (The utter vulgarization of the white middle class and working class culture cheapened their moral capital. Tom Joad vs Jim Goad. One is a noble character, a champion of the meek and down-and-out, the other is a real-life punk personality who's wallowed in depravity all his life. When the image of the working-class becomes Jerry-Springered and Jim-Goaded, it loses moral capital. Jim Goad is an interesting writer and a courageous enemy against PC, but what is he FOR? Freedom to do what? To act and talk like utter shit. Not that the elite image has been so great either, what with their mindless worship of anything homo and tranny. And given the vulgarization of Jewish Culture -- Harvey Weinstein and Amy Schumer -- , American Image has become sick and demented from top to bottom. And one of the problems of Trump is that he makes an odd hero of the people given his rather sordid life story of never-ending self-indulgence.)

But then, there was also a contradiction within the Alt Right of Richard Spencer(who pretty much came to own the label after 'Heil-Gate'). He grabbed it as MY TOY! Given the class split between white elites and white middle class/working class, the most natural priority for the Alt Right would have been to reach out to whites who feel stranded without leadership. This would have called for patient grass-roots activism. But Spencer, a spoiled boy of privilege, has a knee-jerk revulsion of the hoi polloi. His idea of white power is all about white elitism. He is fixated on personal power. His supremacism is more of the Anglo-Imperialist brand of Rudyard Kipling -- White Man's Destiny and Burden -- than that of Nazis, but his head is so up in the clouds with dreams of power and glory that he is bored by real problems of the white masses who feel left out. They didn't read Nietzsche and don't understand the true philosophy of 007.
Indeed, Spencer's real problem with the current elites is not their hyper-elitism or super-privilege per se but that they are not his kind of people. Similarly, his problem with globalist neo-imperialism is not that it is globalist or imperialist but that it is controlled by Jews. His dream is not to end imperialism in favor of nationalism but to practice an even grander imperialism ruled by Anglos as the Faustian Race or something. Because Spencer's mindset and outlook are so narcissistic and stuck-up, he's been incapable of shaping the Alt Right into a movement that could actually mean something to masses of whites who feel like a body without a head. So, the burden of Alt Right grassroots fell to someone like Matt Heimbach the dummy whose idea of mass politics is swilling endless cases of beer, wearing a Nazi helmet, and bumbling around with his bubble-butt.

If the problem of Paleo-Conservatism was it was filled with too many old people, the problem of Alt Right has been its youth. Youth is full of energy and optimism, but it's also rash and impulsive. So, just like 60s Yippies and Black Panthers wasted their political capital on stupid shit, so did the members of the Alt Right. In a way, the failures of both the New Left and New Right were similar in kind. The New Left, liberated from the 'stalinism' of the Old Left, turned to sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. It burned out. (The members of the Left that did gain power tended to be humorless in their long march through the institutions. But did they really win? By the time they were in positions of power, communism/socialism had failed, Democratic Party had gone over to the ultra-rich oligarchs, and military-industrial-complex was stronger than ever. So, all they could do was compromise with the ultra-capitalists and settle for Homomania. It was just 'subversive' enough for radical vanity and sufficiently useful to the Rich Class that had no more use for politics of class struggle.)
The new movement of the Alt Right, liberated from the organizational strictures of Conservatism Inc or grim humorlessness of White Nationalism 1.0, rushed into action like kids into summer break on the last day of school. It had energy but no organization, discipline, or hierarchy. Just like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bill Ayers, and rest of them were not exactly Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin, the leaders of the Alt Right weren't exactly the Founding Fathers or even the National Socialists(who were pathological but had remarkable strategic sense). And Spencer, a spoiled rich kid who was showered with affection and all-the-toys from childhood, had this magical Harry-Potter mentality that wishes would turn into reality with the power of his Faustian will.

John Derbyshire on Vox Day's Definition of the ALT RIGHT. Is or Isn't Derbyshire part of the Movement?

Check the Link below for John Derbyshire's evaluation of Alt Right principles, at least according to Vox Day who has his own special take on the ideology and movement.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/derb-at-the-mencken-club-am-i-alt-right

Vox Day is a goof and not to be taken seriously. All said and done, he’s a plus to the movement but a rather shallow and snippy character. And he sometimes goes for low-hanging fruits like Andrew Anglin whose only value is as class clown.

Vox Day: The Alt Right is of the political right… Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.

There's a problem with the above formulation. Even though people who call themselves ‘socialists’ are not Alt Right, Alt Right is open to socialism as component of economic nationalism. Alt Right must be neo-fascist or social-democratic in accepting both socialism and capitalism. Indeed, the capitalism vs socialism dichotomy is rather useless for our purposes. When 'unfettered' capitalists had free rein in the 19th century to create their own fiefdoms and when communists called for abolition of private property & radical tyranny, one could speak of capitalists vs socialists. However, esp following WWII, both Europe and US have adopted economic policies that combine elements of capitalism and socialism. Even US Conservatives who claim to love free enterprise will not vote for politicians who call for ending social security and other government programs.
And even American Liberals who call themselves ‘socialists’ want to live in nations with booming capitalist economies. Just consider. If self-described 'socialists' are truly socialist, why don't they choose to be like Amish folks or Zionist Kibbitzim? Why not get together and work on communes where everything is shared equally? But so-called socialists in US and EU don’t act this way.  They prize their individual liberties(mainly for hedonism and consumerism) and private properties.
They always try to move to the most affluent urban areas and live off capitalists. They write books and plays in the hopes that the affluent class will buy them. As ‘artists’, they seek rich patrons to sponsor and fund their 'creative' projects. As academics, they teach at universities funded by rich donors who majored in business and high-tech. Consider the ton of money Harvard and Yale have thanks to donors at Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. These donors made their money in capitalism, not socialism.
Or, if these ‘socialists’ are into artisanal work, they make fancy products and exclusively cater to the vanity of rich folks. Artisanal beer, Artisanal candy, Artisanal candles, etc. These folks are ‘socialist’ in the sense that Europeans used to be ‘Christian’. The label makes them sound noble, caring, and into ‘social justice’, but they would never want to live in a radical socialist nation. They love to feed on capitalist success. Your average ‘socialist’ moves to glitzy cities like San Fran or NY. Most 'socialists' in the West are really just hipsters or socialites pretending to be edgy with radical politics. In fact, they totally really on trickle-down capitalism of companies like Starbucks and Microsoft. Seattle has Microsoft workers flush with money, and 'socialists' try to get some of it by offering yoga lessons or some bogus advice.

In the 60s, some ‘socialist’ dreamers experimented with communes, but it didn’t pan out too well. Unlike Amish who are disciplined, orderly, humble, and virtuous — I guess Mormons are like free-market materialist Amish — , the hippie ‘socialists’ were into hedonism, drugs, orgies, and etc. They were more into bumming off others than working for the common good. It’s like the pothead commune in EASY RIDER where the main activities are smoking dope, skinny-dipping, and growing their hair long than getting up at the break of dawn and doing chores like milking cows and churning butter. Look what the hippie ‘socialists’ did to Woodstock. If not for the wage-slave people like the Portosan man, the place would have been covered with shi*.



Anyway, Alt Right seeks to move beyond the ‘capitalism vs socialism’ dichotomy. While socialism can be anti-right, so can capitalism. The core of rightism is nationalism and identity in race and culture. Capitalists will easily betray their own race and nation for more profits or status. To a capitalist, profits and 'reputation' trump any other consideration. Anything for profits and privilege.

Worse, once a society turns hedonist and shameless, ethos of capitalism is defined by the Vice Industry that feeds on people’s weakness for instant pleasure in food, trash culture, sex, and etc. Shameless and hedonistic capitalism is the basis of globalist control of the populace as 'sheepigs'.
True Power of autonomy and independence derives from self-control. If you can't say NO to the pusher offering crack or meth, he owns your senses that define your soul. And if he controls your soul, he controls your body.
Those who lose control of themselves also lose control of everything around them. It’s like, once American Indians surrendered to the pleasures of firewater, they lost pride and will. And Chinese on opium were lost in lala-land while their families and nation were being auctioned off to imperialists. White people are now lost because so many of them are addicted to the opiate of pop culture and drugs(legal and illegal), most of which is controlled by Jewish globalists.

Capitalism defined by Culture of Vice is about excessive appetites, indulgences, and therapies. It says pig out, hump all over, laugh like tard at OW MY BALLS(see IDIOCRACY), play dumb video games, and worship comic book super heroes. And if you make a mess of your life, don't seek to regain self-control. Just see a therapist and become addicted to never-ending Kafkaesque advice that do little good because it doesn't slap you in the face and say GROW UP, FOOL!

Capitalism of Vice promotes infantilism, and this is reflected in the political culture of celebrity, vanity, and therapy. So, there is babyish PC that divides the world into goodies and baddies. And progs cry and wail like babies and call people ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ and ‘homophobic’ and chant slogans like ‘black lives matter’. And then, there are all these therapies that, instead of telling people to get real and grow up, indulge them in their self-aggrandizing baby-emotions…. like General Silvestra who indulged that lowlife black ‘hate hoaxer’ who was responsible for the bogus KKK vandalism.

Indeed, isn't it ironic that the very people who push this EXTREMISM in appetites and ideology are the ones who accuse Alt Right and any basic patriots as ‘far right’ and ‘extreme’? Alt Right is calling for self-control over appetites. It’s not calling for globalist imperialism or war-mongering. It’s calling for the right of each Western/European nation to survive for what it is. How is that extreme?
In contrast, globalists call for More Wars and More Intervention even after such ventures have destroyed much of the Middle East and led to useless ‘new cold war’ with Russia. Globalists also say the native peoples of US and EU must be replaced by nasty non-white ingrates. Yet, that is considered ‘normal’ while basic Nationalism 101 that is pro-peace and pro-borders is denounced as ‘far right’ and ‘extremist’. What kind of crazy world are we living in? Consider Francis Fukuyama, aka George Soros’ dog. 'Fukyomama' is convinced that wars and mass invasions are justified because they hasten the ‘end of history’ when it’s really hastening the End of Humanity.

Vox Day: The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA

Alt Right is that but it is also an alternative to old-style far right of white racial politics and white supremacism as represented by organizations like KKK and Neo-Nazis. It is also an alternative to the grim and dour racial apocalyptic views of men like William Pierce.
KKK was too hick. Neo-Nazis were too deranged and demented. And men like Pierce came across as odd, to say the least. On the one hand, men like Pierce were very bourgeois, but their views were nutty or insane.

And then, there were serious men like William Shockley who didn’t crank out nutty visions like TURNER DIARIES. But Alt Right differs from them as well. The problem with men like Shockley was they thought people could be persuaded with rational arguments and facts alone. But any socio-political movement must have vision, passion, and the element of the prophetic. Shockley never had it. Jared Taylor and his kind have a broader vision, but they too are focused on rational discussion. Alt Right understands that cautious rational arguments are not enough. People want to be fueled by shared passion and collective will. Rational ideas are about True or False, not about Live or Die. A people must FEEL a surge of emotions that makes them willing to fight and die for a cause, indeed as if their lives are incomplete or meaningless unless they struggle to achieve their vision. (Nationalism is the ideal vision since every people can have their own nation and respect the nations of others, like when the French colonialists returned to their beloved France while Algerians and Vietnamese regained national autonomy over their own turfs.)
And this is why the Alt Right is anti-stuffy and not so bourgeois in its attitude and approach. It is looser, even bohemian, and Richard Spencer certainly has edgy qualities. Also, Alt Right understands that even race-rationalists like Shockley(and perhaps even James Watson) are motivated by something more than facts and logic. They are pro-white because they are white and feel comfortable being white and want to preserve white civilization. It’s not just about IQ. Would Shockley have been okay if blacks were to gain IQ parity with whites and then humped tons of white women to make mulatto babies? My guess is NO.
So, it’s a vision of OUR PEOPLE and OUR CULTURE and OUR LAND as an aesthetic(genetic as opposed to generic) expression. Alt Right is more honest about the roots of the movement. It’s not mainly about rational discussion of IQ. It’s about Race and Culture. In this respect, George Hawley is right in his wussy-boy book Making Sense of the Alt Right. Hee-Hawley is too much of a Pee-Wee-Herman to be a proud white man. He has characteristics of CucKen Burns and looks like a dork. And by ‘racism’, he doesn’t mean race-ism(race + ism = belief in the reality of races & racial differences and/or need for racial consciousness) but ‘nasty nah nah racism-wacism’.
Still, he is right to understand that Racial Identity is at the core of Alt Right. Alt Right has a sense of racial and cultural familial bonds. And it is for this reason that Alt Right understands that nationalism must be a kind of ethno-socialism. After all, Zionism is a nationalism premised on racial-socialism. Zionism says that the richest Jews must regard even poor Jews in Israel(and around the world) as fellow brethren. So, rich Jews in Israel must favor poor Jews over rich gentiles. He may do business with rich gentiles, but all said and done, even a poor Jew is more his brother than a rich gentile is. Indeed, Jewish-Americanism is a form of racial socialism. After all, why did Jews push the US government to 'save' Soviet Jews when there were plenty of gentile groups far worse off in the USSR and around the world? Because Jews, first and foremost, cared about fellow Jews. And even now, despite all the money they have, Jews make a fuss about there still being poor Jews.

Now, if Jews are totally beyond race, rich Jews should identify mainly with rich gentiles. But even as Jews tell rich gentiles to betray and abandon their own kind(such as 'white trash' exploited by merchants of filth like Jerry Springer), rich Jews never stopped caring for less fortunate Jews, like those in USSR or Romania. Rich Jews bribed Ceausescu to let Romania’s Jews to emigrate to Israel. This is the basis of Jewish Power. Racial-Socialism or Nationalism among all Jews. Jews fear that if white gentiles were to gain(or regain) a similar mindset(like when white elite New Dealers cared about poor whites like the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH), they might represent, serve, and lead the white masses than serve rich Jews. This is why Jews push libertarianism on whites. It serves as a wedge between rich successful whites(& rich-wanna-be whites) and the white have-lesses.
Jews do push a kind of socialism on whites, but it’s the ‘anti-racist’ kind that forbids rich whites to identify with and care about less fortunate whites. Rather, rich whites and their children(attending elite PC universities) are admonished to channel their civic sympathy toward  non-whites… like Bill Gates pouring billions of dollars into programs for blacks(and some other non-whites) but not even spending a penny on whites. Racial-socialism is good enough for Jews but never good for whites according to PC that's been programmed by Jews.

This is what the Alt Right opposes, and this is why it is detested. To Jewish globalists, Unite the Right sounds like Unite the White. This is why Spencer calls on Trump to pass Single Payer. All this ‘muh free enterprise’ has only helped to drive a wedge between white have-lots and white have-lesses.

That said, another reason for Alt Right's emergence is it is the ONLY voice willing to speak honestly about the Power. Mainstream Media of both ‘right’ and ‘left’ are all owned by the Jewish Globalist Establishment. Now, there are many alternative voices, organizations, and etc. Alt-Right doesn’t own the ‘alternative’ label, which has a long pedigree. There are alternative voices on the Left, Libertarianism, white nationalism, anarchism, feminism, and etc. Esp in the age of the internet, there are tons of alternative voices with so many bloggers and cloggers.

So, why has the Alt Right stood out from the rest of alternative media and voices? Because it is the ONLY ‘movement’ that really doesn’t give a crap about PC. Now, I’m defining PC in a broader way. Not just globo-proggy PC(even though that dominates current discourse) but far-right PC. KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust-Deniers, and etc. have their own thick-skulled PC. Though their PC is ‘politically incorrect’ by rules of Mainstream PC, it also calls for mental straitjackets and iron dogma. For the white supremacist types, Hitler did no wrong, or it would have been better if Germans won. Or, they believe Stalin intended to invade first, and Hitler only attacked to preempt the Soviets. Or everything Jewish is evil or suspect. Or the Shoah is one big lie and the only Jews who died was due to starvation under duress of war.

What white supremacists and white submissivists(who follow proggy PC) have in common is this penchant for dogmatism. Anyone who has tried to discuss reality with a communist, BLM moron, homomaniac, radical feminist, or libertarian knows it’s like talking to a brick wall. It’s like Stefan Molyneux the baldie losing his last few hairs while trying to talk logic with a communist.
And we can't expect much from Evangelicals for whom everything is hallelujah and glory be and such childish stuff. They are sheeple. Even when Evangelicals oppose homo agenda, it’s not based on truth, morality, or logic but on the Bible, as if modern society can be organized around what was written 1000s of yrs ago. Still, the fact that the strongest opposition to Homomania has been in the Conservative Christian community indicates reason and logic aren't the primary motivators of Political Will. Most secular people who oppose Homomania on rational grounds lack the righteous fire of faith to stand up and say NO.

Now, one would expect far-left commies and far-right white supremacists(for whom supremacism is a crutch to compensate for their 'loser' status) to be thick-skulled and rigid. In contrast, we might expect liberals and moderate conservatives to be open-minded, intellectually honest, and respectful of free speech and etc. But it isn't so. PC permeates every aspect of the Current Discourse, which is more like Disdain and Dismissal than an open conversation among many sides.
Moderate respectable conservatives will claim to champion liberty, constitution, and free speech(along with traditional values) but then run scared when confronted with honest discussion of race and Jewish power. Today, these Conservatives don’t even have the spine to say NO to homomania. Even Charles Murray caved and bent over for 'gay marriage'. And these Conservatives hardly oppose censorship of voices that dare speak truth to Jewish power. Mark Steyn talks big about Muslims but never about Zionists and their nasty actions in West Bank. He won't mention that Jews, more than Muslims, have been the primary agents of shutting down free speech.
As for liberals, it'd be more accurate to call them Illiberals. To be sure, on many issues and subjects(unrelated to the sensitive or hot button issues of the day), they are still bona fide liberals in the best sense of the word. But when anything triggers and disturbs the shibboleths of Proggy PC, the liberal minds close the shutters and turn illiberal. They become like frenzied bees with hive mentality. They lose all sense of principles and become zealous in defend the poisoned honey of their sacro-ideology.

Liberals espouse Compassion Supremacism or Sensitivity-Supremacism that says certain groups deserve more love, care, praise, and protection than others do. Even though Liberals will pretend to denounce all forms of ‘bigotry’, they don't much care about hostility directed at Muslims, Chinese, Iranians, Russians, or Mexicans. They get really triggered only when the negativity is directed at the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, while Liberals are open-minded and curious about many subjects(at least compared to the average Conservative who's into 'muh gun' and 'muh Constitution'), their response to any perceived derision of the Holy Three is swift and vehement either in flight-or-fight mode. They will either duck & hide like gophers bolting into holes, OR bark & bite like a pack of guard dogs. How does the Rule of the Holy Three work? Take the issue of Culture and Work Ethic. Suppose someone says the problem with Russia is the lack of work ethic compared to, say, Germans and Japanese. Now, keep in mind that Russians are not part of the Holy Three. Liberals may agree or disagree on the issue of Russian Work Ethic, but they will nevertheless listen to the argument with an open mind. But suppose someone says something similar about blacks. Suddenly, the Liberal will either try to run out of the room or hiss & scream that you're a ‘racist’.
Or, suppose you say the problem with China(not one of the Holy Three) is culture of corruption, and therefore, any Western businessman seeking to do business in China should keep his guard up and be very cautious. Again, the Liberal may agree or disagree, but he will be open to discussion. But if you say Jews have become overly corrupt and abusive of their power, and therefore, we need to be more critical of Jewish reach & influence, the Liberal(esp if Jewish) will have conniptions, foam at the mouth, and demand that the discussion is OVER. This is why Liberals have become useless on certain key issues. They've been mentally programmed in such a way that their nerves simply can't tolerate certain ideas or views. No matter how committed to free speech they claim to be, their ideals and principles are overridden by The Taboo. (But then, Conservatives aren't much better, especially when it comes to Jews, blacks, and increasingly homos. Tough Guy Conservatives will talk big about Iranians, North Koreans, and Palestinians but wet their pants when confronted with the fact of Jewish power being the main enemy of the white race.) Also, PC won’t allow honest discussion of Shoah. While 'Holocaust'-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people love being the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked Apollo landing), not everyone who questions certain aspects of Shoah are ‘deniers’. David Cole is not a denier, but he’s been so labeled because he refused to conform to the Narrative of the sacred 6 million and extensive gassing at Auschwitz. Too many Jewish Liberals will label as ‘denier’ anyone who dares to raise questions about what has become the High School Textbook Narrative. Some will label as ‘deniers’ even those who accept the Official Narrative but try to understand WHY the Nazis did what they did as an extreme reaction to radical excesses of Jews and the times(that sought scapegoats of one form or another all across the political spectrum). Ernest Nolte has been so labeled.

Anyway, there are 'white supremacists' who can't move beyond Heil Hitler, and as such, they can't be true members of Alt Right. 'White supremacists' of the Neo-Nazi and KKK kind are truly a pathetic sight. It may be bad form for the superior to brag of his abilities, but it's downright comical for the inferior to do so. It'd be like an out-of-shape boxer pretending he's champion of the world.
Even supposing that the white race is indeed generally superior to other races, imagine if whites with superior ability don't make a big fuss over it while whites with inferior ability make a big deal of the collective superiority of the white race. And that's the problem with Neo-Nazi types. Even if they're right that the white race is generally more talented and capable than other races, individual whites with real talent tend to be modest whereas Neo-Nazi whites with no talent shamelessly lay claim of pride to the achievements of whites of talent(who despise Neo-Nazi types). Perhaps, whites with superior ability feel personal pride, and that's enough to stoke their egos. In contrast, whites with inferior ability, having no claim to personal pride, can savor greatness only via collective identity. It's like the spectacle in sports where, so often, the fans get more excited than the players. Players have pride of personal glory. In contrast, the only way the fans can feel pride is by collective identification with the players since they have no personal glory of their own. Ironically then, cucky white fans of black-dominated football and Neo-Nazis into white supremacism have something in common. Both can lay claim to greatness and supremacy only by collective identification. Since cucky 'slow white boys' can't compete with blacks in football and basketball, they can taste athletic greatness only by cheering for and identifying with black players who win the trophy and hump the white girls with jungle fever. Likewise, since Neo-Nazi types tend to be lower in IQ and lacking in creativity, the only way they can feel pride is by racial identification. They lay collective claim to the genius and brilliance of whites with talent, despite the fact that most talented whites are on the Liberal side of the spectrum.

Anyway, for most people from the far-left commies to globalist liberals to far-libertarians to Conservatism Inc., the Iron Taboo of the Holy Three is the highest law of the land. They simply cannot speak honestly about Jewish Power. The far-left may criticize or denounce Zionism per se but is loathe to connect the dots between Zionism and Jewish Supremacist power in the US. Libertarians claim to support total freedom but turn knee-jerk politically correct on issues pertaining to blacks and homos. And Conservatism Inc. denounces the Left without pointing out that the globalist Left is largely funded and led by Jews. Conservatism Inc. won’t even address the fact that Homomania is a Jewish proxy agenda. And even though Conservatives do notice that blacks disproportionately commit more crimes, they will not state the obvious that blacks are more prone to be violent because they are naturally more muscular and more aggressive.
As for 'white supremacist' and Neo-Nazi(aka 14/88) types, they will address the Jewish Question but with their own brand of PC that totally vilifies Jews(as if Jews were always wrong and white gentiles, especially Germans, were always innocent). And when it comes to blacks, 'white supremacist' types tend to subscribe to the Caste Football theory that black dominance in sports is just a Social Construct created by 'racism' against white players.

This is where Alt Right is different. You don’t have to be Nazi-tard to think like an Alt-Rightist(though, to be sure, I prefer the Left-Right of National-Humanist Neo-Fascism that is clearly superior to Alt Rightism). On so many subjects and issues that go neglected or ignored due to cuckery, timidity, and cowardice, the Alt Right is willing to speak freely: Jewish Power, Black thuggery, and Homo degeneracy.
Furthermore, Alt Right positions tend to be hard but also supple in their facts and logic, thus generally avoiding the pratfall of dogmatism. Consider the matter of Homomania that is strongly opposed by the Alt Right. If Evangelical opposition to the 'gay agenda' is a matter of theological dogma, the Alt Right opposes the homo agenda(of making Homomania the New Normal) on rational and moral grounds while also accepting the science on homosexuality, i.e. that some people are born homo, it isn't their ‘fault’, and they should be allowed to be homo in their own private spaces. And if homos have talent, it should be acknowledged and admired. If Alt Right had been given the conservative role in the homo debate, it would have been much more interesting. But when the media and powers-that-be were going all-homo, what did we get from the establishment Right? Mostly silence from Conservatism Inc. that was so afraid of alienating Jews(as even Neocons were pushing Homomania) and ‘Muh Bible’ platitudes from Evangelicals as if social policy should be decided by Ancient Biblical Text.

This is why Alt Right can make a difference, and therefore, Alt Right must never lose sight of its special niche in the current political environment. If the Alt Right can coalesce more into a real movement, it must be mindful not to insist on new dogmas and taboos that will only blunt the edge and lower its potency as the most honest and courageous ideology on the political landscape. The fact is even radical anti-racists have been provoked, threatened, and stimulated by the Alt Right because the Alt Right and only the Alt Right is willing to disregard PC shibboleths that strangulate the entire spectrum from Far Left to Conservatism Inc. (And the Alt Right can make its case without resorting to tiresome 'far right' 'white supremacist' cliches of 'blame Jews for everything, including the weather' and 'muh Fuhrer'.)
Western European Marxists and Frankfurt School garnered respect, albeit reluctantly, even from elements of the Right. Integrity has its own rewards. While the Soviet Left turned dogmatic and bureaucratic, the European Neo-Marxists presented newer perspectives and critiques of modernity, materialism, capitalism, individualism, and Soviet communism(and why it went wrong). And even Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and Gore Vidal had partial admirers on the Right because they dissected the American Empire in ways overlooked or suppressed by mainstream media or hardline leftism.
Still, even Alt-Left figures tended to be bound by Taboos. Chomsky was critical of Zionism but didn’t connect it with Jewish American Power, nor did he address the ethnic character of US media monopoly. After all, if US media were monopolized by Mexican-Americans or Muslim-Americans, the direction of US foreign policy would surely be different.

Due to WWII and Shoah-guilt as New Religion of the Secular West, the West was loathe to speak honestly about Jewish Power. Also, due to Black Slavery narrative and anti-imperialism — and blacks as the colorful and commanding face of ‘social justice’ — , blacks became objects of semi-worship, culminating in the Magic Mountain Negro in GREEN MILE. And as pop culture turned the West into a hedonistic cesspool of narcissism and excess, it wasn’t long before homos rode on that wave to become the neo-angels of globalism. Especially with the lavish support of Jewish Media, homos spun their self-created disaster — AIDS epidemic — into their own ‘holocaust’.

And then, the media and academia turned into endless parade of celebrating Jews, blacks, and homos. Indeed, Americanism(which also infects the EU) is now about little else but praising Jews, blacks, and homos. Ideology must bow down to the ‘iconology’ of the Holy Three. You can say you disagree with or even disdain the underpinning principles of America’s Founding, and that’s perfectly fine. But if you say anything that runs counter to the spirit of the Holy Three, you are done for. You must worship MLK. You must wave the Homo flag. You must feel guilty about Shoah even though you had nothing to do with it.

Alt Right is an iconoclastic weapon against the Holy Three. Its anti-taboo polemic can be effective because it doesn’t play by the dogmatic White Supremacist playbook that discredits its criticism of Jewish Power with a radical craziness of its own. Sounding like a pathological Nazi only vindicates the Jewish supremacist insistence that critics of Jews are all vile unhinged lunatics. If anything, the Neo-Nazis are the gift that keeps on giving to the Progs. It’s no wonder that so many Jews playacted as cartoon Nazis. It’s no wonder that Deep State operatives infiltrated Neo-Nazi movements and encouraged even more extremism so as to discredit all forms of White Consciousness. Have someone claim to be for white interests and then wave the Nazi flag. According to PC, any kind of white identity or white interests is NAZI or KKK, an automatic moral disqualification. And the white supremacist morons obliged such narrative with their retarded gestures, dumb narratives, and beer-belly ubermensch ‘larping’.
Even as proggy PC detested the Neo-Nazi-KKK morons, it saw propaganda value in white supremacists making total fools of themselves. It’s like the Globo Media found the Westboro church invaluable in making opposition to Homomania seem deranged(like the mother in CARRIE) and unpatriotic, as the 'church' gained notoriety by protesting military funerals. According to the PC narrative, any pro-white person must be ‘nazi’ and anyone who opposes the homo agenda must be a crazy Christian lunatic harassing the families of fallen soldiers.

But Alt Right doesn't play to this script. It has cogently exposed and laid out the real Power Dynamic in the West. The ripple effect has been that even anti-Alt-Right people are more willing to discuss certain issues. The Overton window has certainly shifted, and most of the credit should go to the Alt Right.

Vox Day: The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

Derbyshire: "No problem with that. We should, however, bear in mind what a knotty thing nationalism can be. There is a case to be made—a conservative case—for big, old, long-established nations resisting disaggregation. Does Catalan nationalism trump Spanish nationalism?"

The answer to Derbyshire’s question is Localism. Let Spanish and Catalans arrive at what is best for them. Non-Spanish and Non-Catalans might offer their advice and opinions, but it should be handled as local affair between Catalans and the Spaniards

Vox Day: The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian.

Actually, it’s better to say Alt Right is honestly anti-equalitarian. Let’s face it. NO ONE believes in equality. Everyone with any sense knows that Jews are smarter than Gypsies, West Africans can outrun Hindus, and Germans are, on average, taller than Mexicans.

Alt Right is just honest about what everyone knows already. I mean do 'liberal' Jews really believe that Bolivian Indians could become just as good in finance as the Jews are? Do 'liberal' blacks really believe that Chinese will soon win 100m sprints?

Vox Day: The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption

Derbyshire: "It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to dictionary.com; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s."

Vox Day is a sci-fi writer and them fellers love to come up with 'neat' ideas. He’s just being sciencefictionoid with terminology.

Derbyshire:   "a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision. Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life."

True enough, but I think Vox Day was talking about Social Sciences. After all, theories on atoms and stars have no bearing on matters of politics and society. But scientific matters relating to humans have huge relevance and implications. And there has been too much 'scientistry' — scientific sophistry — in the field. Scientistry is like quack dentistry that pulls out the wrong tooth. So, even though the black tooth must be removed to stop the pain, white ones are yanked out. It’s Clouseauean Dentistry.



Derbyshire: "Again, not bad as a first approximation, but this ignores a lot of feedback loops. Has politics not affected culture this past 72 years in North Korea? Did not North Korea and South Korea have the same culture a hundred years ago?"

True, but if South Korea were to reunite with any nation, wouldn’t it be easier with North Korea than with Japan even though South Korea and Japan are economically and politically similar?
Or look at Israel. Jewish immigrants to Zion came from capitalist nations, communist nations, Muslim-majority nations, Christian-majority nations, and etc. Many spoke different languages and few knew Hebrew. There were religious Jews, secular Jews, and etc. But they made it work because they were bound by identity as the basis.
Now, imagine the creation of a new nation based solely on creed. Suppose German Christians, African Christians, Chinese Christians, Mexican Christians, Arab Christians, and etc all came together to form a nation based on faith in Jesus. Would it work out as well as Israel? Or imagine a new nation founded on shared ideology of capitalism. Suppose French capitalists, Swedish capitalists, Nigerian capitalists, Turkish capitalist, Japanese capitalists, Indonesian capitalists, Pakistani capitalists, and etc all formed a nation. How long would it last? Thus far, US and Canada have held together despite diversity because there was a Core Majority and Core Narrative that had served as a glue for so long. But as they fray with More Diversity and white loss of confidence, can these nations remain together or function based on shared credos of ‘muh constitution’, ‘muh liberty’, or 'muh diversity'?

Vox Day: The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Derbyshire: "As several commenters pointed out, the Iroquois and the Sioux might have something to say about that. Bitching about historical injustices is such an SJW thing, though, I can’t bring myself to care. I’m fine with Point 10."

Indians don’t count. They were savages and had no civilization and had no means to resist white invaders. Also, the world had yet to be fully navigated and explored back then. Today, the world is so very different. Mankind has explored, mapped out, and claimed every inch of territory. Also, the Age of Empire ended after WWII with non-whites telling whites to go home.
So, universal nationalism, or nationalism for every people, is possible. Every part of the world has been CLAIMED by a particular people and culture. And this condition must be defended and formulated as the fundamental political principle for the world. After all, the premier international organization is called United Nations, not United Empires or United Economies.
And yet, this common sense view is demeaned as the ‘far right’ by the Far-Jew Globalist Media. The real extremist forces are the far-globalists, far-imperialists, far-Zionists, far-profiteers(greed is their only creed), far-thugs(black criminals and lunatics), far-sluts(what has become of womenfolk), far-invaders(neo-colonialism with massive third world movements). Why should peoples today be invading and colonizing other nations when all the world have already been claimed? Also, the agreement after WWII was for the End of Empire and Imperialism. So, why must we now have ‘reverse-imperialism’ whereby non-whites get to demographically swamp white nations?

Vox Day: The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

Derbyshire: "Again, there are nits to be picked. Diversity per se is neither good nor bad. Numbers are of the essence. I’m a salt-in-the-stew diversitarian. I want to live in a society with a big fat racial and ethnic supermajority: somewhere north of ninety percent."

True enough, but by ‘diversity’, Vox Day surely means diversity as cancer than condition.
Diversity as condition is a fact in any nation. Even the most homogeneous nations have some diversity, the presence of non-nationals and foreigners, some of whom are permanently settled. And those people can be tolerated as co-existing folks. Also, look closely enough and even a homogeneous people can be categorized as diverse in dialect, local customs, attitudes, and etc. Not all Greeks are alike and indeed vary region to region.

But by Diversity in today’s parlance, it means Diversity as a cancer. Diversity as condition is like a tattoo or a scar. Good or bad, it will not expand. Diversity as Diversinoma is like skin cancer that starts as a a mere speck but never stops growing. PC and globalism say this is the only kind of Diversity that is good and NECESSARY. This is obviously a fatal disease for any racial-cultural civilization, but this is pushed by globalist quacks as the cure for national malaise. It’s like Barbara Specter saying that, “In order for Europe to survive, it must go into multicultural mode.” Huh? If Europe is swamped by non-Europeans, it is no longer Europe. But cunning witches like Specter manipulate the earnest naive good-will of Nordics who tend to be such easy suckers because they were raised on Holocaust Guilt and the dogma that white homogeneity = Nazism.

Vox Day: The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

Derbyshire: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

It depends on what one means by 'Free Trade'. Surely, the Brits embarked on free trade long ago but didn’t allow massive invasions of non-whites into Britain. Also, the leftist Scottish National Party is more pro-immigration. And Stalin moved plenty of people around in his empire.

Still, what Vox means by ‘free trade’ in the 21st century is globalism. This is different from free trade in the past that meant commerce among sovereign nations with national governments that represented their own peoples. Today, 'free trade' is the favored policy of globalist corporations that feel NO sense of allegiance to their own nations and peoples. So, ‘free trade’ now means free movement of capital and peoples for economic opportunity, investment, exploitation, colonization. It is a form of anarchy.

Also, a kind of secret agreement has been forged between rich and poor nations under globalism. It's as follows: Rich nations can invade or invest in poor nations, but if First World industrialists gain access to Third World, Third World folks must have access to First World.. to work and toil and send remittances back home. It’s like US companies gained access to Mexico, but Mexican masses gained access to gringo-land.

Vox Day: The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses

Derbyshire: "Hmm. That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or '-oid'). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. What do the 'unique strengths' of the Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines, avail them in the world we actually live in?"

Bushmen and Austro-Aborigines are outliers. They are few in number and don’t count. But when it comes to the major races, there are indeed advantages and disadvantages. While Japanese can make good gadgets and run an orderly society, they are short dorks and have no iconic value. So, even though they make all these electronic devices, people prefer to see OTHER races on Japanese-made gadgets. Sony made a lot of TV and walkmans, and Japanese were good at making such stuff. But it was Negro athletes and Jewish personalities who dominated global TV. So, even though Negroes have little industrial value — they can’t run an economy — , they have much entertainment value, and that means billions around the world will be watching Negro runners and footballers.
Look at China. Over billion people who work hard to build a modern nation, but they’re addicted to NBA Negroes. And look at all the 'Blapanese'. They are almost all the products of black fathers and Japanese mothers. If Japan that has so few Negroes is going this way with 'jungaru feebah', imagine what is happening to EU! Sure, all those Negroes coming from Africa have little industrial value. They be jiving and messing things up. But blacks got more rhythm and funk and bigger dongs. And white folks find black music, black muscle, and black meat very pleasurable and entertaining. So, blacks have superior 'hedonic' value. As whites are addicted to Negropium, one can say blacks do have serious advantages over the white race.

Derbyshire is a math-geek and judges people's worth by science and intellect. But most of humanity is pretty vulgar, trashy, crass, hedonistic, and infantile. And they want fun, fun, fun. And since Negroes be flipping and jiving and humping more than others, non-blacks have come under the iconic-idolatrous spell of the 'groids'. Bongo, the power of Negro-ness, does have a decisive advantage in the modern world. Capitalism and West used to be about work ethic, virtue, and restraint. But with over-surplus of food, clothing, and production, the West no longer worries about enough-to-eat or essentials of survival. They care mostly about fun, fantasy, and pleasure. Vice industry has overtaken virtue industry. In PLACES IN THE SUN, the Negroes were willing to pick cotton for corn meal. But today, Negresses got fat asses from welfare and ‘twerk’ their butts as if having sex with bad boys, and white kids grow up to this music and dance as ‘western values’.