This 'Re-education Camp' isn't about Marxism or about true justice. If anything, it is a classic example of bait-and-switch, using the ruse of morality to perpetuate the abuse of Jewish Supremacism. It psychologically targets whites, especially white males(to set them apart from white females who are set against the men of their own race), for reflection and remorse but not to decrease US aggression abroad and lessen its lethal impact but to ensure more of it. Indeed, the fact that programs like this are taking place is a sure sign that whites don't control the US. If they did, this wouldn't be happening. This is happening because Jews control the US, and their agenda is to secure white obeisance and collaboration. Jews can do this with bribes(or carrots), but loyalty based on money only goes so far. It is merely outward cooperation purchased with big bucks. For deeper loyalty and submission, whites must be turned into soul-slaves, and what better way than by castrating the white soul and paralyzing white agency with 'white guilt'. The fact that none of the white guys displayed any defiance in the face of this outrage goes to show who's really calling the shots. Jews control the US because they not only control finance and 'science' but also control the gods, or what is deemed sacrosanct in the public eye. Jews lay out the agenda, and corporate C.E.O's comply with these deep state directives. And then, all those white managers and engineers do as told like so many good little boys... or dogs. So, let's not call this 'Marxist'. It is Jewish Supremacist. As Nick Fuentes says, (((the system))) targets White People.
This 'woke' thing is to make whites cower before Jewish-supremacist globalist imperialism. It isn't to oppose imperialism or supremacism per se. Rather, it's about subordinating white ability and talent in the service of another tribal interest. Though mostly blacks are used to berate and belittle whites in this ploy, the end-result is white submission to Jewish supremacism that controls all the levers of the Deep State. Just think: If 'wokeness' were truly about equal justice for all of humanity, it would lecture US generals and military-industrial-complex contractors to denounce US militarism, imperialism, invasions of other nations, and the countless deaths they caused. And given all the Arabs and Asians killed by US Imperialism — think of the Wars for Israel and US involvement in Vietnam — , you'd think US embassies would fly banners with signs ARAB LIVES MATTER and VIETNAMESE LIVES MATTER. But, look all around and if anything, the bloody Zionist-imperialists are allowed to carry on with their insane Middle East policy that favors Israel uber Alles. There is nothing about the evils done against Arabs or Muslims by US imperialism armed and supplied by the military-industrial-complex. There is no denunciation of US military bases all around the world, the US use of sanctions to wreck other economies, the US drone-bombings that killed or maimed so many innocents, especially under Obama. No mention of how CIA use dirty tricks to subvert other nations and to torture people. No mention of the deceptions that led to the Iraq War. Or the real reason why US and its puppet-allies deposed Gaddafi and turned Libya into a failed state. No mention of US support of Israel that, in turn, supports extremist terrorists in Syria. No mention of how US military aid to Israel has been used to maim and murder thousands of Palestinian civilians, women and children. Some of the people involved with the Military-Industrial-Complex(or MIC) may put up BLM signs on their lawns, but I guarantee not a single one would dare put up a PLM or PALESTINIAN LIVES MATTER sign. Why not? What are they really serving? Who are they really afraid of? Deep down inside, they know they are dogs of Jews and must obey to keep their precious jobs and status. Blacks and homos are essentially spurs and whips used by the Jewish 'cowboy' against the White Horse.
In truth, the main theme of 'wokeness' is ultimately to make whites cower before the masters of globalism, most of whom are Jewish Supremacists. Globalists use POC, or people of color, mostly blacks, to lecture whites about 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. But this isn't to curtail or roll back US imperialism but to expand and justify it. It's like painting bombs with BLM or globo-homo symbols is enough to persuade upper 'liberal' class that US global power is justified with the blessing of Holy Homos and Noble Negroes. In our age of idolatry, morality is more a matter of symbolism of iconography than substance based on reality. So, even if US bombs kill or maim countless civilians abroad, that's okay because the US military is 'woke' with BLM and globo-homo signs. (Jews figure most of the power is in the deep state, and the only real support that matters is from the urban educated classes who make up the upper managers of society. To the extent that the educated classes have been indoctrinated and razzle-dazzled into believing in the sanctity of the Noble Negro and Holy Homo, anything associated with either has their blessing.) Jews feel an urgent need to rein in what they fear may grow into white liberation and autonomy from Jewish Supremacist hegemony.
After all, Trump and his base showed that an increasing number of whites, even among 'conservatives', have grown more skeptical of all these wars and foreign interventions. Even though 'conservatives' and 'patriots' have yet to name the Jewish Power in all this and still continue to praise Israel, their anti-war stance based on nationalism-against-globalism(controlled by Jews) has triggered and alarmed Jews who've grown accustomed to whites, especially 'conservatives', unquestioningly acceding to whatever plans Jews cook up for the world, even if it means more wars and mayhem where only goyim die. Trump was loudly cheered by the audience in the 2016 primary debates when he denounced the Iraq War and those who instigated it.
So, if White Power in the past had been synonymous with world imperialism, today the revival of White Power often means saying NO to (Jewish)globalist imperialism and YES to a more humble nationalism. (Jews hated the fact that so many Trump supporters said NO to a 'new cold war' with Russia.) Nationalism(aka goy autonomy) vs Imperialism(aka Jewish global hegemony). This is what the Jewish globalists can't abide. So, to make whites submissive and keep them silent-and-obedient in service to the globalist agenda, the 'wokeness' policy has been devised to berate whites about their 'privilege' and various evils. In other words, "Just shut up and do your job, do as we tell you, believe what we tell you to believe, say what we tell you to say, and don't mutter anything that isn't approved."
This is pure bait-and-switch. It may seem like childish blacks are taking over the military-industrial-complex in the name of social justice, but in fact, it's just a case of stupid blacks being used by clever and devious Jewish supremacists to shame and silence whites into total acquiescence to the Zionist-supremacist hyper-imperialist agenda. Indeed, all those BLM signs on US embassies are not to curtail imperialism but to provide it with moral cover. It's like the US uses 'war on terror' BS to cover up its war-WITH-terror against Libya and Syria. Jew-run Hollywood awarded some propaganda-dressed-up-as-documentary(or 'propumentary' or 'docuganda') about the White Helmets to lend the impression that Hollywood supports 'human rights' against Evil Assad, the 'butcher' of Syria, but in fact, the so-called White Helmets are partners-in-crime of the terrorists armed and supplied by US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Using pseudo-morality as justification for Jewish nihilism is far more dangerous than honest gangsterism. 'Moral' Nihilism may fool the people into seeing the devil as angel. This is what Jews and blacks have in common. They practice a kind of inversion where whatever evil thing they do is moralized and justified. So, blacks loot and burn down cities, but it's justified in the name of resisting 'systemic racism'. And Jews justify whatever evil they do by using the cover of the Holocaust. So, even Judeo-Nazis tyrannizing Palestinians is spun as innocent and helpless Jews defending themselves against 'antisemitic terrorists'.
'Wokeness' isn't about social justice per se but about the exploitation of 'social justice' by the Deep State to favor certain groups while targeting others. One thing for sure, these 'woke' tirades in the offices of the military-industrial-complex headquarters won't say anything about how Obama and Hillary aided terrorists in Syria to tear that nation apart, leading to the deaths of nearly half a million people. It won't say anything about America's evil role in the plight of the Palestinians. Rather, it will tell white guys, "Shut up and obey", and the ensuing white submission will be used by Jewish globalists to wage more wars and invasions and bombings with no push-back from White Conscience.
Jews fear White Conscience armed with moral agency. After all, White Liberation will mean whites could think, feel, and speak on their own based on facts and logic; it means they could come to the obvious conclusion that Jews control America, Jews are in supremacist mode, Jews exploit the world, and Jews have committed mass killings in the Middle East. (And in the 1990s, Jews raped the Russian economy and created the disaster that led to unspeakable misery and deaths of many Russians. And in recent times, Jews peddled opioids to white working class, hundreds of thousands of whom perished, made worse by Jewish pollution of American Culture with promotion of neo-Weimarian decadence and degeneracy.)
It's about time to speak the truth. This 'woke' program isn't 'Marxist' or 'leftist'. Its ideological veneer is merely to veil its true essence, which is ultra-right Jewish Supremacism. What the goy world needs is not a dichotomy of left vs right but the fusion of useful leftism and useful rightism as a good society needs both sane leftism and sober rightism, like people need to use both arms, left and right, and both legs, left and right.
America is an empire and a murder machine. It has invaded nations and destroyed countless lives. US sanctions have also destroyed millions of lives. So, all this George Floyd nonsense is a form of moral tokenism. By making a big splash about Floyd, Americans can fool themselves that they really really care. This is how Political Morality works. It’s about show and tell, symbolism and hype than truth and substance. Never mind the millions killed by the US empire. You see, Americans go weepy-poo about Floyd, and that must mean they are GOOOOOOD people, so who cares if millions have died overseas due to US interventions? It’s rather like a perverted version of Christianity. As long as Christians went weepy-poo about Jesus and a handful of saints, it didn’t matter how many people they killed to expand so-called Christendom. And so, there's total lack of irony among those who paint bombs with BLM signs. Drop and destroy entire villages, including women and children, but the US military and foreign policy must be moral cuz… it makes such fuss about BLM and globo-homo. "How can we be evil in killing 100,000 Arabs when we care so much about Negro saint George Floyd?" They should paint Floyd portraits on all the bombs and missiles fired by the US. How can use of such weapons be immoral when they spread the gospel of Floyd with a bang?
BLM is also a message to the world that White America is over. Jews are saying the Empire is now about Jews ruling over Diversity. Jews used whites to gain world hegemony, but the great plan is to replace white cucks with diverse cucks who will take over as the new managers. So, it will be Jews on top, Asians as managers and engineers, whites as guilt-ridden cucks, and blacks as symbols. And browns can do the menial jobs.
At any rate, Jews did this and got away with it because no one dared to mention that BLM, like globo-homo, has been a weapon of Jewish Power. What do we get instead from ‘conzos’? “We must stand with Israel.” Whether 'woke' or 'cuck', there's hardly any difference. It's all about sucking up to Jews.
Of late, Nick Fuentes has been in the news due to the controversy stirred up by his allies, associates, and fans who constitute what is often referred to as the 'Groyper Army'. At events hosted by Conservatism Inc. such as TPUSA, members of the Groyper 'movement'(if it could be called that) have shown up in force to lob questions ranging from 'inconvenient' to taboo. Most of these questions are related to Con Inc.'s Israel-First-Position, virtual surrender to Globo-Homomania, betrayal of Christian values & tradition, and avid support for Mass Immigration(as long as it is Legal even though most immigrants are not only non-white but overwhelmingly lean toward Democrats as either the anti-white or pro-immigrant party). All those questions add up to the Bigger Question of what exactly is so-called American Conservatism conserving when its main loyalty happens to be to a foreign nation(and to a powerful minority that happens to be the main instigator of anti-white propaganda), its modus operandi is pitiful surrender to every social/cultural fashions pushed by decadent Global Capital, and its position is to welcome the very demographic trends that are not only decimating Republican districts across America but degrading the values that conservative white Americans have stood for. At the very least, the Palestinians have always resisted Zionism and didn't welcome Nakba that wiped Palestine off the map. Palestinians lost, but like the American Indians, they at least have the pride of having put up a fight — and to this day, Palestinians continue to resist the invasion into West Bank by Zionist Caravans whose ultimate agenda is to take all of West Bank(and then expand into neighboring Arab territories). In contrast, the white race has become a total disgrace. There are now two main camps. The white globalists who see whiteness as the ultimate stain on humanity and seek redemption by browning white nations demographically and browning white people genetically. Some in Con Inc. claim to be 'nationalist', but it is what is called 'civic nationalism' which almost makes no sense since most modern democracies have more-or-less similar-sounding values.
For example, all modern societies are agreed that tolerance is a good thing, but the bigger question should be Tolerance By Whom? After all, in an overwhelmingly Muslim society, tolerance is toward non-Muslims, and in a Jewish state like Israel, tolerance is toward non-Jews. So, even if both domains were to agree that Tolerance is good, each nevertheless holds steadfast to the necessity that their society must be mostly Muslim or Jewish. Tolerance doesn't mean that all things are equal in society. It means that the most powerful and dominant group should be tolerant to those fewer in numbers and lesser in power. Thus, a Western Nation can protect and preserve its need to remain a white nation while, at the same time, showing tolerance to non-white minorities. Likewise, straight people who make up the overwhelming majority can tolerate homos and other sexual deviants. But at some point in Western History, the concept of Tolerance turned insidious. Instead of the principle of the powerful/dominant group tolerating the less numerous/powerful groups, it turned into a case of the minority group being regarded as just as essential to society or even more so than the people who've always composed the overwhelming majority. It turned cancerous. Consider the human immune system. The human body tolerates a lot of germs and toxins because we can't live in a perfect world. We've all learn to live and even interact with bacteria, virus, and etc. (Indeed, there are some bacteria that are beneficial to us.) But there is a limit to this. Even if we've learned to co-exist with germs and alien elements, they are not the same as our essential selves. Our skin has lots of germs, but the germs are not our skin. Our guts have even more germs, but the germs are not the intestines. It's like there are Christians in Muslim Iran, but they are not the essential core elements of the nation. They can be(and should be) tolerated and treated kindly, but if Iran were to dispense with Islam as the defining faith, then non-Muslims would have equal claim to the nation, and that could lead to a wholesale transformation of society. From its founding to its creation to its core development, there is no question that America was an extension of European(especially Anglo-Germanic) Civilization in terms of people, culture, and ideas. America developed that way, but due to the fact that the land was taken from native Reds and that many black Africans were imported for slave labor, White America had to learn to tolerate the presence of non-whites and to treat them better. This was tolerance in the proper meaning of the word. But over time, this meaning began to lose out, especially because of the arrival of Jews who, with superior wits and stronger will, became the new elites and because of the ascent of blacks in sports and violence. Usually, the majority has power over the minority in almost all respects. But Jews, though only 2% of the population, managed to gain economic and intellectual dominance over the white majority population. As the ruling elites, mere tolerance was no longer sufficient for Jews. Jews were no longer content with being a tolerated and well-treated minority, as they are in places like Russia and Hungary. They became accustomed to power & domination and demanded Obedience from the white majority population. In effect, Jews went from a minority in need of protection to a minority in want of supremacy. Jews in the US are today more like British overlords in Old Bombay or Old Hong Kong than ghetto Jews in shtetls of the Russian Empire. Tolerance is no longer enough for them, and if anything, they will NOT TOLERATE any voice that dares to dissent from what they themselves prescribe(and indeed decree) to the goy population whom they regard as a subject people. As for blacks, they were no longer content with tolerance(and even guarantee of equal rights) once they began to dominate whites in sports and sex. A primitive-souled people, blacks judge worth mainly by who-can-whump-whose-butt and who-can-hump-whose-ass. As they became the lords of NFL, NBA, and boxing, blacks came to look down on the white majority population as either a bunch of 'faggoty-ass-white-boys' to intimidate & beat up OR skanky white bitchass ho's whose wombs must be colonized by black seed. As such, blacks, like Jews, no longer care for tolerance or even parity with whites. They are convinced that THEY, as the superior race, have the right to rule over all others. In that, both have something in common with Richard Spencer who think he(or his kind) is entitled to rule.
In our world, the meaning of Tolerance has been turned on its head. Instead of the dominant majority tolerating(and even protecting) weaker minorities, we have a case of dominant Jewish minority(with their homo allies) showing zero tolerance toward non-Jews(especially whites) who won't kowtow before Globo-Homo-Shlomo power. It went from "We must tolerate 'gays' for what they are" to "You will be destroyed if you express negative views about sodomy, refuse to bake a 'gay wedding cake', or speak truth to Jewish Supremacist Power(JSP)." But then, we live in a world where neo-imperialism is the most powerful force — not least because the Empire of Judea controls the US as the 'lone superpower', the battleship among nations — , and that means the majority power of every subject nation(and that includes the US as Americans are now subject peoples of Jewish supremacist globalists) must take a backseat to the demands of World Jewry and its proxy globo-homo agents. This is why Jews seek to suppress or destroy nationalism in all nations EXCEPT in Israel, though, to be sure, Jews will exploit one kind of nationalism(even ultra-nationalism) if it happens to be opposed to what they deem to be the bigger enemy, e.g. the Jewish Supremacist Power's support of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists against Russia, the nation Jews hate most at the moment, not because Russia is ruled by evil tyrants but because it said NO to globo-homo that is the proxy force and quasi-spiritual crusade of World Jewry.
Anyway, what is the true significance of Nick Fuentes? By 'significance', I mean something larger than Fuentes himself who, like anyone else, has pros and cons. Fuentes is too inexperienced and 'green' to qualify as the leader of anything, though, to be sure, in the age of the internet, old rules no longer apply, for good or ill. Without the internet, there's no way someone so young and 'heretical' as Fuentes could have gained so much popularity(and notoriety). For him to have amounted to something in the movement, he would have had to pay his dues and gradually work up the hierarchy. In the pre-internet age, someone so young could not have risen to prominence so fast... unless, like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk, big money were behind him to build him up as a Teen Idol of Conservatism Inc. Teen Idols of the early 60s were mostly Italian-American pop stars groomed by the industry to make the rebellious and raucous culture of Rock N Roll more palatable to Middle America. Ben Shapiro is like Paul Anka, and Charlie Kirk is like Fabian. But then comes Nick Fuentes with the irreverent, rebellious, and cantankerous demeanor of the often abrasive Bob Dylan. And yet, he has some of the spirited and happy high-energy of the Beatles. Most likely, Fuentes hasn't gone about carefully crafting a persona for himself like Richard Spencer who, very possibly, practiced in front of a mirror as a preppy Neo-Kiplingite mix of Darth Vader, 007, Tom Buchanan, and Batman. In contrast, Fuentes seems almost utterly lacking in self-consciousness, which can be refreshing but also prone to infantile tantrums. His combination of feisty antics and laughing mockery certainly makes for a pretty entertaining show, fun and amusing in the way Camille Paglia when she first exploded on the scene. Also, his allergy to degeneracy and drugs has prevented him from going over the deep end like Milo with sexual matters and Spencer & co. with alcohol and/or drugs. And his comic side seems to have had an easing effect on his considerable ego, also abated by what seems to be sincere faith in Catholicism. In contrast, certain neo-paganists like Spencer tend to fall into the foolish habit of self-worship as if they're Zarathustra 201 because they read some Nietzsche and watched BATMAN movies too many times.
For a person his age, Fuentes seem to be very well-read and erudite about political and historical matters(though he falls way short in the realm of art & culture as he thinks current cinema is the best of all cinema because of 'muh special effects', considers JOKER to some kind of masterpiece, and prefers the dreadful Kanye West to just about any other musical act), especially when we consider that so many young people today, even those in Ivy League schools, tend not to be serious readers. Though Fuentes has read some books by deep thinkers, his aspiration isn't intellectual or philosophical, let alone prophetic. Rather, he's like a young Pat Buchanan who, from a young age, relished politics as a bloodsport. His forte is political analysis but with a candidness generally missing in establishment media, official narrative, and the 'conop', or controlled opposition, of Conservatism Inc. And it is here that we can glean the significance of Nick Fuentes and what he stands for. Whatever may become of Fuentes, who faces serious drawbacks as holds key advantages, he stands for something in the Moment, something rare all across the political spectrum. Among people in mainstream academia and media, there are surely many people who know as much and much more than Fuentes. And privately, they probably see the truth of much of what he is saying, but the fact is they will lose their positions and status if they were to go off the reservation. As in the old Soviet Union, it doesn't matter how many bright, intelligent, and knowledgeable people there may be. Many people in the upper echelons of Soviet institutions knew the truth beyond official dogma, but they kept mum and mouthed the same platitudes because their position and privileges meant more to them; there was also the real fear of something far worse than ostracism: Possible exile and, in some cases, execution. Much the same can be said of the current West. There are no gulags, but people with so much in terms of wealth, connections, privilege, and status can lose them all IF they were to mouth 'inconvenient' truths. And this is what the mavens of the establishment find so frustrating about People-like-Nick-Fuentes or PLN. It's not that PLN knows more than they do. If anything, due to their connections, they know lots of things that most of us don't know. But they can only say so much because if they don't go by the playbook of JSP(Jewish Supremacist Power), they will be subtly or not-so-subtly disfavored and even destroyed. Also, most people who are on par with Fuentes in terms of wit, intelligence, and energy tend to favor social success and status-climbing uber alles. Privately, they may well know that the MSM is full of shit and that elite institutions are marked by hypocrisy & corruption, but they do not want to jeopardize their chances of making it, especially as opportunities are dwindling for straight whites, especially those even slightly suspected of being 'conservative'. Thus, with most such people, courage and conviction take the backseat to the willingness to be co-opted. "If you can't beat them, join them." For this reason, Fuentes is a rare breed indeed. He truly went against the grain of most people like himself. And then, there are individuals with plenty of courage and boldness. They share with Fuentes the willingness to put their names and faces online and speak their minds. Such courage is all very good except for the fact that such personality types tend to be reckless, shameless, outlandish(& outrageous), and/or crazy. The most famous example, of course, is none other than Alex Jones. Some say Jones is just 'conop'(controlled opposition), but whatever he is, he's really been out there, shouting his 'truths' and berating people for being sheeple. His boldness has been refreshing, but he's also a very kooky character who's gone out to discredit himself with ridiculous rumors and hysterical exaggerations. There are also many mini-alex-jones or wanna-be-alex-jones all over Youtube and the internet. You can credit them with courage and conviction, but they often say crazy things or tend to act retarded, like Owen Benjamin of the Man-didn't-land-on-the-Moon school. Who can forget Paul Nehlen, the once 'normie' candidate who just went crazy when he came upon the JQ. Patrick Little went off the cliff even more dramatically. They couldn't be faulted for courage, but something in the air has tended to destine "Courage + JQ = Nuttery". Fuentes sanely disavowed Nehlen-gone-nuts and smelled a skunk in Patrick Little from day one. And there is Richard Spencer. Spencer isn't a dabbler of crazy conspiracy theories and nutball narratives, but his shameless ego works like alcohol on his brains. Though there are layers within him that are capable of sound analysis, careful reasoning, and intelligent insight, his core/essence is raving egomania, vapid vanity, preening narcissism, and selfishness, all of which inflated his (lack of a)soul with pathetic delusions of grandeur. His lament seems to be, "Why doesn't the world love, admire, and worship me like I love, admire, and worship myself?" Because you're a fool, Richie Rich. To be sure, the first real blowup between Spencer and Fuentes resulted from the latter misconstruing, willfully or not, Spencer's remark about pornography and pedophiles — Spencer was NOT advocating legalization of child porn — , but Spencer has shown, time and time again, a self-destructive tendency toward deranged reactions as if it's a cosmic betrayal if his coterie doesn't see eye-to-eye on things. The fact that Fuentes spotted this character flaw before most of Spencer's associates and strategically distanced himself from Spencer and his circle now seems to be to his credit.
Anyway, in a sense, Fuentes is a rare breed. Generally, sane, sober, and intelligent individuals tend to be cowards, indeed craven ones at that, who will sacrifice integrity and honor for their slice of the System's Pie. At the other end, bold, courageous, and daring individuals tend to be reckless, shameless, and even not quite right in the head. (Then, there are sane and smart dissident members who do possess courage and integrity but aren't politically interested in the bloodsports of everyday politics. They prefer ideas, analysis, and deep criticism over politics as spectator sports. This is why men like John Derbyshire, though long involved in political analysis, have hardly been at the center of attention, though Derbyshire got some unwanted notoriety when he wrote an article that pointed out that young whites[and Asians] have far more to fear from blacks than the other way around. Unlike most such people, Fuentes relishes being part of the public debate and has shown up at even at events where he's been partially or wholly banned. This combination of sanity & smarts, courage & integrity, and passion for politics-as-spectacle is truly rare in our political culture, especially on the American Right as its members face many more taboos than those on the so-called 'left'. Whereas globalism disdains communism and far-left rhetoric, it doesn't feel threatened by the(at least after the end of the Cold War), whereas it still considers any emergence of nationalism, especially among whites, as the biggest problem. Awakening of white identity could mean white elites and white masses must be one people, thus implying white elites must prioritize representing and leading their white masses than serving the globo-homo Jewish-Zionist masters.) Fuentes has been nimble in navigating through the narrow pathway between the Scylla of craven careerism(where success depends on being a cuck-servant of JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power) and Charybdis of reckless courage(that has sent so many bolder members of society off the cliff). Now, this isn't to suggest that Fuentes possesses the brilliance of Odysseus who couldn't have it back home if not for his wits, and he surely has plenty of time to implode into craven careerism or explode with crackpot courage, but since 2016, it's difficult to think of another personality who was associated with the Alt Right, justly or not, who found that difficult but plausible balance between mainstream appeal and 'shitlord' edginess. This 'navigational' ability is exactly what was missing with Richard Spencer, but then, perhaps the Real Spencer would have emerged sooner or later because, at his core, he is a deranged egotist, whereas Fuentes seems to be a genuine Catholic Conservative with racial-historical consciousness(which makes him closest to Patrick J. Buchanan). Spencer sincerely believes he is some awesome Pop Nietzschean hero, the rightful master of the universe, whereas Fuentes seems to truly believe in God and higher powers/values that are beyond the reach of any single individual. Now, Spencer's nuttery would have been more palatable(with even a dash of awesomeness) if his sense of destiny was fueled by some genuine mad passion, the kind that makes for heroes and prophets in times of crisis. But one can't help feeling that his megalomania is little more than the manifestation of his bratty upbringing where his spoiled self was the center of mommy and daddy's affection and showered with all the toys. It's this sense of entitlement that makes him so insufferable. He says the untermensch of the world should look up at his face and see the master, the one to kneel and bow down to.
Now, it's true that white people, especially the Anglos, did gain awesome power in the last several centuries and dominance over much of the world. Indeed, many non-whites and Jews did look up to a face not unlike his as the countenance of the ruling race. But the crucial difference is that Anglo-whites didn't gain such power and prestige by bratty 'entitlementality'. They didn't go around hissing and ranting about how awesome they are. No, they were serious and sober people with work ethic and conviction who made great sacrifices to, often with their own lives, to create a new order at home and abroad. Nothing was handed to them on a silver platter. If Anglos of the past had Spencer's attitude of entitlement — "I should own the world as my oyster... just because..." — , they wouldn't have achieved much of anything. They believed in industry, dedication, sobriety, and teamwork. There was a time when I rather respected Spencer because I believed he did give up much to follow his vision. After all, given his looks and smarts, he could have gone far in Conservatism Inc. if he'd just played along. He could have been another Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, or even more. But he pursued a far more difficult path that required courage and conviction, and it seemed Spencer had something that most of his peers did not. But year after year, it became more apparent that Spencer lacked focus, consistency, commitment, honor — the way he shut down Alternative Right site without notifying Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki was disgraceful — , and worst of all, a sense of judgment, choosing to work with second-raters like Alex Kurtagic. Instead of staking his reputation on one thing and seeing it through completion, he would go from this project to that to another, just leaving a lot of debris and flotsam along the way(and leaving his associates and partners more than a little betrayed). Spencer seems, at once, manically ambitious and pathologically lazy, and the two characteristics fed into each other. If Spencer were a gold-miner, he would be dreaming only of the mother lode and throwing fits if none were found. When reality doesn't measure up to his entitled sense of expectation, Spencer is totally lost and goes off on another of his wild sheep chases. If he had a sense of pacing and stamina, he could have gradually built up the Alt Right as an intellectual and ideological movement with balance of caution and daring, but his projects never amounted to anything. His golden opportunity — potential mother lode of political fortune — was when the Hillary Camp decided to smear Donald Trump with the 'Alt Right' label, a truly stupid move as most Americans had never heard of the 'alternative right'. It was then that the media needed a 'bad boy' spokesman for the Alt Right, and they settled on Spencer. If Spencer had fully appreciated this as good fortune, a chance of a lifetime that comes but once, he would have appreciated it and handled it with care to grow a movement. But being an egomaniac, he convinced himself that the media were all over him because he is so brilliant, awesome, and irresistible. He began to think that he would be a media darling no matter what he did, and that's when he began to throw away the golden nugget that fell into his hands. It's difficult to think of another person in the last 25 yrs who used his political fortune so unwisely and tragically.
One hopes Fuentes will not make the same mistake, and in his favor, despite his own kind of egotism, he has a sense of humor about himself(as well as a sense of limitations), which Spencer has been sorely lacking. Indeed, it's likely that Spencer still doesn't get that no one that matters takes him seriously. Everyone sees him as a sad joke. Spencer could have used his bohemian streak effectively(as we are living in the age of the hipster), but the loutish side(or core) of him won out. Due to the rather straight-and-square qualities of Fuentes — even his fandom for Kanye West is conformity to cultural norms of his generation — , he is culturally far less interesting than Spencer and the more imaginative figures on the Alt Right, but bohemianism is less suited for politics that generally favors the habits of consistency and steadiness. No wonder Sam Peckinpah made it in cinema, not in politics.
Considering the significance of Nick Fuentes as a rarity who represents both All-American Flavors and a Taste for Dissent, he might be useful as a metaphor or a meme. So, what is Fuentes as a metaphor? What kind of American, Conservative, or Youth does he stand for? It is a political consciousness of defiance, independence, and individuality(and of course contradictions). Oddly enough, even though Fuentes isn't an arch-individualist of the libertarian school, the kind that the likes of Charlie Kirk claim to be, he has a strong individual sense of self that won't be cowed by the Libertarian Machine of Conservatism Inc. that, despite claims of individual freedom and conscience, demands that EVERYONE get behind the globo-homo program, welcome mass-immigration-invasion(along with Great Replacement and 'Erasism' or erasure of white identity), mindlessly support Israel, and support state-sponsored suppression of the BDS movement. Something is strange here. Conservative-communitarian Nick Fuentes is far more likely to speak his mind and offer up genuine dissent whereas all those so-called freedom-and-liberty loving 'libertarian-conservatives' are deathly afraid of the Power & Big Money and always looking over their shoulders at what their sponsors and patrons might think.
If American politics has taught us anything, especially since the end of the Cold War and the ascendancy of Jews as the new ruling elites, it is that we simply cannot rely on 'leaders', 'experts', and 'managers' to decide truth and falsehood for us. We must all be more engaged, not least because the US is the lone superpower whether we like it or not. Even if we choose to be apathetic and not care about other nations, the fact is our taxes are being used to commit horrible crimes around the world. The psychopathic Deep State and the neo-imperialist US military destroy other nations, peoples,and cultures. Indeed, what the Deep State is now doing to America was honed to perfection abroad in so many coups, acts of subversion, terrorism, misinformation campaigns, and invasions. While the CIA, Pentagon, and the military-industrial complex were carrying out such crimes all over the world, most Americans were disengaged and apathetic, which was all to the advantage of the Deep State as so much of its actions did little but serve the interests of Jewish supremacists, war profiteers, and homosexual psychos. And in exploiting and exploding entire parts of the world, the Deep State learned countless tricks, all of which are now being used against Americans. Therefore, all the Americans who used to say, "Just leave me alone" or "I don't care about other people around the world" were utterly misguided. While Americans are not obliged to fix the world's problems, they should at least be aware of the crimes committed by its own government and deep state apparatus in other parts of the world since they are funded by US tax-payers and further their aims via the US military as lethal-invasive force. All those Americans who said, "I don't care about the Palestinians" are now waking up to find out that what Americans had blindly enabled Jews to do to the Palestinians, it is now being done by JSP(Jewish Supremacist Power) against white Americans and white Europeans in what could only be called the White Nakba. What goes around comes around. Americans unthinkingly supported the Zionist destruction of Palestinians(or chose to ignore it as 'not my business'), but it only emboldened Jews to stage an encore on a much grander scale against all of the white world. Due to their higher IQ and ambitious nature, Jews were destined to be powerful in the US, but the current state of Jewish Supremacist domination is, to a large extent, the result of so many whites having chosen to be asleep at the wheel while Jews were plotting to take over the US and use it as their private aircraft carrier and super-gangster-bank to dominate all the world. Obnoxious Jews would never have grown so powerful IF more white people had been engaged in politics(or what-is-being-done-with-your-tax-dollars-and-by-whom-and-why) and stood up to the cancerous growth of JSP(Jewish Supremacist Power), but the opportunity was lost, and American Politics has degenerated into a dog-and-pony show of both parties fetching and rolling over for Jewish Supremacist Power.
In a nation as big as the US, one would like to think there would be more young people like Fuentes, but they are relatively rare. This is especially odd considering that Americans like to take pride in themselves as free-thinkers, dissenters, rebels, mavericks, and rugged individualists. Then, why is there such conformity and consensus of thought among both Democrats and Republicans? Reality seems to suggest that the American Self-Image is mostly a myth. While it may be true that Americans are more direct in manners and forthright in emotions, they are no freer in thought and ideas than any other people. Reality says Americans are sheeple like the rest of humanity, and it's rare to find a wolf who dares to howl out the truth(or for the truth). Of course, it's true that there are many more people like Fuentes who've chosen to remain anonymous and/or silent due to fear of ostracism or to natural timidity, but it seems like MOST people, 'left' or 'right', are content to go along with the consensus, if only for the fact that most people have 'social' personalities that are, above all, sensitive to public perception of them. Thus, they fear to rock the boat and risk being shunned. We can see such tendencies beginning with children. This is why brazen dissenters and truth-tellers tend to be rather asocial, if not anti-social, i.e. they are impervious to peer pressure and un-peeved by public opinion. While those who speak their minds often tend to spout lies, nonsense, or craziness, the will to speak freely regardless of risk is a surer way to the truth than speaking to earn pokemon points of political correctness(be it 'right' or 'left') is. A free-thinker or free-speaker may be wrong(even terribly so), but the main thrust of his expression is to honestly convey what is truly in his heart and mind. In contrast, while a correct-thinker could speak the truth(if indeed the Official Narrative happens to be true), his main impetus is to seek approval. Thus, even when a free-thinker is speaking falsely, he is motivated by a will for truth, whereas even when a correct-thinker is speaking truthfully, he is incentivized by want of acceptance. If A is true while B is false, the free-thinker who says B is nevertheless sincere in his conviction that what he says is true, whereas the correct-thinker who says A is, above all, less concerned with truth than with confirmation from superiors and peers. This is why all organizations favor correct-thinkers over free-thinkers. Whether on the Right or the Left, the truth-speakers are more difficult to handle or tame. By Fuentes' own account, he was once approached by Conservatism Inc. but was kicked out the minute he displayed distressing signs of non-conformity, especially where Israel was concerned. And it seems Spencer and others on the Alt Right wanted to shape Fuentes into a good soldier for the movement, but again, Fuentes was too free-spirited to be a mere 'Tom Hagen' type(in THE GODFATHER). Because Fuentes has a strong personality, he tends to stand his own ground and brush away any strings others have tried to tie to his limbs. But the downside of a strong personality, as evinced in Camille Paglia, is the stubborn pride that refuses to admit wrong. That said, Fuentes was quick to disavow Nehlen gone nuts and changed his mind on Donald Trump following the State of the Union speech when the Orange Man said he is for Massive Legal Immigration. So, despite problems of pride, Fuentes hasn't been so rigid and has been flexible enough to modulate his views on key players and current events. Also, his 'optics' seems to be a genuine outflow of his core convictions. After all, the matter of 'optics' is a double-edged sword. Good 'optics' is admirable as sincere outer manifestation of one's core values and manners, but it is disingenuous and contemptible as a veil over an agenda that is crazy or extreme. Saul Alinsky stood for the second kind of 'optics' as he advised social radicals to dress up as normal middle class folks. In the end, whatever 'optics' tokens Richard Spencer may have had was lost when it became clear that he is a nihilist than a moralist at the core. With someone like Spencer, 'optics' can only be a cover over a stinkpot.
We need more PLN(or People-like-Nick-Fuentes) because the contradictions of the current Power Structure and current Official Narrative are too great. When things get too crazy, we need more free-thinkers than correct-thinkers. It's like the boy was most indispensable in the story "Emperor Has No Clothes" because mass delusion had taken hold of everyone from top to bottom. Someone had to say the obvious, i.e. that the lord was made a fool. The fact of the matter is the US and the West are currently ruled by JSP or Jewish-Supremacist-Power. This is so obvious, but almost no one who matters in media, academia, or government dares say anything. Fuentes' critics may argue that he talks 'obsessively' about Jews, but it's really a counter-obsession to the Real Obsession from top to bottom in US media and politics that does little but sing paeans and hosannas to Jews and Israel. Not only are most of media and much of academia dominated by Jews but we are bombarded day in and day out about how wonderful Jews are, how Israel is our 'closest' and 'greatest' ally, how Jews are the most tragic eternal Holy Holocaust people, how all of humanity must apologize to Jews for Shoah(and whatever else Jews gripe about), and how 'antisemitic' it is to notice negative aspects of Jewish power and influence. According to the Power, the US Congress making an ass of itself by giving Netanyahu 6 million standing ovations is not being obsessed with Jews; US politicians making pilgrimages to Israel and pledging to support Zionists uber alles is not being obsessed with Jews; members of both parties appearing at AIPAC conferences and hailing Israel to high heaven is not being obsessed with Israel; favoring Jews for special pardons by governors and presidents is not being obsessed with Jews. Oh no, it's only normal and natural for us to think of Jews all the time AS LONG AS we have happy-feely and worshipful attitudes about Jews. But if you dare to question the gushing worship of all-things-Jewish and ask some inconvenient questions about the JQ, then YOU are deemed to be 'obsessed' with Jews and/or Israel.
Arguably, Fuentes' main contribution to the Real Conservative Movement has been (1) the willingness to address the JQ in a forthright and satirical(necessary due to increasing censorship) manner and (2) keep away from the derangement syndrome that all-too-often has befallen on those who became woke to the truth of Jewish Power. Fuentes sensibly understands, "Just because Jewish supremacism is bad doesn't mean that Nazism was good." Shooting the rat doesn't mean you must shoot your foot. Talking honestly about Jews shouldn't turn you 14/88, but this tendency has been problematic in the Alt Right. Perhaps, it's because the human mind abhors a vacuum; it craves certainty. So, when young ones realize that the Jewish-controlled worldview is seriously wrong, they feel disoriented & confused and reach for strong medicine that sets the world straight, and this is when some of them go 14/88 because it offers a simple and compelling explanation of the All-Evil-Jew. Too many people simply cannot handle complexity and ambiguity. It's like, if an organism is forced out of one shelter and feels exposed to a hostile world, it will scramble for the nearest shelter. Too many goyim who were liberated from the Official Narrative suddenly feel homeless or rudderless and seek out a simple/powerful explanation as to why the world is as it is. Why is it that Fuentes has been immune to this danger? Part of the reason seems to be self-confidence that he can figure things out for himself than having to rely on some radical Grand Theory to explain the Jews. Thus, he could be critical of Jewish Power without the 14/88 baggage that is really for the Tards. Granted, some have accused Fuentes of being a 'Holocaust Denier', especially on account of his sardonic answer to the question about Cookie Monster baking 6 million cookies, but his irony-laden playful response suggested savvy that, mongoose-like, knew how to cavort with current climate of political correctness. Though it came close to being 'dangerous' and even offensive, the real implication was that we aren't supposed to question any aspect of the Shoah Narrative and just swallow the official narrative whole hog. Instead of just denouncing the caller as a 'neo-nazi' or earnestly going the 'denier' route, Fuentes tiptoed around both, something Ramzpaul is also very good at.
Anyway, Nick Fuentes is a useful metaphor or role-meme for all the young people out there(and not just conservatives) who want to speak their minds freely and without fear. Unless one is retarded, autistic, or specious, there is no way any honest person cannot be aware of the stupefying contradictions that define American Life. Just how is it that Jews, the most powerful people in America(and by extension the world) still act like they are members of a victim group? How is that Jews, the most privileged people, berate white endlessly for 'white privilege'? How is it that Jews who pushed Wars for Israel that destroyed millions of Muslim lives in the Middle East and North Africa posture as defenders of helpless Muslims against 'Islamophobic' bigots in the US? Was it rednecks who made all those Hollywood movies with Muslims as little else but terrorists? How is it that Jews who've done so much to lock up tons of blacks(to bring down urban crime) and used gentrification to push blacks out of cities pretend to be the most compassionate friends of blacks while accusing whites and policemen for all the problems faced by blacks, especially when most blacks are killed by other blacks? How is it that Israel that stole nuclear material from the US and has 300 nukes is showered with money and praise while Iran, a nation that has no nukes, is sanctioned endlessly? How is it that Israel and Zionists who(in cahoots with Saudi Arabia) lent support to ISIS and Alqaeda terrorists in Syria get to accuse Syria and Iran as sponsors of terrorism? Just how did homosexuality and tranny business become the holiest things in the US? Just how did a 'secular' movement of the 'gay agenda' turn into a quasi-spiritual one that seeks to place globo-homo symbols in all churches? And of course, anyone who knows anything knows it was the Jews who funded globo-homo madness as their proxy. And considering that blacks are the most aggressive, dangerous, and thuggish group in America that commits the most crime against non-whites of all colors, how is it that blacks are forever portrayed as pure-as-snow victims? And exactly why do we need a 'new cold war' with Russia, a nation with 1/20th of the economy of the US? And if race is just a myth and social construct, how come so much of media, entertainment, and sports are rife with all sorts of blatant racial stereotypes DESPITE the fact that all such outlets are controlled by Jews who claim to be 'liberal'?
The rational, curious, and inquiring minds want to know. The whole purpose of education is to inspire curiosity, sharpen our critical skills, train us to be analytical, teach us to be skeptical & reject matters of blind faith, and to ask tough questions. And at least in the context of current politics, that is precisely what the PLN(or People-like-Nick-Fuentes) stands for. Whatever his faults and shortcomings, Fuentes has been out there asking the tough questions about the real nature of power and privilege in America. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his basic values or tenets, he's been tirelessly asking tough questions and demanding answers day in and day out. It used to be the case that Liberals were once known for criticality, free inquiry, skepticism, and harboring contrarian views, but that was then, this is now. Jews, the most dominant faction among Liberals, now got the power, and they no longer believe it's salient for people to be curious, critical, and inquiring. Why, such people might confront the truth about Jewish History and demand answers about Jewish Power. Therefore, over the years, Jewish Liberals went from defending free speech and encouraging controversy to pushing indoctrination, blind faith, consensus, and conformism. How many times have we heard Jews say, "The debate is over, we won, you lost, shut up, and kneel!"?
Though Fuentes isn't alone in asking the tough questions and commenting on the true nature of power with scales removed from one's eyes, he's arguably been most successful in conveying his message and building himself into an online personality. And he seems to be emboldening many others of his generation with the notion that "It's Okay to Ask Honest Questions." After all, what is the point of living in a democracy and enjoying liberty & rights IF one must always remain herd-like within the reservation of permitted narrative? In a way, all of us are like in a TRUMAN SHOW(with Jim Carrey and directed by Peter Weir). In the movie, Truman has been brought up to believe that he's a happy citizen in the freest society in the world. He can do anything he wants... or so he's been led to believe. But it turns out that the 'free world' comes with all sorts of controls, contrivances, and manipulations. And when Truman begins to doubt the world around him and decides to go off the reservation, he is blocked at every turn by a series of 'accidents' or 'incidents' that he realizes can't be coincidental. In so many ways, our so-called democracy is like that. We are told we are free and that free speech is a right protected by the Constitution, but whenever anyone mutters anything that is 'triggering', he is threatened, silenced, defamed, and/or deplatformed. But when Jews say far more controversial or offensive things about non-Jews, especially whites, it's perfectly okay or even admirable as far the Power is concerned. We are told about the importance of American freedoms and the bad ole days of Joe McCarthy, but if you're a Palestinian-American who supports BDS, a movement for justice for Palestinians, you will be fired and/or blacklisted in half the states by none other than the government. We are told that US is about colorblind justice, but Jews, blacks, and homos seem to be above the law as so many of them are virtually allowed to do as they please. So many white-collar Jewish crooks got off the hook, and so many black street thugs get away with so much. We are told American universities are places for free thought and open discussion, but if you put those principles into practice and try to have an honest discussion about race, Jews, blacks, and/or homos, the school administrators and police will sit back and let antifa thugs and brainwashed PC students use violence and hysteria to shut you down. US democracy was never perfect and always full of hypocrisy, but it is now worse than ever because the new elites are Jews who, unlike the old Wasp elites, sorely lack the capacity for self-awareness and the virtue of self-criticism. Whether it's a Jewish 'liberal' or Jewish 'conservative', it all boils down to "Is it good for the Jews?" With such Jews controlling both political parties, nearly all media and academia, and so much of finance, American democracy has degenerated into something like an 'octocracy'. With Jewish monopoly domination over so many institutions and industries, so much of the so-called 'opposing factions' are essentially the various tentacles of the same octopus. GOP and Democratic Party are merely two tentacles of the Zioctopus. This is why Jews don't care if states turn 'blue' or 'red'. Whether GOP wins or Democrats win, the priority of both is to serve the Jewish Master.
Against this, PLN(or People-like-Nick-Fuentes) have decided to speak the plain truth. They may not always be right, but they really begin from the premise that, "I want to see reality as it really is, and I want to speak the truth as I really feel it." Even with the hideous Jews at Youtube trying to alter the Terms of Service to restrict free-and-honest speech about the Power — Jews at Youtube seem to follow the control manual out of TRUMAN SHOW — , Fuentes and others like him have managed to do all they can to speak truth to power, candidly and without going over the edge like Spencer, Nehlen, and the rest. Who knows what tomorrow will bring, but for now, Fuentes and Groypers represent a good beginning and deserve credit for being one of the few sane and honest voices out there in a political climate and culture so controlled by the fixers and riggers of the official 'left' and 'right'.
Of late, some say there’s an internecine battle brewing within the American Right between Charlie Kirk camp and Nick Fuentes camp. In fact, the Kirk camp doesn’t stand for any kind of real right or real conservatism. Kirk is essentially a bought-and-paid-for shill, a shabbos goy of JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power. He is the ‘acceptable’ face of ‘conservatism’, toothless, gutless, and ball-less. His idea of ‘conservatism’ and ‘American values’ is forever malleable and mutable. It is whatever JSP says it is. This kind of Americanism has only one ‘bill of rights’, and it goes like this: Jews say ‘We win, you lose.’ Whatever the Jews want, they eventually get by any means necessary. Jews wanted open borders and got it. Jews wanted ‘free trade’ and got it. Jews wanted to rape the Russian economy in the 90s, and they got to do so. Jews wanted gambling to spread like a virus, and now it’s everywhere. Jews wanted pornography for children, and now there is easy access to porn by kids. Jews wanted ‘gay marriage’ and got it. Jews wanted Wars for Israel, and Middle East now lies in ruins. Kirk stands for nothing but "I obey my Jewish masters." He is not a conservative but a con-servant of JSP. He is a CILO, or conservative-in-label-only. This is why the Kirk camp gets so triggered and antsy about the so-called ‘Groypers’(generally allied with Nicholas J. Fuentes) asking inconvenient questions. When confronted with tough questions by independent minds, the con-servants and cucks squirm like worm under a hot sun and demand what amounts to SJW-like ‘safe spaces’ from those courageous individuals who refuse to read from the preordained script. Anyway, what follows are some suggestions for ‘Groypers’ to consider in their formulation of questions in future TPUSA and other such cuckservative events.
1. When Big Banks faced financial doom in the 2008 crisis, they were bailed out by all taxpayers regardless of ideology. Right or Left, up or down, we all had to contribute taxes that bailed out Wall Street. Then, do Big Banks have the right to deny service to people based on creed or ideology? If they are bailed out by everyone, shouldn't they serve everyone?
2. Conservatives and Libertarians say private companies have the right to deny service to anyone. Does this apply even when companies are virtual monopolies and serve as de facto public space for all? Does Google, a virtual monopoly as Search Engine, have the right to rig results to favor Democrats and the Deep State over Populists and Republicans? If your answer is ‘yes’, should phone companies have the right to deny service based on creed or ideology?
Also, didn't companies like Google and Facebook become monopolies precisely because they started out by promising neutrality and fairness to all sides? After all, if Google or Facebook had declared their ideological biases from the outset and stated policies that would favor one political party over another, most conservatives would have rejected them and opted for another platform. But everyone, regardless of ideology, signed up to use Google and Facebook on the promise of fairness. So, when these companies now use their monopoly muscle to favor one side over another, it is a total breach of their terms of promise to us. They come up with ever-shifting 'terms of services', but it is they who violated the biggest term of all, that of fairness that attracted so many people to their sites on assurance of neutrality. If I gained market dominance in the ice cream industry by promising quality ice cream to everyone and then used my monopoly position to deny ice cream to certain groups, I would have violated the very principle that made me become the king of ice cream. After all, had I started my company by stating my intention of denying ice cream to certain groups, many people would never have bought ice cream from me, and my company would never have gained monopoly position. It seems Google and Facebook hustled us. They became monopolies by promising fairness to all sides, but once they had the muscle, they decided to favor one side over others. Big Tech companies treat us like Zionists treat Palestinians in Occupied West Bank where Jews get the best land and most water while Palestinians get far less or none at all.
3. When true conservatives and dissident rightists are deplatformed or denied service by monopolies, the reply of cuckservatives is, "They’re private companies, and they can do whatever they want." But if monopolies were to deny service to Zionists on grounds that Zionism is about the destruction of Palestinian nation and culture, would people like you and Charlie Kirk just shrug your shoulders and say private companies can do as they wish? I’d wager people like you will insist that the state must step in to make sure every private firm is open to business with Israel. If the private sector can do as it wishes, why do cuckservatives support state-sanctioned suppression of BDS that calls for justice for Palestinians who are living under apartheid conditions in West Bank and being mowed down by IDF death squads in Gaza? Why shouldn't private individuals and companies choose not to do business with Israel for the same reason that many chose not to do business with Apartheid South Africa in the 1980s? It's funny that cuckservatives defend the right of mega-corporations to sanction little people but never defend the right of private individuals and small businesses to reject business with Israel on account of its international crimes. There is a definite pattern here. Cuckservatism is about corporate domination over little individuals. Its position is monopoly companies can deny service to little individuals, but little individuals cannot say NO to business with the gangster state of Israel.
4. Mass Immigration of peoples from Europe into the New World led to what some call the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians. Also, mass-immigration of whites, blacks, and Asians led to the native people of Hawaii being reduced to a minority in their own ancestral homeland. Mass-immigration of Jews into Palestine led to the Nakba Pogroms that reduced Palestinians to a minority in Israel and an occupied people in West Bank, which continues to be colonized by caravans of Zionist invaders. And Serbs lost their historical homeland of Kosovo permanently to Albanians because of massive Muslim migration under Ottoman Rule. While it’s true that immigration led to rise of new civilizations, there is no doubt it also led to tragedies of natives and indigenous folks losing their land and culture to others. Thus, isn’t it about time to admit the connection between mass immigration, a form of demographic imperialism, with what is tantamount to ‘genocide’ in the long run? Just ask the Palestinians. By the way, since white people took the New World from the indigenous folks, they have a moral obligation to those native people but to peoples all over the world whose lands were NOT taken by whites. And if whites really care about the American Indians, the most tragic people of the New World, then they will stop mass-immigration and do their utmost to revive and restore American Indian communities.
5. We’ve been told by the Mass Media and Mass Education/Indoctrination that ‘Diversity Is Our Strength’? First, isn’t Diversity in the New World the product of imperialism, conquest, genocide, and slave trade? Native reds and browns were conquered by whites. That led to Diversity #1. Then, Latin whites, Anglos, and Jews brought over black African slaves. That led to Diversity #2. Then, white elites called on more mass-immigration to pan out and take all the lands from the native peoples. That was Diversity #3. Second, if Diversity is a panacea for all problems and if it is no problem for the US to become a white-minority nation, then how come white-minority nations of Latin America with so much racial diversity are relative failures, and why are people in those nations running away from their own diversity to come to the US or Canada that are still majority white? Also, we are told that India is a very diverse place. If so, it must be a wonderful, magical place. And yet, it seems countless Indians want to flee from the Diversity in India and come to UK, US, Australia, and Canada that are white majority nations. What gives? It seems people in very diverse nations want to flee from the chaos of diversity and come to white majority nations that are, as yet, less corrupt and better-managed.
6. It’s been said that white people who want to maintain the racial and cultural integrity of their own nations are ‘white supremacists’. But why are they so characterized when they only want to preserve what is theirs and have no interest in ruling over other peoples? Aren’t the real ‘white supremacists’ all those non-whites who want to run away from their own people, culture, and nation to go live in white-majority nations? It seems those non-white immigrants prefer white people as rulers, neighbors, friends, associates, lovers, and mates OVER their own kind. If non-whites want to permanently flee their own peoples and cultures to come to live in white majority nations, don’t they prefer whites over their own kind? Thus, aren’t they the ‘white supremacists’ because they see whites as preferable and superior to their own kind and other non-white folks? After all, non-whites don’t want to move to non-white nations, especially black ones.
7. Jews in the academia and media bitch and whine about whites all the time. They even created something called ‘whiteness studies’. Most Jews are globalists and push for globo-homo, replacist immigration in goy nations, and vice industries such as gambling, pornography, and drugs. Jewish Hollywood routinely features whites as villains and evildoers, the ones to blame for all the problems of the world. If Jews feel this way about whites and if they insist that Diversity is so great, why have Jews historically followed after whites and chosen to live in white-majority nations? Who’s stopping Jews from moving to more diverse nations of Latin America or India? Why don’t Jews in white nations all move to black Africa or Muslim nations if they have so many issues with whites while claiming to just love non-whites? If Jews prefer non-whites and love immigration, how about they become immigrants to non-white nations. They can have the cake and eat it too. They get to be immigrants again and can forever live with non-whites than with baddy bad whites.
8. Jews often invoke the history of Europeans and Christianity to guilt-bait whites into a position of moral inferiority vis-a-vis Jews. Now, it’s true that Europeans and Christianity have had a blood history, but then, so have all other peoples. If whites must be reminded of their bloody history, isn’t it about time to remind Jews of their genocidal role in Bolshevik communism, their prominent role in the Atlantic Slave Trade(especially to Latin America), their financial funding of Western Imperialism, their selling of opium to the Chinese, their looting of the Russian economy in the 90s(that led to the rise of Putin who put an end to it), and their mass pogroms against the Palestinians that led to Nakba?
9. If people like you and Charlie Kirk believe in equal justice for all, how come you're so silent about how people like Arnon Milchan, who freely admitted that he spied and stole for Israel, can visit the US and walk freely without consequences? How come so many of the crooks pardoned by presidents have been Jewish ones? Think of Marc Rich and Jonathan Pollard. Think of the Jewish crook(who facilitated illegal immigration and exploited workers) pardoned by Trump. It seems Jews are above the law and have a license to steal and kill. Also, if people like you and Kirk believe in colorblind justice for all of humanity, why do you favor Zionist occupiers over Palestinian occupied in the West Bank? Palestinians lost the bulk of their homeland in the Nakba Pogroms of 1948, and Zionist caravans continue to steal land & water from Palestinians in the West Bank, but US politicians only praise and serve Israel.
10. If diversity is so important that we need Affirmative Action for less qualified blacks in higher education, why doesn’t anyone make the same case for sports? NBA and NFL are black-dominated even though blacks are 13% of US population. There are some whites but virtually no brown Mexicans, Asians, and Muslims. Sports are a national pastime and a hugely symbolic part of Americanism, and yet, there isn’t much diversity in sports. Should there be affirmative action for sports for the sake of 'diversity'? And do you think NBA and NFL teams will be better if they added more Asians, Hindus, Muslims, and Mexicans to the mix? After all, we are told ‘diversity is our strength.’
11. Charlie Kirk and others like him have said America is an idea. They say 'gay marriage' is American Ideal. Then, does that mean America was not America prior to the rise of globo-homo values? They say America is about freedom and democracy. Then, was America not 'America' when it had slavery? They say America is about respect for life. Then, was America not 'America' when American Indians were being wiped off the Great Plains to make way for endless waves of immigrant-invaders? Was America not 'America' when women didn't have the vote? If the military were to take power in America tomorrow, would America no longer be 'America' because of demise of democracy? If so, what would America be? Isn't a nation what it is regardless of ideology, e.g. Russia was Russian prior to communism, during communism, and after communism. Likewise, America is America regardless of ideology or 'ideas' as long as its historic people make up its core populace.
Also, if America is about democracy and individual liberty, is any nation with democracy and individual liberty also 'America'? If America is an idea, then surely any people and place that practices the same ideas must also be 'America'. Mexican constitution is virtually identical to the US Constitution, and Mexico has democratic elections. So, is it also 'America'?
Finally, if America is an idea, then surely you know that ideas can go from place to place. People don't need to come to America to have American values and ideas since they can adopt and practice those ideas in their own nations. If someone invents a way to make fire, you don't need to stand where he is at to have the fire. You can learn the trick and make fire in your own place. So, if America is an idea, that idea can be adopted by any people anywhere around the world, and there is no need for all of them to come to America to enjoy 'American Ideas'. Ideas can come to you; you don't have to come to the place where the idea originated.
12. Can you repeat these historical truths? American Indians were wiped out by mass immigration. Blacks were once slaves in America. Jewish communists played a key role in Bolshevism that led to deaths of tens of millions of Christian Slavs. US aided Zionists in the Nakba pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map even though Palestinians did no harm to America.
13. Do you believe that American ideas and values are so outstanding that they should be adopted by all peoples around the world? Should they be the beacon of hope for all mankind? Does this include Israel? Should it also have 'gay marriage', deracination, and inclusive-invasive mass-immigration from all over the world?
14. People like you and Charlie Kirk say that we should support Israel because it tolerates and even celebrates homos and trannies. People like you say neighboring Muslim nations throw homos off roofs. But facts say otherwise. Israel is closely allied with Saudis that execute homosexuals. Also, Israel lent support to ISIS fighters in Syria who really do throw homos off roof-tops. Israel aided ISIS and Alqaeda against the Assad regime that is a tolerant, secular, and modernizing force in the Arab world. How do you square these contradictions?
15. Given that Jewish takeover of Palestine led to some of the biggest 'gay' & 'tranny' parades, orgies, and celebrations in the world, do you think Israel should now be called 'Sodom and Gomorrah'? Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah. Is that something Christian Zionists should celebrate? Did Jews really need to retake the Holy Land because having mass homosexual orgies there is the spiritual and moral priority of Christian Zionists?
THE GODFATHER(directed by Francis Ford Coppola and based on Mario Puzo’s novel) is an instructive movie on the nature of power, i.e. that the dynamics of rivalry isn’t only about intelligence and ability but personality and temperament. After all, smart people can be lacking in will and audacity — risk-taking is an essential element of power. Or, they could be bold and confident to the point of recklessness — consider what happened to Hitler when he attacked the USSR. There are many fine things about THE GODFATHER, and one is about the Machiavellianism of Personality as guide to Power. As the story, in parts I and II, goes from end of World War II to the Cuban Revolution — the prequel section of part II deals with young Vito Corleone’s rise in the 1920s — , there wasn’t enough time to go into nitty-gritty details of strategy and negotiations. Instead, there was a broad narrative of how the Corleones, the top mafia family in the New York area, got embroiled in a war with the other families over the issue of Narcotics. THE GODFATHER PART 2 is somewhat more detailed, but we don’t learn much beyond how Hyman Roth attempts to lure Michael Corleone into Cuba(a sinking ship) & have him assassinated and how Michael Corleone makes counter-moves in anticipation of Roth’s agenda. If THE GODFATHER movies had been a TV series(like BOARDWALK EMPIRE), they might have delved into the minutiae of sharp minds maneuvering in the ruthless game of power. But even at 6 hrs and 15 minutes, there is only enough time to portray the Corleones and their inner circle in emotional and dramatic terms. What comes across most memorably are the PERSONALITIES of the characters. And from the movie — and from countless examples from real life — , we know that personality matters. While no one gets far without brains, how far one is willing to go depends on will, drive, and nerves, all of which are shaped by personality. We see this with dogs and cats. Even among dogs or cats of same intelligence, dog personality or ‘canality’ or cat personality or ‘felinality’ goes a long way in shaping dog or cat behavior. Some dogs are more aggressive and bold. Some are more timid and cautious. Some cats are fierce and aggressive. Some are mild and gentle. In the end, Hitler was undone by his personality and temperament. And what drove Mao to the madness of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution owed much to his manic personality. If Hitler had died in the late 30s and if someone like Hermann Goering had taken over, there would have been far less likelihood of war, let alone World War II. Ultimately, it was Hitler’s egotism & megalomania, burning will, and hubris that drove him to the reckless decision of attacking Soviet Union, whereupon the stakes became win-all or lose-all. Ideology holds meaning and logic independent of personality, but in the end, it is personalities, not ideology, that govern the world. Therefore, ideology is molded according to whims of personalities with power. So, despite the ideology of National Socialism, its fate could have been very different if led by someone with a personality starkly different from that of Hitler. And consider the contrast between Mao and Deng in Chinese history. Both came to prominence as men committed to communist ideology, but whereas Mao was megalomaniacal and visionary, Deng was pragmatic and conciliatory. Can people control their own personality? Yes, to an extent. On their paths to power, both Hitler and Mao could be compromising and yielding. They had to be as they were at a political disadvantage. But upon gaining absolute power, their sheer egotism made it nearly impossible for either to restrain one's prophetic vision of history and one's role in it. In contrast, Stalin, despite his own megalomania, was steered by a more anxious personality. Even as a gambler, he played patiently, slowly increasing his number of chips and waiting to scavenge off the reckless moves of others.
What can be learned about the figures on the Alt Right and Dissident Right based on their respective personalities? And which GODFATHER figures do they resemble most? Finally, a question worth asking but that can only be answered by the actual practices of the figures of the Alt Right and Dissident Right is, “Can people transcend the limits of their personality flaws and choose the wiser path?” Granted, one could argue that the problem is less a matter of personality-flaws than personality-balances. In other words, every personality trait has value in the right dosage and at the right time. It’s like salt is an essential ingredient in most cooking, so the problem isn’t salt per se but insufficient or excessive salt. The personality trait of boldness is necessary in power. In sports or any competition, one can’t get anywhere without making moves that carry the element of risk. Every move on the chessboard is both an advantage and disadvantage. Every throw by the quarterback can mean a touchdown or an interception. Excessive conservatism is cautious to a fault. Caution is generally good, but too much means fear of adventure, the necessary bridge to victory. The key element in the rise of the West over the East had to do with cultural personality(which could be genetic as well). Asians had comparable intelligence and basic elements of high civilization but lacked the Western spark and spirit. Now, one could argue that Western Adventurousness led to imperialism, genocides of non-whites, slave trade, and myriad other ‘crimes’, but it also unified the world and transformed all of humanity with new paradigms and possibilities. It was tragic but also triumphant.
Now, which GODFATHER characters do Alt Right and Dissident Right figures resemble most? Let’s begin with the MSM’s favorite ‘Face of the Alt Right’ Richard Spencer.
1. Richard Spencer = Carlo Rizzi
In some ways, one might say this comparison is most unfair. Unlike Carlo, Spencer does have a mind. He is capable of cool analysis like Tom Hagen. He wants to lead than follow. He has the vision thing, and his admirers might ague he has something of Michael Corleone. Also, Spencer’s unmistakable Waspiness may warrant comparisons with Senator Geary than with an Italian-American boy like Carlo. Then, why Carlo? Because Spencer’s fatal flaws are very much like Carlo’s. Vain, narcissistic, petty, resentful, egotistical, spoiled, and bratty. It appears Carlo grew up adored and favored among family and friends because of his good looks. That’s why Connie, the daughter of the top Mafia don, married him. He thought he could get far with his cookie-cutter looks and charm, but when the Corleone’s didn’t place him in a position of importance, he grew bitter and took his frustrations out on Connie. Also, he’s incapable of personal loyalty, a trait shared by Spencer who's been unable to keep the trust of his closest allies and wife. Spencer has the 100x the mind of Carlo and the potential to be an importance person, but his shallow personality has led him to series of humiliations and setbacks. All said and done, Spencer expected to coast on his looks and persona. He thought the Media were swooning all over him because he’s so provocative with ideas and the girls were putting out to him because he’s so handsome. The latter may be true, but the media were only using him. Even so, he had a golden opportunity as the world, if only for a moment, descended on him as the Face of the Alt Right. But then, he blew it all away with reckless gestures and stupid alliances. When a man of intelligence has the personality of a fool, personality wins. For example, Spencer’s recent spat with Nicholas Fuentes makes no sense. Fuentes is an up-and-coming 20 yr old. Spencer is twice the age with double the experience. He should be playing the role of captain of an exciting movement, but he’s wasting his time squabbling with captains of smaller ships who just wanna do their own thing. Spencer pontificates about the vanguard but is too busy turning his head at those behind or beside him to fix his gaze toward the finish line.
2. Nick Fuentes = Moe Greene
Nick Fuentes’ fame or notoriety owes to his ridiculously young age. As a freshman in college, he was quickly spotted/scouted as a bundle of energy, a new face with quick wit and fiery passion. He is exactly the kind of person that Conservatism Inc and Neocons want on their side. The problem is people with real intelligence and passion don’t want to be told what to think and do. It’s no wonder that Establishment Politics usually ends up with those with brains but lacking in passion or those with passion but lacking in brains. Those with brains are likely to know what is really happening but generally lack the spine to stick up for their own beliefs and convictions. So, most brains just go along and become ‘paycheck conservatives’. Well, it’s a living. As for those with passion but no brains — the average SJW type — , they are happy to be barking dogs of the System. It seems the ONLY people with real brains and real passion in the System are Jews because the status quo allows Jews to be passionately Jewish and work for Jewish interests. As white goyim aren't allowed passion for their own identity, they must mute white consciousness if they seek admittance into the System. White goyim in the West are essentially like Palestinians in West Bank. Their only chance of entry is by accommodating themselves as collaborators to the Jewish Supremacist System. Because Fuentes has a genuine independent streak and refused to play ball with Neocon Inc., he was expelled by Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, and he chose the path of Indie-Conservatism. For awhile, he was associated with the Alt Right, but again, his independent personality recoiled from what he found to be morally ugly(the flirtation with Neo-Nazi elements) or strategically foolish(the optics debate on political aesthetics). Fast mind and fiery heart have served Fuentes well in terms of integrity. He missed a golden opportunity in career in politics by daring to mention the JQ during his stint at Daily Wire, but this is different from Spencer’s dropping the ball. Fuentes lost out because of personal honesty, whereas Spencer went from failure to failure by making awful alliances with morons and clowns like Andrew Anglin, Matt Heimbach, Chris Cantwell, and etc. As Ramzpaul said, the Alt Right’s advantage was in being an alternative to both Neocon GOP and old Neo-Nazi garbage.
So far, the positive qualities of Fuentes have been mentioned. What are his negative sides, and why is he like Moe Greene? Fuentes is often immature and bratty, on occasion even obnoxious. He is hot-tempered and goes off the rails when he feels slighted, often disproportionately. His mudslinging with James Allsup made both look stupid, but Fuentes came off worse because his nastiness was so vicious, unrelenting, and unhinged. Nick the Knife relishes a fight, and he just doesn’t know when to stop. It’s not enough to slice or stick the guy. Fuentes has to push the blade all the way in, twist it, and then rub salt on the wound. There is almost a sadistic glee in his personal attacks on people that take on aspects of torture porn. Also, because of excessive pride, Fuentes is too easily dismissive of views and ideas that doesn’t jibe with his worldview and morality, and this is especially true when it comes to Catholic vs Pagan debate. His self-righteous sadistic side just can’t resist putting on the robe of the grand inquisitor and insulting neo-pagans and stretching them on the rack. Like Moe Greene, he can’t check himself when he gets into a fight. It quickly becomes personal and toxic, and it’s kill-or-be-killed. Also, because Fuentes is too quick to judge, he has a tendency to willfully misread others' statements and intentions. When it came to Spencer vs Fuentes I, Spencer had the moral advantage because Fuentes willfully misinterpreted what Spencer meant by pedophiles and child porn. But in Fuentes vs Spencer II, Spencer is clearly in the wrong because he dug up the hatchet and flailed away at Fuentes(and just about everyone else in what seemed like a demented rant to reclaim the Alt Right as a Spencentric Movement). Perhaps, Fuentes is drawn to Catholicism because he intuitively surmises that his hot ego, if unregulated by faith in God, can easily fly off the handle like that of fellow Latin Mussolini. It’s like a willful dog needs an especially powerful leash to restrain it from running wild and crazy. But for Fuentes, his Catholic leash has become more than a check on his emotions. It has become a check on his intellect and imagination, even to the point of dismissing evolution and entertaining the retarded notion of geocentrism. It has also become an easy whip of moral indignation. In this, Fuentes has something in common with the young Pat Buchanan who, as a young conservative, was an odd-man-out in Columbia Journalism school filled with Liberals(as recounted in his delightful autobiography RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING). Buchanan always had brains and passion, but his overt Catholicism limited his imagination and scope as a thinker, culture critic, and politician. It’s interesting that Fuentes is most like Buchanan but most admires Donald Trump who, being free of religious dogma, has been able to forge a new style of politics. In the end, the problem isn’t religiosity per se. It is dogmatism and excessive piety as crutch of righteousness. Some of Fuentes’ religious rambling is as counter-factual and unthinking as the PC derangement of the SJW-NPC types.
3. Jim Goad = Sonny Corleone
To be fair to Jim Goad, he insists he’s not part of the Alt Right or even Dissident Right. Goad sees himself as a maverick thinker, maybe in the tradition of Gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson. His columns read like Mike Royko writing for Hustler. Like Fred Reed, he is as likely to piss off the Right as the Left. But given that the current dogma is PC, a tool of proggy globalism, Goad’s worldview is currently more aligned with the Right. Same is true of Youtube personality Styxhexenhammer666 who, under normal circumstances, would not be considered as part of the Right. But because of PC-domination in industry and institutions, even a larping ‘satanist’ like Styx often finds himself making common cause with the Right against the Zio-Globo-Homo-‘left’ that spearheads efforts to shut down Free Speech and Free Spend. If one knows Jim Goad only by his columns, one will have noticed the smarts(of books and streets), toughness, and wit. Goad is often a gifted writer with turns of phrases that are as humorous as ham-fisted. If Curly(of the Three Stooges) were a polemicist than a clown, he might have written like Jim Goad. Funny, inspired, crazy, and exaperating. Goad is also an equal opportunity offender, which is what makes him most like Mike Royko, albeit in a bare-knuckle and breaking-the-balls way. Also, just because he hates your enemies doesn’t mean you likes you any better. Goad attacks both SJW’s and religious types for delusional thinking and holier-than-thou piety. He sees all kinds of religiosity and dogma as a crutch for weak minds and infantile souls. His view of life is essentially the school of Mean Streets existentialism. Everyone must accept his or her own journey in life, take the blows, give as well as they get, lick their wounds, and crawl back home to bed. Goad says his views changed a lot over the years, and some of his pieces are very confessional. Goad doesn’t confess to priests but to the world. One might find parallels between Goad(as his own god) and the Harvey Keitel character in BAD LIEUTENANT, albeit with a much bigger pud as Goad often likes to point out. There is a reason why Goad has a cult-following. In a world with so much born-again hokum on the ‘right’ and save-the-world hysteria on the ‘left’, some people find Goad’s hard-boiled ‘Mike Hammer’ style of writing refreshing and even liberating. You can’t get any more honest than writing a confessional piece about how you got your penis sucked by a black teenager in your youth.
But there is a disturbing aspect to Jim Goad’s character, and one wonders if Goad’s toughness is genuine or an exaggerated defensive mechanism concealing a fragile soul. People who always act tough are often trying to hide something wounded and vulnerable that they can’t or don’t want to deal with. Goad has spoken of his abusive father, but his own behavior and persona have often been abusive to the point of pathology. It’s fair game for Jim Goad to make fun of other people’s looks when such is relevant. If some fat green-haired feminist passes herself as hot stuff, mocking her looks is justified because they’re part of her shtick. Or one can’t fault Goad for making Matt Forney’s obesity because Forney has positioned himself as sexual guru or hot stuff with women. But when Roger Ebert was lying in bed in a pitiable state dying of cancer, it took a truly demented mentality to mock Ebert's appearance. It’s especially sickening when one considers Jim Goad’s first wife died of cancer, and he himself had brain tumor removed. It would have been fair game to attack Ebert’s politics or opinions, but his physical state had NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, and Goad’s nastiness just seemed vicious and cruel. But Goad is so often hotheaded, angry, thuggish, and blowing steam from every orifice that he seems unaware of how monstrous he can be. And it is in this respect that Goad is like Sonny Corleone whose rage often gets the best of him. Granted, Goad is smarter than Sonny, but this makes Goad’s dementia even more infuriating as one would think a man who has been through so much should know better. Rage may feel good and even win over fans who like a good fight, but it can just as easily lead men astray... which is what happened with Goad in his encounter with the Irony Bros.
4. Irony Bros = Assassins
Irony Bros seem to have Alt Right or Dissident Right sympathies, but their main shtick is to mock anyone in the movement who takes himself too seriously. Beardson is reportedly an atheist whereas Shawn is a Christian, but there is hardly any difference in their irreverent approach to their targets, which could be just about anyone. Beardson gained notoriety by baiting Matt Forney, but it seems they've become ‘friends’ since. So, everything the Irony Bros does has to be taken with a grain of salt. They are driven by trollogy, not ideology, even if they may have ideological leanings in the rightward direction, not least because the enemy of free speech and freedom in general now comes from the globo-homo ‘left’.
One could argue that Irony Bros are bad for the movement. Spencer surmises that they might be working for the Fed(LOL). Some might say they are toxic in their nihilism and nastiness. All very true, but one can’t expect too much from trolls. Irony Bros are essentially jesters and pranksters, like the Yippies in the 1960s. For that very reason, they can be an auto-subversive element on the Right. But then, a movement led by people who can’t sometimes laugh at themselves has become a bit stiff and stodgy. Furthermore, while Irony Bros sometimes do ‘punch to the right’, they can be merciless in trolling the ‘left’. The trick is not to fall into the trap of taking anything by them too seriously, which is precisely what Jim Goad did in the now infamous Luke Ford Saturday Night Massacre Livestream. Ironically, even though Matt Forney and Jim Goad want to tear off each other’s balls, they have one thing in common in having been trolled by Beardson Beardly. Irony Bros are essentially like hired-killers in THE GODFATHER. They just enjoy the ritual bloodbath of massacring sacred cows and big egos. So, just like the hired goons in THE GODFATHER will mow down anyone for the right price, Irony Bros will spray bullets onto any target for good times. Naturally, one cannot have a honest or ‘good faith’ argument with such personalities, but Goad fell for the trap, exposing himself to ridicule and death by thousand cuts. Irony Bros mow down Jim Goad:
5. Matt Forney = Philip Tattaglia
Some people say Matt Forney is a talented writer, but I never bothered to read his books or articles. I did skim over his attack on Ann Sterzinger, and it just made everyone look foolish. The general impression from his dealings with other people suggests an insecurity that hides behind exaggerated manhood, conviction, or animus. More than anything, he seems eager to be accepted by his 'superiors'. So, for a while, he was the sidekick of Roosh. Never mind he made a rather ridiculous figure for Manosphere and advice on picking up women. Then, when Richard Spencer’s wing of the Alt Right foolishly attacked Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Forney piled on, especially by calling out on Johnson’s reputed homosexuality, as if playing lapdog to Spencer & Co. might score some points with the Big Boys. Of course, Spencer felt nothing but scorn for such an eager-beaver. Now, this isn’t to say that Forney’s revulsion for Johnson wasn’t genuine, but his frothing-at-the-mouth during the ugly incident came across as 'desperate to be with the in-crowd'. It’s like what an unpopular fat kid does to up his chances of admittance into a fraternity. At the very least, someone like Goad has the spine to go his own way and stand on his own two feet. In contrast, Forney is a stray dog in search of a master who may put a collar around it for keeps. And it is this side of Forney that makes him like Philip Tattaglia. Tattaglia is a big time gangster but a pimp. He lacks big ideas and has to latch onto Barzini and Sollozzo. As Vito Corleone said of Tattaglia, he couldn’t have outfought Santino(Sonny) on his own. Indeed, Goad vs Forney was like a wolf mauling a bulldog, that was until Forney was saved by Aurini the dane or Irony Bros weasels. That said, it seems Forney in recent yrs has grown more independent in will and ego. His Terror House Magazine may be a start of something important if it attracts writers of talent and insight. Maybe Forney finally learned the lesson of his former hero Jim Goad: If you're naturally a strange and eccentric kid, you have to forge your own path and not give a damn what others think.
6. Mike Enoch = Sollozo the ‘Turk’
Mike Enoch of The Daily Shoah has been one of the most abrasive and hard-hitting members of the Alt Right. His approach is no-holds-barred and cuts to the bone. He strikes fast and hard, and members of the MSM that tried to hoodwink him got owned. Also, because he’s not a dreamy-eyed visionary like Spencer, he focuses on real power and real problems. His head isn’t up in the clouds with fantasies of conquering stars and being Darth Vader of the galaxies. He stares closely at those with real power in the West, and of course, it’s the Jews. When it comes to dissecting real power and cutting open the cancerous tumor, Enoch is like a surgeon with a butcher’s knife. He is utterly brutal but has a keen surgical eye in spotting the heart-of-the-matter amidst the bloodletting. Because of Enoch’s slaughterhouse Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre approach to political analysis, he isn’t for everyone, which is precisely why his show is called The Daily Shoah. And it is for this brutal honesty that Enoch is like Sollozzo the Turk. Whatever one may say of Sollozzo, he is the most honest gangster in NY. The Corleones and other families put on airs of respectability and take care to appear semi-legitimate. Even the Five Families that are drawn to the narcotics trade want it keep it ‘controlled’. Sollozzo, in contrast, has fewer inhibitions about what gangsterism is really about. Also, he enjoys doing his own killings. He feels no shame in being a hoodlum. He wears corruption on his sleeve. In a similar vein, Enoch is a brutally honest Alt Right thug. Nick Fuentes might say Enoch has troublesome optics. Undoubtedly, Mike Enoch has been one of the most uninhibited of Alt Right figures. He doesn’t shroud his racial politics with talk of Faustian-Nietzschean something-or-other or Christian sanctimony. As far as he’s concerned, Jews run just about everything, and Jews shit on whites. So, whites must shit back on Jews. Jews are a bunch of crooks and gangsters, and they must be exposed as such, and whites must fight like gangsters to expose and shame the Jews. Enoch’s bear-wrestling style of Alt Right politics certainly has its advantages. It is more honest than most.
But he shares the ugly aspects of Sollozzo as well. Sollozzo is so hellbent on getting what he wants that he oversteps the bounds of gangsterism. Being an honest crook is one thing, but there is a thing called honor even among thieves. Sollozzo is such a total gangster that he will break every rule in the book to get things his way. No system and no movement can operate on sheer brutality alone. Sollozzo is so dogged and driven that after his first hit on Vito Corleone, he goes for a second attempt at the hospital. And given his nature, no one trusts him. Either you side with him or you kill him(because he will kill you otherwise). In the end, it didn’t turn out so good for Sollozzo. Michael read him correctly and figured that either Sollozzo is killed or he will keep coming after the Corleones one way or another. In a similar manner, Enoch is nothing if not dogged in his pursuit of the enemy, namely the Jews. But because he’s so aggressive and brutal in his animus, he’s often been mistaken for madman lunatic. In his role with TDS(The Daily Shoah), it’s most likely that he was ‘larping’ or pulling pranks, but what works in roughhouse satire doesn’t translate well in the streets. Howard Stern is amusing as a shock-jock radio personality, but his shtick would be way out of line in politics. If Enoch had limited himself to being a shock-jock of the Alt Right, his boorish crudity could have been appreciated for what it is. But when he pulled ‘Nazi’ shit in public events meant to convey a larger political message, he was just being ugly and demented. He failed to remind himself that satire and politics work differently. Now, is it possible that Mike Enoch is a genuine Neo-Nazi? I don’t believe it as he seems too smart and knowledgeable. Granted, a smart person could be psycho, in which case he might really be for Neo-Nazi nuttery. But Enoch doesn’t seem insane. So, my take is that he was ‘larping’ with Nazi salutes and pulling other such stunts in public events to show what a ‘badass’ he is, a real Alt Right gangster who fights hard and takes no prisoners. But just like Sollozzo with his moves, Enoch overestimated the momentum of the Alt Right and his role in it. In the end, he just made it more difficult for more sober and saner members of the Alt Right to reach out to Middle America.
7. Jean-Francois Gariepy = Peter Clemenza
It’s generally understood that J.F. Gariepy’s The Public Space is the best Youtube forum on Alt Right and Dissident Right matters. The Gariepy approach is to be edgy and controversial without giving undue offense by violating Youtube’s Terms of Service on ‘hate speech’. This isn’t easy because ‘hate speech’ is an Orwellian term invoked by the Power to shut down whatever speech it doesn’t like. Consider how Jared Taylor has been banned from Twitter and some of his American Renaissance videos have effectively been censored on Youtube: It’s been placed in ‘limited state’, which is more Orwellian BS. How has Gariepy been able to succeed where many others have failed. He comes across as jovial & friendly and will engage anyone from right to the left with a professionalism that is generally lacking in the Amateur Hour style of Youtube commentary. In this, he is sort of like Clemenza, the seemingly easygoing gangster who is liked by the members of the Corleone family. But deep down inside, Clemenza is a killer just like the rest of them, and when push comes to shove, he delivers. And there’s no mistaking that Gariepy, for all his civility and warmth, has hardcore convictions when it comes to identity and survival of the West. He is a warrior at the core with a gun or knife inside his sleeve. But just like Clemenza, he cannot be the leader of the movement, the spearhead. He functions as a reliable operator who keeps ideas and spirits flowing through the Alt-Right-sphere.
8. Stefan Molyneux = Tom Hagen
Like Jim Goad, Stefan Molyneux has insisted he is not part of the Alt Right or even the Dissident Right. Molyneux sees himself as a libertarian who happens to be conscious of racial diversity or HBS(human-biodiversity). The difference is that if the Alt Right tends to put Race at the center of ideology, Molyneux favors individualism and freedom above all. To preserve the culture of liberty and trust in the modern world, Molyneux believes it would be disastrous to allow massive inflows of lower-IQ people from Africa, Muslim World, and Latin America. So, if Alt Right defends race for race’s sake, Molyneux defends racial preservation of the West as the necessary condition for maintaining the hallmarks of modern Western Civilization: Rule of Law, Free Markets, Property Rights, Individual Liberty, and etc. But no matter how much Molyneux protests against being pigeonholed as a ‘rightist’ or race-ist, the fact is a person is as much defined by his enemies, haters, and detractors as by himself and his admirers. Molyneux has a lot of enemies and haters, and most of them are on the Proggy side. As far they're concerned, no amount of self-justification on Molyneux's part can absolve his thought-crimes of 'white supremacism'. And yet, because Molyneux prefers ideas and values more than identity rooted in race or tribe, he tries to maintain his cool and explain his positions as evaluations based on evidence and reason than on blood-and-guts passion. His approach is ‘business’ than ‘personal’, and this makes him rather like Tom Hagen. Though an emotional person like any of us, Molyneux’s persona on Youtube is as a popular philosopher who logically puts forth arguments stamped with rationalist pedigree. Molyneux is like a lawyer of philosophy, and it is why many on the ‘left’ are infuriated because he won't just come out of the 'racist' closet so that they could all pile on him as a 'nazi'. But, he has exasperated some on the Alt Right as well because they see Molyneux as espousing Alt Right ideas without giving due credit and without taking sides where it really counts. They see him as essentially a Man of the Right who refuses to get ‘personal’ in the culture war because of his conceit of neutrality grounded in empathy with all things. He’s not a wartime consiglieri.
9. Kevin Michael Grace = Jack Woltz
Jack Woltz is a Jewish Hollywood mogul and pervert whereas Kevin Michael Grace is a Catholic Reactionary, so they don’t have much in common in terms of culture or values. But both are devilishly opinionated and dig in their heels on things that really matter to them. Even though KMG isn’t part of the Alt Right, he is more than your ordinary Catholic Reactionary. He has bohemian taste in the arts & culture, is conversant on matters of HBD(human bio-diversity), and addresses the JQ(in ways that most Catholics might feel uncomfortable), though, to be sure, he is a also a staunch supporter of Zionism(at least within Israeli borders). KMG used to have a show with Kevin Steel, but the chemistry wasn’t there as Steel was too much like the bland Andy Richter in the early Conan O’Brien show.
KMG’s chemistry with Luke Ford is much better as Ford gives ample space to KMG’s opinionizing while offering his own perspectives, often in counter to KMG’s own. It works like oil and vinegar. To the best of my knowledge, KMG has had almost no direct relation with members of the Alt Right, the exceptions being a few Alt Right figures who joined Luke Ford’s Youtube Livestream. KMG agrees with Greg Johnson and Luke Ford that Richard Spencer was most responsible for running the Alt Right wagon into the ditch. KMG’s strength is curiosity + experience + knowledge + opinion. Some people know a lot but lack passion. Some people are full of passion but lack depth and knowledge. KMG makes for interesting personality because he knows a lot and has heart-in-the-game. Sometimes, his opinionated views may come across as intolerant, bilious, & contemptuous, and his inability to suppress his real feelings has resulted in nasty(and hilarious) spats with Jim Goad the hardline atheist and David Ebert the moral relativist.
10. Voxday = Hyman Roth
Hyman Roth is nothing if not intelligent, and Vox Day claims to be high-IQ himself. (He does lack Roth’s modesty even if false.) Also, like Hyman Roth, Vox Day goes for the Big Picture. With background in science-fiction, his thought-processes are more analytical and systematic than that of Richard Spencer the Nihilo-Romanticist. Spencer’s idea of Sci-Fi is STAR WARS, and he gets all excited like Captain Kirk on STAR TREK. Vox Day barely reveals his emotions even when upset with certain individuals or ideas. He has an air of Zen about him, sometimes talking like a robot or Dr. Spock. Instead of expressing rage, he drolly tears apart his opponents like a child removing wings and legs of an insect. In the exasperating debate with Andrew Anglin, he kept his cool while Anglin's emotions were all over the map. Vox calmly kept his head above water while Anglin thrashed wildly to keep himself from drowning. It was like the swimming match in BREAKING AWAY between the college jock and townie played by Dennis Quaid. One almost got the impression that Vox was taking pity on the Daily Stormer hick and lending him a hand underwater to keep him afloat. Hyman Roth also almost never shows his emotions, though his rage flared briefly when provoked by Michael Corleone. Despite his been-there-done-that demeanor, Roth is a ferocious character who, upon developing a grudge, just can’t let it go until he gets his vengeance. He is calm waves above but violent undercurrents below. Michael Corleone is his Moby Dick to harpoon and destroy. Despite his diplomacy with Michael Corleone, he can't let go of the fact that Moe Greene, almost like a son to him(and fellow Tribesman), was killed by the Corleones. So, Roth is sworn to the destruction of Michael Corleone no matter the time and cost.
This obsessive side of Roth can be seen in Vox Day, especially in his near-maniacal agenda to destroy Jordan Peterson. Most people are take-it-or-leave-it on the subject of Peterson, but Vox Day reacted to Peterson as though the Canadian superstar violated some fundamental principle of the universe. Thus, Peterson isn’t just a bad guy or charlatan but akin to an evil scientist or grand sorcerer of sci-fi or fantasy novels who must be utterly defeated to restore balance to the world. Vox Day’s war on Peterson isn’t merely over ideas or issues of character. Peterson obviously triggered Vox Day in a way that most people can’t fathom. Vox Day took it 'personally'(even though the two men never met) because Vox has his own grand theory of the world. As Peterson’s worldview is so at odds with Vox's own, it’s like a gangster turf war among Big Think philosophers. Now, why would Vox Day be so upset with Peterson in particular when, surely, there are so many other thinkers Vox Day disagrees with? It’s because Jordan Peterson has been promoted by the media as a 'man of the right' who stands up to Political Correctness. Being Anti-PC is the proud battle flag of the Alt Right; therefore, as Vox Day sees it, only genuine Alt Rightists and Dissident Rightists should have the right to carry the banner. But there is Jordan Peterson propped up by the powers-that-be as a courageous member of the 'Intellectual Dark Web' when, from Vox Day’s perspective, the man is nothing but just another Establishmentarian shill. Most people can ignore or get over the cult of Jordan Peterson and move onto something else, but Vox Day can’t let it go. He feels he must carry on with the anti-Peterson vendetta until Peterson’s reputation is utterly exposed and destroyed(at least in Alt Right circles in which Vox Day has not insignificant influence).
11. Jared Taylor = Senator Patrick Geary
This is an unfair comparison in more ways than one. Unlike Geary, who is a rank hypocrite and sleazebag, Jared Taylor has been a man of dignity and principle. Unlike Richard Spencer who acts debonair(modeled on 007?) in interviews but does airhead things in most other occasions, Taylor has been genuinely respectable at all times, and even many of his enemies admit that he is a gentleman in the best sense of the word. Then, why is he like Geary? Oddly enough, it is the primacy of respectability itself in the lives of both men. Even though Geary's respectability is bogus whereas Taylor's is genuine, both men are concerned above all with maintaining the image of respectability. Geary is a sexual pervert, which makes him an easy target for blackmail. But his career relies on respectability, and so, he will do ANYTHING to put forth a clean image of himself. Jared Taylor espouses views that are most un-respectable in today's elite circles of media and academia, but he is ever mindful to come across as respectable. But, no matter how civil and refined he acts, the powers-that-be will paint him as a 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazi'. Does this mean that Taylor should drop his manners and act like Andrew Anglin since ADL and SPLC will always put them in the same hole? Of course not. If you're not a white supremacist or Neo-Nazi, there is no reason to act like one just because the media paint a Hitler mustache on you no matter what. Still, Taylor's commitment to respectability has made him delusional in hoping that American Renaissance(his outfit) will ever make inroads into higher respectable circles because of the good manners of the attendees at its conferences. Style is important, but the truth is ADL and SPLC(and the vast Jewish Network) will always characterize the substance of Jared Taylor's ideas as 'white supremacist'. And it doesn't matter how pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist Taylor insists he is. Given that Holocaustianity and Jew-Worship are the biggest 'religions' in the West, Taylor thinks he can score points by praising Jews, but in fact, most Jews hate him because his mission of 'white advocacy' implies emancipation of white consciousness from serving the Other. To Jews, they themselves are the main constituents of this Other. Only with continuous injection of 'white guilt' drug into the Western bloodstream can Jews paralyze white pride and agency, thereby making whites seek moral restitution by serving the 'holy' Other. On a darker note, we see in both Geary and Taylor a rather servile attitude to the Ultimate Power. Geary, despite his cocky Waspiness, all-too-easily becomes a toady of the Corleones upon realizing the kind of power they wield. He used to look down on Eye-talians as greasy gangsters, but once fallen into their trap he grovels at their feet like an indentured servant. Likewise, Taylor is so impressed with Jewish Power that he clings to the hope that all-powerful Jews may one day appoint him as their most loyal Wasp servant. In some ways, Taylor is more pathetic than Geary on this point because whereas Geary is handsomely rewarded for sucking up to the Corleones, Taylor has gotten NOTHING from carrying water for the Jews and defending Israel. (Taylor supports Zionist treatment of Palestinians, but American Jews treat Taylor like Israelis treat Palestinians. What bittersweet irony.) Indeed, ADL that monitors Twitter got Tayor banned, and all the Jew-run media gleefully piled on the de-platformed Taylor and gloated like laughing hyenas. It's all well and good to be a gentleman, but this is war, and one must be willing to get down-and-dirty against the powers-that-be. In battle, even officers must be ready to get mud and blood on their uniforms. Taylor is too finely tailored for the coming battle, which is really a Race War waged by Jews against whites.
12. Matt Heimbach = Luca Brasi
Unlike Luca Brasi who seems rather dimwitted and tongue-tied in THE GODFATHER, Matt Heimbach is no dummy and gifted as a speaker. Of course, that hasn't prevented him from acting like a moron all too often. As the 'cowboy' says in MULHOLLAND DR., one's attitude goes a long way to decide how one's life will be, but then, one's attitude is largely shaped by one's personality. Heimbach is a monster-man like Brasi. Actually, if he lost some weight, he might look like a normal, even rather pleasant-looking, guy. But as fatso and bubblebutt, he looks grotesque, more Malt-Right than Alt-Right. The fact that he seems unable to shed a few pounds suggests a pitiable lack of self-control. He's like Cookie Monster. Also, despite his large body, he has a cherubic face, which he toughens with a beard, which only makes him look even more ridiculous in combo with nerdy glasses. So, there is Monster-Matt, someone who looks like a professional wrestler as couchpotato as baby-faced Paul Bunyan with specs of a computer nerd. But what makes him especially like Brasi is the compulsion to associate himself with betters and the one-dimensionality of what he has to offer. Like Brasi the killer, Heimbach and his crew were only useful as street-fighters, the Fist of the Alt Right. Also, Heimbach was so eager to associate himself with someone like Spencer who is better-looking, better-educated, and better-mannered(at least in public). Brasi in THE GODFATHER is a self-loathing creature whose fanatical loyalty to Vito Corleone is founded on gratitude for having been offered friendship by a superior man. Even though Heimbach proudly defined himself as a Man of the White Working Class, the fact was the kind of people he dealt with tended to be crude and vulgar. Also, Heimbach got too close with Neo-Nazi stuff to ever gain respectability(or credibility among anti-Nazi Alt Right types). So, Heimbach's sole ticket to 'better optics' was to align himself with 'high-class' Spencer and serve as his Luca Brasi. But if Vito Corleone used Brasi in covert operations, Heimbach's overt actions for Spencer only served to tarnish the image of the 'superior' man. At any rate, Heimbach now sleeps with the fishes because he can't recover from his Jerry-Springer-ish romp with his father-in-law Matt Parrot's wife. For a man who's berated the Jews for subverting Western Morality, it wasn't exactly the best move. Ironically, what Heimbach now has in common with Richard 'superior man' Spencer is Wife Problems. For all their public declarations for the White Family, they totally in affairs of personal and/or pubic life.
13. Ramzpaul = Johnny Fontane
As with most pairings on this blogpost, there is unfairness in comparing Ramzpaul with Fontane. Fontane is a corrupt and craven character who begs Don Corleone for favors to land a movie role. I can't imagine Ramzpaul stooping so low to get anything his way. He is classicly Waspy in sense of right-and-wrong, unlike the more clannish-minded folks of other tribes(non-whites and ethnic-whites, especially Jews and Italians). He's also shown considerable courage in sticking to his convictions despite media hostility. If he's gained in racial consciousness in recent yrs, it was with a certain reluctance in reaction to the changing political climate where non-whites are urged by Jews(especially) to blame everything on Whitey or White Privilege. Though individualist-libertarian by nature, he believes that whites have no choice but to be racially conscious because (1) they are headed toward minority status even in nations of their making and (2) PC dogma vilifies whites for all problems. Now, why is he like Fontane? He is naturally entertaining and might have made it in comedy if he'd chosen another career path. He certainly enjoys the limelight and knows how to amuse his audience unlike most on the Alt Right who, as personalities, range from earnest to hotheaded. Another way he is like Fontane is a certain defeatism. His jokey personality, being most at home with cheerful lightheartedness, often succumbs to gloom-and-doom when pondering future prospects of the White Race. After all, no amount of joking can save a condemned man from the hangman. He admits he came close to quitting his Youtube stream several times and had to be slapped back into form by Tina the Finnish Godmother. Ramzpaul doesn't have the vision and audacity of Spencer, and he has admitted he isn't the leader type. He's more a commentator and satirist. But overall, his view of the Alt Right has been saner than that of Spencer & Co. who decided to wage all sorts of internecine wars(mainly against Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, which served NO purpose) and charge into radical acceleration mode in what was still a rickety and incomplete vehicle over bumpy roads. On a road strewn with so many obstacles and traps, Ramzpaul called for cautious and sober driving. Spencer decided to down the bottle and put the metal to the pedal... with rather predictable results.
14. Kevin MacDonald = Don Tommasino
Like Don Tommasino, Kevin MacDonald has been there from the beginning. A former radical socialist in the 1960s, he soon came to realize that Jewish Idealism is often wedded to a deeper Jewish Tribalism. If Wasps took the New Idealism at face value, Jews used it to maneuver themselves into power as the New Elites to not-so-covertly push their tribal supremacism uber alles. After much thought, MacDonald theorized that recent Jewish behavior is nothing new and, if anything, fits into a wider and deeper pattern of history, culture, and possibly genetics. Because of his experience, he is weary and wounded warrior and has few illusions as to what the Power is really capable of. In this, he is different from the young crop of Alt Right crusaders who, in their gushy enthusiasm and naivete, hurled themselves into the fire like Siegfried... only to get scorched. Due to his age, MacDonald is in no position to lead the movement, and besides, he's more a scholar type than activist type. But like Don Tommasino, he has earned respect in the Alt Right community for key contributions and for having his paid his dues in the most suppressed movement in America.
15. Andrew Anglin = Fredo Corleone
Andrew Anglin isn't really part of Alt Right or any Right. He's essentially been a class-clown and troll all his life. Some say Daily Stormer is a Fed Operation run by Jewish Weez to make the Right look bad. While I don't subscribe to the notion of Anglin as agent, no good can come from taking him seriously. If Daily Stormer has any use, it's in the boundaries of free speech and mocking sacred cows of PC. Granted, its way of 'satire' is often so crude and ugly that it ends up soiling the Right as well muddying the Left. That said, if the Alt Right had left Anglin to do his own thing, it would have been better for both sides. But, the Unite the Right Rally at Charlottesville invited the Anglin-Stormer crowd. Spencer had long public policy discussions with Anglin, as if Anglin could be taken seriously as an expert on anything. And Red Ice interviewed him as a person of importance. All bad moves. Class clowns are best handled like Adam Sandler. Laugh when they do funny stuff but do NOT invite to weddings and funerals. Now, unlike Fredo, Anglin isn't exactly low-IQ. But when it comes to immaturity, he(and Weez) beats Fredo by a mile. There is something slightly endearing about Anglin and Weez when seen as bad-goy clowns and stooges but only revulsion when taken seriously. There's a reason why Michael Corleone limited Fredo to frivolous Mickey Mouse tasks. Fredo could not be trusted with serious responsibilities. You don't take Curly of the Three Stooges and put him in a War Movie or Serious Drama.
