A Preliminary Argument: WHITE LIBERATION(from Jewish Supremacism) WILL SAVE THE WORLD

https://counter-currents.com/2020/11/stolen-election-redpill/

Why is 'white liberation' a better term than 'white nationalism'? Fairly or unfairly, people associate 'white nationalism' with aggression and conceit of superiority. It gives the impression that whites got the power and want to show it off by rattling their sabers.

But the West is now under Jewish control like India was under British control, like Algeria and Vietnam were under French control. So, the emphasis must be on the need for whites to free themselves from Jewish Power. The theme of liberation is more appealing and justified than theme of mere power. After all, the great theme of the post WWII era was NATIONAL LIBERATION all across Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Latin America from European Imperialism or American Hegemony. And as the theme of WWII was the 'free world' vs the aggressive imperialism of Germany and Japan, it was difficult for the great powers after the war to justify their rule over others.

So, 'white liberation' is preferable to 'white nationalism', at least for the time being. Now, if skeptics ask, 'liberation from what?', whites can say from Jewish Supremacist Power, which can be amply demonstrated with data and facts. Jews do control the West. Jews not only got money power but made themselves into the new messiah-race. It's one thing to remember the Shoah as a great tragedy but quite another to permanently affix Jewish Identity with that event. Such implies Jews are always a race of 'holocaust victims' no matter what they do. So, even if Jews act like Nazis toward Palestinians, we are supposed to see them as a bunch of poor poor Anne Franks.

Anyway, 'white liberation' will highlight the fact of Jewish Power, an absolute must for real change to take place. (How can there be any reform if the most powerful group is not identified and criticized? Can a cancer victim be properly treated without acknowledging the cancer?) 'White Nationalism' can mean the need for white unity & power. Or it can mean white power as the basis for world domination. Nationalism need not be imperialist but often took an imperialist turn in the past when a nation became very powerful.
In contrast, 'liberation' emphasizes the need for whites to seek emancipation from the current power that dominates the West and the World... which is Jewish Power. (Even 'white national liberation' sounds better than mere 'white nationalism'.) White Politics that only focuses on whites and white power is less likely to be appealing than White Politics that seeks freedom from the actual tyranny that rules the world: Jewish Supremacist Power or JSP.

Also, whites can argue that White Liberation will lead not only to white emancipation from Jewish Evil but will save the world. Why? Because Jewish Supremacist Power would dwindle overnight if white folks chose WGTOW or whites going their own way. If whites refused to serve the Jews, no more Wars for Israel against Arabs and Muslims. No more support for Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians. No more 'new cold war' with Russia. No more whites acting like dumb dogs who bark and bite whatever their Jewish Masters hate. When whites say NO to Jewish Supremacism, peace will prevail around the world as whites will no longer do the bidding of hateful supremacist-imperialist Zionist Jews. And far less need for 'yellow peril' hysteria about China-China-China to distract Americans from the fact that Jews are the main enemy of the white race and goyim in general. Just ask the Palestinians about the nature of Jewish Power.

Think of 'Israelis' and 'Palestinians' as meta-memes. 'Israelis' would be the winners and tyrants, and 'Palestinians' would be the losers and the tyrannized. It is the dream of many whites to be 'Israelis', fellow winners alongside rich and powerful Jews. Jewish identity/pride united with white identity/pride. But this is a dumb dream. Jews will NEVER accept whites as equals. Even as white praise and acknowledge Jewish identity & pride, Jews will denounce white identity and promote white shame/guilt. Thus, the ONLY way whites can rise in the Jew World Order is by turning race-traitor and cucking as collaberals or cuckservatives. All the Bidens and Romneys of the world. And Jared Taylor the deluded fool isn't much better.

Given that Jews regard whites as 'Palestinians' than fellow 'Israelis', whites should identify with Palestinians, that is unless they enjoy being race-traitor cuck-collaborators. (There are, of course, Palestinian collaborators who get rich while serving Zionists.) While Jews are free to gain power as an identity and group, whites can only gain riches as individuals, ones that cravenly collaborate with Jewish Supremacists. No white man with any self-respect and dignity should choose this path.

Now, the key to the success of White Liberation will be the emphasis on humanism & justice than nihilism & supremacism. (Kurosawa Way than Mishima Way.) The problem with people like Greg Johnson and Richard Spencer is they oppose Jewish Supremacism by associating themselves with forms of White Supremacism. Johnson wrote glowing things about Adolf Hitler who brought upon unprecedented disaster for the white race with his Aryan-Germanic supremacism, and Spencer blabbered endlessly about his vision of a new world-white empire. How stupid is that? You get zero moral points by opposing one form of supremacism in defense of another. It's like denouncing a robber just so you could steal yourself. The only convincing argument is NO ONE should steal — indeed, the dirtiest secret of Jewish Power is that it denounces white supremacism not as a principle against supremacism per se but to make browbeaten whites serve Jewish supremacism, a bait-and-switch; this is the dirty secret that needs to be exposed by the White Liberationist Project.
Unfortunately, David Duke, Greg Johnson, and Richard Spencer all soiled themselves with association with KKK, Neo-Nazism, or Anglo-Imperialism. (Of course, it should be acknowledged that imperialism has long been a part of human history, and it did good as well as bad, spreading ideas and expanding trade routes along with the violence and tyranny. So, to the extent that Western Imperialism united the world and spread modernity all over, it did a lot of good that balances out the bad. However, as the world has been so thoroughly united via technology, there should be no reason for further imperialism and supremacism. And it seemed all the world was agreed, except that American triumphalism and Jewish ascendancy after the Cold War led to a new age of empire, one that has been utterly worthless except as conduits for Zionist madness, Afromania, Globo-Homo and mass deaths across the Middle East and North Africa, as well as mass migration into the West from the Third World.)

David Duke could have done so much more without his KKK association. He will forever be smeared as a former-KKK member. Greg Johnson of late seems to reject Hitlerism in his personal formulation of 'white nationalism', but the Hitler-stain is like the Mark of Cain. Spencer is proof that smarts isn't enough. Lack of character, emotional imbalance, and megalomania(personal and racial) spell disaster.

This is why white liberation or white national liberation should be founded on humanism and justice. Universal Nationalism is justice because it acknowledges that all peoples deserve their rightful portions of history, heritage, and territory. Globalism wages war on this sense of justice EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ISRAEL — Jewish Exceptionalism as always. According to Jewish-controlled globalism, all the world should support Jewish-Israel's right to exist BUT every goy nation should be remade with mass-migration and mass-miscegenation, especially with the Negro.

Too often, 'white nationalism' has been associated with neo-nazis, skinheads, KKK, and overly paranoid militia movement types. (True, whites have much to worry about, but more guns are not the solution when most of the culture war, idol war, and ideological war are done with the pen, mikes, and cameras than with guns and bullets. Militia movement emphasizes guns than lenses.) 'White Liberation' can be associated with humanism that acknowledges the worth of all races and groups.

And even though White Liberation would mostly be about freedom from Jewish Supremacism, it should also address the need for white independence from black supremacism. The problem with white folks who opposed the Civil Rights Movement was they spoke and acted as if blacks were not good enough for whites. A far more effective argument would have been that blacks are superior in certain attributes, and these make blacks arrogant and aggressive against whites, the weaker and slower race who, upon racial integration, often fall victim to black supremacist thuggery; and white men get jack-johnsoned into wussy cucks as tougher blacks kick their butts, and that means the white race loses its human right to manhood, its right to have its own heroes and idols. And this argument is something that other non-black races may understand as well, as most interracial violence is not only black on white but black on brown, black on Asian, black on Muslim, black on etc. Even black on Jew despite all the money Jews give to blacks to hate on whitey.

White Liberation should also argue against non-white mass-immigration into white lands as a perverse form of non-white white-supremacism. Why would it be non-white white-supremacism? Because mass migration of non-whites from their own nations to white nations implies that non-whites see whites as superior and prefer to live with and under whites than with their own kind. This is bad for whites and non-whites. It's bad for whites as it leads to the Great Replacement and violates the right of white folks to have their own homelands. But it's also bad for non-whites because, instead of using their energies and abilities to improve their own nations, they just run off to white nations to leech off whites as short-cut to success. It's especially bad as it leads to brain drain from non-white world to white world. This is why White Liberation will save the world.

"MY FELLOW JEWS" by Brother Nathanael

Richard 'Vader' Spencer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Two Sides of the Same Coin: Tribal Supremacists at Gut Level pretending to be Individuals mainly concerned with World of Ideas and Principles

Jews like Ruth Bader Ginsburg can be better understood by comparison to figures like Richard 'Vader' Spencer. They seem to be ideological opposites, but they are merely two sides of the same coin. Ginsburg is thought to be a 'far-leftist' but, at her core, was essentially a die-hard Jewish Supremacist Zionist. The only true Jewish Liberals are those who apply the same rules to everyone and every group, Jews included. In contrast, Jewish 'liberals' like Alan Dershowitz and RBG use 'liberalism' as a ploy to undermine goy power(especially that of whites and Christians) in order to boost Jewish Power. They are essentially far-right Jewish Identitarians who merely use 'liberalism' as a tool, a weapon. So, in the political arena, we must ask if a certain person or group is using an idea as a mere tool or embracing it as a principle, a universal value system. There are genuine Jewish Liberals, but most Jewish 'liberals' are really Jewish Supremacist Zionists who've adopted 'progressive' values and agendas as the most effective weapon against goyim. Likewise, the US support of radical Islamists is merely a tool of foreign policy. The core of US values and worldview has NOTHING to do with Islam. But the Jewish-controlled US will support ISIS and Alqaeda elements when they're useful against the Syrian regime, Iraqi government, and Iran. Just because US worked with Red China during the Cold War against the USSR doesn't mean the US was Maoist. Rather, it merely used one form of communism against another, the one that seemed dominant in the world. Likewise, most Jewish 'liberals' merely use 'liberalism' as a tool to push deracination, guilt-complex, and host of other neuroses & pathology on goyim, especially whites. In the 60s, Jews ranted endlessly about Segregation in the South and white 'racism', but they rarely discussed Jewish-Black problems. Jews ripped off many blacks, and tougher blacks often terrorized Jews... which led to Jew Flew(or Jewish White Flight) that led to segregation between Jews and blacks far beyond anything in the Deep South. And speaking of 'racism', Jews hardly ever discussed the Zionist treatment of Palestinians. The very Jews who were so vocal in their condemnation of 'white racism' could be the most fanatical supporters of Zionism who felt zero sympathy for the plight of Palestinians. The very Jews who could go on and on about the burden of guilt among all Germans for what happened in World War II were utterly silent about Jewish Bolshevik mass killings of Christian Slavs. The very Jews who were hysterically calling for the condemnation and blacklisting of 'white supremacist' groups and other 'anti-American' elements were the ones defending both Jewish Zionist imperialists and Jewish communist subversives who slipped atomic secrets to Stalin. This is why Jewish Liberal Moral Outrage has been mostly bogus. Your typical Jewish 'liberal' is the kind to hound South Africa about its Apartheid Past while admonishing all of us to look the other way when Zionists crack heads in West Bank. Jews still kvetch about the McCarthy Era blacklist(because it affected some Jews), but they are so blase about the seemingly endless blacklists in US institutions and industries against pro-Palestinian voices and white voices that call for divorce from ugly Jewish supremacism. Indeed, what chance does someone have in Hollywood or Wall Street if he or she comes out in favor of Palestinians and wants to make a movie about the Nakba?

It is for this reason that RBG and Richard Spencer are so much alike. Both RBG and Spencer could come across as rational, intellectual, logical, and even moderate. RBG could pass herself as a lawyer and judge who could hear all sides, judiciously weigh the evidence, and decide on the basis of the Constitution. A person who works with her mind than gives into her passions. Likewise, Richard Spencer arrived on the scene as a new kind of 'white nationalist'. Not the cliched neo-nazi skinhead type drunk on beer and screaming 'Sieg Heil' and making a fool of himself as a brain-dead street thug. Rather, he presented himself as an intellectual who, though committed to the right, could empathize with all sides, prioritize reason over rage, and come to terms with anyone who would talk with him, debate with him, or deal with him. But even as the Thought-Spencer was real to an extent — he seems reasonably intelligent and well-read/educated — , there was also the Gut Spencer. No matter how many books he read, how many ideas he could pontificate on, how many people he could debate with on basis of mutual respect, and how much he could at least empathize with opposing sides, he was at his core a white supremacist imperialist egotist(at times verging on megalomania depending on how many drinks or drugs he had). This Gut Spencer was a raging and resentful Anglo-White Supremacist who believes his kind should rule the world like Darth Vader. Richard the Id(or Idiot) wanted to be 007 + Hitler. (Jeffrey Epstein who wanted to seed the world with his semen was even nuttier.) Blacks and browns should look up at a face like his and ho-de-do and pick cotton. Jewish guys should kiss his ass and Jewish girls should suck his dic*. At most times, especially in dealing with the media, Spencer tried to come across as genteel, soft-spoken, curious, sympathetic, and reasonable to deal with. A gentleman diplomat, a counselor, even a scholar. But scratch the surface of Thought Spencer and there was this raging Gut Spencer, a steaming morass of egotism and rage against whatever stifled his individual and racial 'destiny'. And of course, as Jews controlled the media, they had a field day exposing this side of Spencer. The Id Spencer, the Gut Spencer, or Raging Richie, so at odds with the carefully rehearsed image of Thought Spencer, the man of reason and principles. (To Spencer's credit, he is somewhat more honest and even honorable that most Jews. At times, Spencer have admitted Power drives Principles. Jews know this too and practice it for all it's worth but still pretend they're guided mostly by principles. Yeah sure, JUST ASK THE PALESTINIANS.) But the same goes for Jews. Because of Jewish Media Control, most Americans have this image of Jews as a Thought People who are primarily guided by knowledge, thought, contemplation, curiosity, philosophy, wisdom, and commitment to principles of justice, equality, & fairness. Even the ghastly Jonathan Pollard was featured with a christ-like image in the Jewish-controlled Media. We've been led to believe most Jews are 'liberal', implying that Jews are a Mind People who reject and oppose the 'atavistic' and 'tribal' urges of mankind. (This is rather odd since Jews have been among the 'porniest' people on Earth, using vulgar Freudianism to argue that we are just animals driven by lusts emanating from the groins. In a way, 'sexual liberation' could be characterized as 'liberal' for allowing more freedom and choice, but it is also more bestial and 'atavistic' in leading to reversion to apelike behavior.) So, RBG has been made into an icon of 'progressive' values and concern for social justice for all, i.e. she's been associated with the cause of the underdogs who've been ill-served by the Power. But, this is bogus. RBG has been nothing more and nothing less than a zealous Jewish Supremacist Zionist. Her idea of morality was NEVER to point fingers at powerful Jews or Israeli imperialism but to always beat up on whites and Christians. And why? Because her ilk believes that whites must be browbeaten(and even literally beaten) into submission in order to be rendered useful to Jews as their new masters.

Scratch the surface of most Thought Jews and you get the Gut Jew. It could be Alan Dershowitz, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Woody Allen, Chuck Schumer, Rachel Maddow, Jeffrey Epstein, Philip Roth, Victor Maymudes, Barbra Streisand, Harvey Weinstein, editors at NYT and most magazines, and etc. And when Jews pretend to be 'conservatives', it has NOTHING to do with preserving White/Christian America. Most Neocons work hand in glove with Jewish 'liberals' to push the interests of Zionism and Jewish Hegemony. Neocons' only role is to fool American Conservatives that Holy Holocaust Jews are on THEIR SIDE. If indeed ALL Jews were Democratic and 'liberal', the GOP and American Conservatives would have no choice but to be anti-Jewish. But as long as SOME 'conservative' Jews pretend to side with the American Right, so many white sucker conzos have this fantastical idea that, golly gee, maybe Jews will embrace their whiteness and become fellow whites if the GOP goes all out for Israel. In reality, the ONLY thing Jewish 'conservatives' are truly conservative about is the preservation of Jewishness and expansion of Jewish power, wealth, privilege, and advantages. Also, Jewish 'conservatives' don't believe that a stronger white conservatism is synonymous with stronger Jewish conservatism. Rather, the White Right must be weakened in order for the Jewish Right to be strengthened. Jews understand that rightism is essentially -centric, so white right would be naturally white-centric. But if white rightists were white-centric, they would favor white interests over Jewish ones and indeed may even see Jews as HOSTILE to whites. So, Jewish rightists feel they must weaken the white right into generic individual libertarianism of cucks and then steer these cucky-wucks to support Israel Uber Alles. (Again, most Jewish 'liberals' are really part of the Jewish Right as their core Gut Passion is about "Is it good for Jews?") Hollywood passes itself as 'liberal', but how many movies has it made about the plight of Palestinians? How many movies about the Nakba? How many movies about the horrible suffering of Russians in the 1990s at the hands of ultra-capitalist Jewish oligarchs? How many movies about Israel's alliance with Apartheid South Africa and provision of atomic secrets to the latter? Jewish 'liberals' would have us believe that they are Great Americans who were falsely accused of communist subversion, but when will Jewish Hollywood admit that many commie spies and agents were Jews and that these people worked for mass killer Josef Stalin? If 'antisemitic' forces controlled the Media, they could expose the Gut Jew behind the veil of all these phony Jewish 'liberals', just like Jewish-controlled media exposed the Gut Spencer that hid behind the facade of Thought Spencer. Now, this isn't to say that Jewish 'liberals' like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the likes of Richard Spencer are not interested in ideas or lacking in basic curiosity about the world. Most surely, they are not all about the Gut. But when push comes to shove, when passions run high, and when the mask comes off, we need to acknowledge that RBG and Spencer are the same kind of creature. They are driven by Gut Feelings that fuel and shape their rational faculties. So, the ultimate motivator of Ginsburg's decisions as both individual and judge was "Is it good for Jews?" Why do Jews like her want to take rifles away from white people when most gun deaths are by handguns, often by blacks? It's because Jewish Power fears a well-armed white goy public that may rise up and resist when the Jewish Power push things too far. Notice these Jews have no problem with guns and other weapons used by Antifa Janissary thugs. Jewish-controlled media called it 'mostly peaceful protests'. (If whites held mass protests against Jewish Power and 10% were violent, would the Jewish-run media call it 'mostly peaceful protests'?) And why did Jews like RBG push the 'gay' agenda? LGBTQXYZ nonsense was nothing but a Jewish proxy culture war on the world. Homos are vain toadies who suck up to power, and naturally many homos work for Jews, the richest people who dominate media, entertainment, finance, fashion, and the Deep State that is in ultra-imperialist mode.

Anyway, just like the Jewish media effectively exposed the Gut Spencer hiding behind Thought Spencer, it is imperative for goyim to expose the Gut Jew behind the Thought Jew. Whenever Jewish 'liberals' and Neocons yammer about 'justice', 'equality', 'fighting hate', and yadda yadda, confront them with the problem of Jewish Privilege, Jewish Wealth, Jewish Gentrification, Jewish use of Stop-and-Frisk, Jewish involvement in communism & mass-killings, Zionist Nakba pogroms, IDF death squads mowing down Palestinian children, Israel's support of ISIS & Alqaeda, the history of Jewish organized crime, Jewish exploitation of black athletes & entertainers, and etc. Ask the Jews why they don't bring up THOSE matters as issues of injustice, unfairness, and evils? Against Mitzvah, there must be Counter-Mitzvah. Mitzvah is the Blitzvah or Mitzkrieg of the Jews against whites and rest of humanity, especially Arabs and Iranians. Whites can change things ONLY IF they cut ties with the Jews and side with Iranians and Palestinians who should be hailed by all White Liberationists as "America's greatest allies". GINSBERG GONE. DEMS ELECTION SKULDUGGERY IN DISARRAY

Luke Ford says Alt Right failed because of the Low Quality of Its Members — In truth, Alt Right's Demise was more Homicide from Above than Suicide from Within

Luke Ford in the above video — at around 2:06:00 — agrees with George Hawley that the Alt Right crashed and burned because of the low quality of its recruits who happened to be anti-social, criminal, sociopathic, and/or so on. Now, I'm not in disagreement that the Alt Right has had many problems with its mostly young male cohorts who tended toward radical thinking and reckless behavior. Also, Alt Right, especially under the helm of Richard Spencer, lost its sense of irony(that made it funny and endearing to many) in favor of the iron boot. At the crossroads facing the future, Spencer had three choices: (1) Soften his rhetoric and try to get in an inch with the more 'respectable' right. (2) Remain somewhat aloof of both Conservatism Inc. & Neo-Nazi-style far-right and fashion his own brand as Teflon Don of the Alt Right or (3) go hard-right and go 14/88. By the time Charlottesville happened, he was moving toward (3), a terrible option. But being delusional, he appeared to regard himself as the Man of Destiny, the one to seize the moment. From a moral and ideological perspective, one could condemn the direction taken by the Alt Right. However, Luke Ford is totally wrong about why and how the Alt Right imploded. It had more to do with weight from above than weakness from within.

Ford talks of the anti-social attitudes so prevalent among Alt Right types, but the same could be said of Bolsheviks, Jewish anarchists, the many Zionist factions, Jewish organized crime, Jewish radicals, Jewish feminists, and the list goes on. Many Jews who later succeeded in gambling, sex industry, and the like were some of the biggest crooks and a**holes one can imagine. Jewish feminists were among the most nasty, vile, and neurotic. Jewish Hollywood has been filled with lechers, pedophiles, and men with the moral character of pimps. The Bolsheviks, who were heavily Jewish, were filled with all sorts of fanatics, criminals, and psychos. Josef Stalin was as much a bandit and bank robber as a revolutionary. And the National Socialists of Germany had in their ranks a good number of criminals, crooks, madmen, perverts, and extremists. And yet, why did National Socialists go from strength to strength despite the less than sterling quality of many in their rank and file? One reason was desperate times, but the other reason was that the German Courts at the time were favorable to the Right and lenient of bad behavior by National Socialists, just like the Ruling Power in America mostly slaps Antifa on the wrist. 'Lawfare' in Weimar Germany was often favorable to the Right. Furthermore, many German industrialists were willing to back the National Socialists as bulwark against communism. In other words, it didn't matter that National Socialists had an excess of clowns, idiots, and lunatics. The fact is they had just enough talent in men like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, and more importantly, they had the backing of big money and the courts that, time and time again, let Hitler and his men off the hook.

Indeed in politics, talent matters far less than connections and support. If Luke Ford thinks quality leads to success, how does he square that with the fact that US Congress is filled with worthless mealymouthed scum? Colorless Paul Ryan became Speaker of the House. Does Ford consider him a man of 'quality'? Or consider Nancy Pelosi. Does she represent some special talent? And how did men like Dennis Hastert rise so high? Yeah, the pedophile. And look at some of the most successful people in Hollywood and music industry. When it comes to moral content and personal integrity, they are among the worst people imaginable. And yet, they are successful. If quality of character = success, why did so many worthless creeps become so obscenely successful? How did Jeffrey Epstein rise so high so fast even though his moral character was that of an ape? And before his recent fall from grace, Harvey Weinstein was even regarded as 'god' by none other than Meryl Streep. He's been a dirty and disgusting pervert all along, but he got away with so much bad behavior. And who knows what's in the closets of all those politicians and media figures? Indeed, how many prominent people are vulnerable to blackmail precisely because they, like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART 2, were hypocritical cretins? Joe Biden's been a lying sack of shit forever. He became vice president. George W. Bush's only accomplishment was having been born into the Bush Dynasty. He became president. So much for quality = success. As for Bill Ayers, he was a terrorist who blew up stuff. He and his wife, Bernadine Dorhne, were horrible people, but they are now successful and much lauded academics. And we can go on and on with such examples.

The reason why Alt Right imploded was because the Power decided to crush it from every direction. If Ford has any integrity, he will admit that the entire fault of the Charlottesville fiasco belongs to the Jewish mayor, black police chief, and their globalist backers. The Alt Right crowd had every right to be there, but their constitutional right was violated. Meanwhile, the Power encouraged Antifa scum and black thugs to attack the Alt Right. The Power didn't stand between the two sides to maintain order but aided one side against the other. Then, the Jew-run media ran with the narrative that Alt Right people started the melee and killed 'three people' when, in fact, two were killed in a helicopter accident and one was killed because an angry mob attacked James Fields' car and drove him into panic mode. And then, the 'lawfare' got under way, mostly by Jews. Even though Alt Right guys' constitutional rights were violated and even though they were the biggest victims of the violence, the hideous Jews and their allies colluded with powerful law firms to sue the people who organized the event. Meanwhile, law firms declined to represent Alt Right guys who had every right and reason to sue Charlottesville for engineering the melee in concert with the powers-that-be. But, the injustice didn't end there. Alt Right was deplatformed, denied financial services, fired from jobs, and hounded 24/7. In other words, there was a vast orchestrated purge of the Alt Right by big government and big business.

Now, imagine what would have happened IF the Charlottesville rally had been allowed to proceed. The speakers would have had their say and gotten their message across. Next, imagine if Alt Right was not deplatformed and defunded. Suppose Alt Right continued to have equal access to Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook. And suppose Richard Spencer and others could easily raise funds like Zionists, homos, and progs do. Where would the Alt Right be? It would be much bigger as a message and movement. The reason why Alt Right failed was more homicide than suicide. It was crushed and killed from above. As proof, consider figures such as Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Paul Gottfried, and many others. These men are not part of the Alt Right and didn't give Sieg Heil salutes or march with iron boots. And yet, they were effectively shut down just the same and denied access to 'mainstream' venues of public opinion. The science pages of the New York Times are evidence enough that quality of honesty and integrity is not the priority of the Power when it promotes and demotes people left and right. It was before Alt Right ever appeared on the scene that Pat Buchanan was made persona non grata in American Conservatism and American Media. We now live in a nation where academics are hounded, fired, and blacklisted for saying a man is not a woman because a tranny says so. We have bakeries destroyed by Jewish law firms because they won't bake 'gay wedding cakes'. We have a nation where the president was almost removed from office based on utterly baseless charges of 'Russian Collusion'. Are George Hawley and Luke Ford going to blame the destruction of a Christian bakery on its lack of quality? If Jews and homos decide to use 'lawfare' to shut down any bakery that won't bake 'gay wedding cakes' and drive it to financial ruin, should the blame fall on the bakery?

Remember what Tucker Carlson said of Max Boot and other Neocons who were wrong on just about everything but still remain players inside the corridors of power? People like Max Boot and Julia Ioffe are hardly better quality as humans than people on the Alt Right. Indeed, Washington DC and US media are filled with whores, rascals, cheats, snakes, pathological liars, con-men, fakers, drug abusers, weasels, and sado-masochists. And what passes for American Conservatism is a freaking joke. I'd wager even the worst lowlife in the Alt Right has more integrity than moron like Charlie Kirk and scoundrel like Jared Holt. Lady Maga anyone?

If inferior quality of character dooms an individual or movement to failure, why has it been the case that so many individuals and movements succeeded despite the problem of quality? How did feminism succeed when so many feminists were stupid crazy bitches? Why did Jews gain so much power when so many Jews were cheats, liars, hustlers, con-men, perverts, and neurotics? What's Roman Polanski doing these days? Oh yeah, he's still a celebrated artist making movies. Where is Jonathan Pollard these days? Is he rotting in a jail cell because his espionage ended up killing double-agents in the USSR? No, the rotting in jail for 400+ years is James Fields. Pollard is a free man with a plush job offered to him by Jewish bankers.

Obviously in much of politics and ideological conflict, quality means very little. A movement doesn't need too many thinkers or leaders. It just needs a handful of good ones. The rest can be dummies who just follow and do as told. They don't have to be great in quality. While Richard Spencer, Mike Enoch, and the rest of them were not exactly top-tier thinkers or leaders, they were no worse in quality than most people in politics or punditry. The difference is they didn't have rich and powerful backers. If you have the connection and backing, you can go far. Anyone who knows anything about Lyndon B. Johnson knows he was a scummy politician all his life. And yet, he got to be vice president and then president because he did the bidding of very powerful people. How does one explain Barack Obama's meteoric rise? Did it have anything to do with quality? No, it was all hype by the Power that protected and promoted him. Quality doesn't matter. No matter how good & talented a person or movement may be, he or it will be crushed if the power decides to, one way or another. The Power failed to stop the presidency of Trump, so it made things so difficult that all he could do is just go along with the Deep State on nearly every issue.

When we look at the kind of people in academia, media, punditry, and politics, we don't see much quality of character. Indeed, quality of true vision, integrity, and courage is an hindrance in one's rise up the ranks. To rise up, you must be a pathological ass-kisser, sociopathic liar(like the shameless media goons who lied about Charlottesville and Russia Collusion), and a hate-filled lunatic who, as journalist or politician, does little but shill for Israel and Jewish Power. Does Luke Ford see real quality in Republican politicians? It's more suck-ass than success.

Now, we can argue that because of all the obstacles and barriers erected against the Alt Right and Dissident Right, people like Richard Spencer should have been smarter, saner, and more sensible than the Power and the forces arrayed against him. True enough. It's like white and Asian students must study even harder because Affirmative Action works against them in college admission. Such may be unfair, but it's the way of the world, and anyone who plays the game must know the terms. Though Spencer, Enoch, and others in the Alt Right are not dumb in IQ, they were stupid in strategy, acting as if real life could be played like a video game. So, it's true that the Alt Right needed men who were maturer, wiser, and savvier. And yet, given that Jared Taylor and Paul Gottfried made very little headway despite their gentility and respectability, the Alt Right wasn't entirely wrong throwing caution to the winds at times. In order for the movement to gain momentum, it had to generate youthful energy. It had to play with fire but without getting burned. It turned out Spencer and Enoch weren't very skilled with playing with fire. They learned the hard way that, when it came to real firepower, it's the Power that holds the flame thrower and the napalms.

Still, Ford should honestly admit the main reason why Alt Right failed was due to Power from above. Seriously, if the Power hadn't violated Alt Right's constitutional rights at Charlottesville and let the rally proceed and then didn't deplatform the Alt Right and deny it basic financial services, I guarantee the movement would be much bigger. The ONLY thing Alt Right needed to grow was fair treatment. Would it have grown big as Hawley once predicted? No, but it'd be a real thing. Also, as a growing movement, better leaders would likely have come forth to sideline the more problematic members. Alas, expecting Jewish Power to play by the rules was a fool's dream. Why would a people who treat Palestinians like subhuman animals treat other goyim any better? One thing for sure, Jews don't have a tradition of fair play or honor. The Jewish Way is by-any-means-necessary-by-hook-and-crook to get what they want. Consider Sacha Baron Cohen who made a career of mocking goyim with all the virulence he could muster but demands that social platforms shut down those who mock Jews in return. Foul. And yet, such lowlife paranoid neurotic Jews gained supreme power in the US. How was this possible when Ford says a movement is doomed to failure without quality leadership and members? If so, how could Jews, possibly the most derangedly neurotic and paranoid people, go from power to power? Jewish lack of integrity and character never mattered. If anything, such lack of scruples and virulence of character did wonders for Jewish Power, which couldn't have risen to such heights without the nastiness, contempt, and downright hatred for goyim. Jews had three things going for them. Higher IQ, lower principles, and the development of a moral shield by sacralizing their identity via the cult of 'Muh Holocaust'. The last allowed Jews to get away with murder without being called on it because any criticism of Jews is 'antisemitism' linked with the 'murder of six million Jews'. Only a vilely immoral people could concoct such a dastardly moral strategy.

In the end, it's about The Power. Why couldn't Tulsi Gabbard get anywhere with her campaign? Why was Max Blumenthal pushed to the margins of the political discourse? Why was Nick Fuentes kicked off Youtube whereas the rat-like Ben Shapiro the Jewish supremacist Zionist is funded to the tune of millions and allowed on all platforms? It has nothing to do with quality.
Of course, all things being equal(without special treatment for any side), quality will beat lack of quality, but we don't live in an equal and fair system but a rigged one where some people are treated like 'made men' in GOODFELLAS while others are marked to get 'whacked'. Jared Taylor did everything right, but he got booted off Twitter and can't even use Paypal. Is Ford going to blame Taylor's lack of quality for his non-person status? John Derbyshire was booted by National Review no less. Was it because Derbyshire is of lower quality than the average writer for that magazine? Of course, Ford can't possibly believe that. If Alt Right's lack of quality accounts for its failure, what is the reason for Taylor's inability to gain traction? Or do Spencer and Taylor have something in common regardless of their qualities as individuals? And that something is Jews hate them both. In other words, even if Spencer had played it more like Taylor and steered clear of an alliance with Daily Stormer crowd, he would likely have ended up just the same because Jews got the power, and Jews intend to shut down anyone they don't like.

Sure, Alt Right did a lot of foolish things, but every movement has its growing pains. The 60s radicals had to stumble before they got their act together. The difference is the Power allowed the 60s radicals to get their second, third, fourth, and more chances to get back on their feet. They were forgiven, indulged, and supported. Tons of nasty and vicious Jewish radicals in the 60s became successful people in elite institutions and industries in the 80s and 90s. Indeed, it was far more dangerous to call out on radicals on the left as one could be smeared of 'McCarthyism'. Also, the new cult of the Holocaust meant that any critical view of Jewish power could be construed as 'antisemitic'. And that meant that even lowlife Jews without even a smidgen of moral character had moral, indeed spiritual, protection with the Shoah Shield. One reason why the globo-homo movement went so far so fast was because the Jewish Media coined the term 'homophobia' as an iron cudgel to beat down anyone who dared to oppose the agenda. Now, the homo community has long been known to be a magnet for all kinds of perverts, sickos, degenerates, liars, and cheats. Homos are known for drug use and debauchery. And yet, how did homos, despite all their personal issues and problems, gain so much power so fast? Indeed, compared to the homo community, the Alt Right was downright sober. Degenerate homos gained status because they were favored by the Power, essentially Jewish, just like perverts and degenerates were favored during the Weimar Years when German Jews gained unprecedented control of society. Jews used 'antisemitic' and 'homophobic' as slurs to defame and suppress anyone who dared to call out on Jewish abuses and homo excesses. In a sane world, one would think the ethnic group most closely associated with gambling, pornography, Wall Street thievery, & tribal-gangsterism in foreign policy AND a sexual group most closely associated with orgies, fecal-penetration, fisting, promiscuity, excessive vanity/narcissism, & hedonism would come under the most scrutiny. But no. In our Jew-run world, Jews get to decide who are the 'made men' and who are to be whacked. Jews can do just about anything and get off scot-free. How long did it take to bring down Bernie Madoff? Madoff stole billions for fellow Jews before he was finally caught.
Luke Ford should know better because he co-hosted a show with Kevin Michael Grace for over a year. KMG loathes Spencer and the Alt Right and is a defender of Israel against Palestinians, BUT he has been as de-personed as Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch because he wrote some articles that upset the 'made men' of politics and media. And of course, Rick Sanchez and Chris Hedges found gigs at RT because Jew-run Zionist-supremacist US media will not touch them with a ten-foot pole. Content of character has almost nothing to do with power, politics, and fields such as media that are mostly about propagandizing for the Deep State that takes orders from cuck-politicians vetted by Jewish Globalists. It's all about who has the power and how this Power pushes the button on who gets to live and who must die.

That said, I agree that Spencer was unfit to be the leader of an important movement. Also, it's not just the Alt Right but the entire generation that grew up on on video games and trashy culture. Neuroticism of all kinds is pretty high among Millennials, and I'd wager the average 'woke' person has more psychological issues than those on the Alt Right. That said, precisely because the Power had its crosshairs on the Alt Right, those involved in the movement should have been more sensible and smart about things. They had blinders on and were led into a trap like cattle. The lesson is, when the deck is stacked against you, you must be even smarter than all the rest. Spencer and his ilk were not up to the job. But even if they were, the Power would have found means and taken measures to suppress their voices just the same, as it has already done with Jared Taylor, Nick Fuentes, and Michelle Malkin. Meanwhile, Ben Shapiro who called for the total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is still riding high. He can appear on any platform and raise millions of dollars. And Max Boot writes for Washington Post despite his biography as a vile lunatic and hate-filled Zionist pig. As Tucker Carlson said, so much of who rises and who falls has less to do with quality than one's utility to the powers that be.

The Significance of Nicholas J. Fuentes, or Nick Fuentes as a Metaphor

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'.

The Total Implosion of Richard Spencer — It's Absolutely over for Richard Spencer — Richard Spencer vs Nick Fuentes

I once cut Spencer a lot of slack because he seemed like an intelligent, insightful, and thoughtful(and much misunderstood) spokesman for the cause of white consciousness.

But later he made noises about bringing back the great imperial game… as if the world is a STAR WARS universe. If he were living in the 19th century, such talk might have carry some weight. But this is the 21st century when white worlds can barely maintain their demographic and cultural integrity. In such a time, what kind of person would dream of being King over Africans? It's good to dream big dreams, but Spencer seems to have no sense of reality. His idea of the Alt Right is making himself futurist Tarzan in Darth Vader mask, leader of the 'fashes' and lord of the apes.

Near the end of THE VIDEO ABOVE, we hear a spitting mad Spencer hyperventilating with frustration over the fact that the world doesn't regard him as Napoleon of All Eternity. The world and all its powers don't see him the way he sees himself. Oh, what cosmic injustice! Now, given what happened at Charlottesville, I can understand the rage, invective, and even racial epithets. After all, what the city did was a clear breach of Constitutional Rights(something which Spencer doesn't believe in anyway). There's no question that the Unite the Right event was sabotaged by the powers-that-be, and we can understand the anger of the attendees. But, the problem is not Spencer's fury. Rather, the substance of his rage amounts to what can only be characterized as the most poisonous kind of white supremacism, one that is hardly different from crazy nonsense spouted by KKK and Neo-Nazi types. All of Spencer's deflections of being smeared a 'white supremacist' now ring false. He didn't come to the event to defend Southern Heritage or to speak on behalf of valid white interests. His big 'dream' was to create a New Empire where people like him hold the whip-hand over rest of humanity. If his dream could be realized, his dark vision would at least have the element of awesomeness. But in the 21st century when the white race is struggling to survive all over the world(even in their ancient homeland of Europe), Spencer's 007-Darth-Vader rhetoric just sounds stupid and ridiculous. It's like the babytalk of a child in a superhero costume on Halloween. Is Spencer living in reality or stuck inside a Batman costume? At any rate, there's no doubt that his agenda was never White Liberation from Globo-Homo-Shlomo supremacism but to become 'what he is', which is ubermensch(ling) stomping his boot on the face of humanity. What petulant sense of entitlement. He should have been spanked more as a child. He acts like a brat who wants to hog all the toys. He's like a girl bawling over lost candy. He’s like Dark Helmut playing with dolls in Mel Brooks' SPACEBALLS

Spencer fooled good people who trusted and followed him. He really is a piece of shi*.



A CURIOUS commenter:

Spencer has always struck me as controlled opposition. He has never had any real base. It’s interesting to note that he always somehow survived the purges. He gets to not only keep his Twitter account but even gets verified. He gets invited to the MSM to pontificate from time to time. He is the Hillary Clinton of the Alt Right. Popularised and favoured by ZOG, but has little support on the ground.

The Jew-run Media tried to exploit him, casting him as the baddie, a role the 'enfant terrible' side of him relished playing. He was also the go-to-guy because he could be charming and congenial when he wants to be. In turn, he was hungry for publicity and saw his chance. As most people in Conservatism Inc. were a bunch of sorry 'cucks', he enjoyed playing the 'bad boy' who dares to violate PC shibboleths. And for a time, he was very good at it, pacing and measuring himself like a smart boxer against a hostile but fascinated media.
Indeed, the media panicked when Spencer appeared to have genuine star power and seemed to be outwitting them at every turn. Were they creating than destroying a monster by placing him in the limelight? At the very least, he came across as intelligent, articulate, and handsome. It was as if Spencer was playing the media than the other way around, and many were genuinely, if reluctantly, impressed. So, whatever the media meant to do, it initially backfired on them because Spencer as media creature appeared bright and capable, even charismatic. Great fortune landed on Spencer’s lap. Alt Right was suddenly a thing, the talk of the town. It even had a cool edgy brand. And Spencer could have run with this.

But the man-child made a series of catastrophic decisions. It's usually the case that the rash and reckless side of the man emerges AFTER he's gained great power. Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong were cautious strategists before they amassed supreme power, with which they then carried out disastrous decisions like Operation Barbarossa or the Great Leap Forward. In contrast, Spencer seemed to lose all sense of pragmatism and proportion the moment he became top dog of what was still a political subculture. It was as if Donald Trump's victory anointed him as the true ruler of the US, the world, the cosmos. He went totally TREE-OF-LIFE almost overnight.
Incredibly, he encouraged his fanboys to give Hitler salutes at a conference in honor of Donald Trump’s victory. This was not a closed event but a very public one with the national media present. The whole freaking world was watching, and his minions instantly trashed the event(that had gone very well) with Sieg Heil theatrics. And then, the man-child decided to have long conversations with clown Andrew Anglin of Daily Stormer. And he linked up with Neo-Nazi Malt-Right fatboy Matt Heimbach. He also interviewed David Duke. Now, while it's true that Duke has changed over the years and has done some important work, no sensible Alt Right activist with an eye to the future would have associated himself with man with Duke's baggage. But Spencer was increasingly full of himself, as if he was bulletproof no matter what he did. Spencer also got increasingly drunk and erratic, losing left and right the people who joined his movement out of genuine commitment. He could not keep quality people, and some of his associates were just as childish, bratty, and stupid as he is. Like Kyle Bristow for instance.
Then, there was roster of the Unite the Right event. When it was announced, I didn’t know much about the individuals slated to appear on stage, but in retrospect, a worse bunch of morons couldn't have been assembled. Heimbach is a fat fuc* who belongs on Jerry Springer, especially in light of what he did with his father-in-law's wife. Chris Cantwell is nuts and should be institutionalized. Others were hardly better. Now, it’s true that the Jewish mayor and the black police chief were mainly to blame for the melee, but Spencer drove Alt Right into the ground by associating it with nutjobs and morons. It’s like he was handed the coolest train set for Christmas but wrecked it with sheer lack of self-control and appreciation.

That said, it’s not true that he was spared the Purge. He was banned from EVERYTHING except Twitter. His new Alt-Right site was shut down. He couldn’t raise money. He couldn’t book venues. He’d been regularly invited by MSM as the voice of the Alt Right in 2016, but he was hardly called upon since Charlottesville.

The tragedy is he could have played it smart and shaped Alt Right into an important, even outstanding, movement, but his petulance, vanity, and egotism got the better of him. But then, he is philosophically a nihilist, which means he has no core morality other than power-worship, the fist-clenching of Darth Vader in EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. If he were a fresh 17 yr old who read Nietzsche and Ayn Rand and got over-heated with excitement, it’d be understandable, forgivable. But for a 40 yr old to gush about how he’s the rightful master of the universe, it is downright pathetic and embarrassing. People who hear Spencer's post-Charlottesville rant are more likely to laugh than be struck with fear. Ooh, he's the fuc*ing ruler, the king, the lord, the master of the universe. ROTFL.

A CURIOUS commenter:

His comments against Nick Fuentes is also reeking of bitterness. What is clear is that the Alt Right, or whatever you want to call it, is not dependent upon a small set of people. It isn’t Spencer’s pet project and it never was.


Nicholas Fuentes has an edge over Spencer, and it is consistency and commitment, as well as sobriety. He started a show called America First and has kept at it day in and day out, gradually building up an audience. In contrast, Spencer doesn’t know the meaning of tenacity and persistence. He conceived of grandiose plans and made big declarations, but he hasn't finished anything he started. He’s all sprint and no marathon. He created a site called Alternative Right with considerable fanfare but soon gave up. Then he set up Radix Journal, and it faded. It was supposed to have a print version, but it took forever to publish a single edition. He made the second-rate Crypto-Nazi Alex Kurtagic his right-hand man. He said he’s going to do regular podcasts or videos, but it was all off-and-on, never on schedule.
Nicholas Fuentes has his own set of problems. He’s young & brash and tends to fly off the handle(which at least has entertainment value). He’s smart and well-read for a young man, but his temperament precludes depth. He has interest in politics and history but lacks genuine curiosity and empathy. He has the panache to ask inconvenient questions and be contrarian against official dogma & narrative but is too quick to jump to his own simple-minded conclusions. Still, he’s young and a work in progress, and only time will tell if he will become a real player in the field of American Opinion. His positive asset is he keeps at whatever he’s doing, which is so different from Spencer who cooks up big plans but serves them half-baked... or totally burnt.


A CURIOUS commenter:

I wouldn’t even call Fuentes Alt Right. He is like the Alt Lite, but with the exception that he and his group are much less friendly to globohomo and Israel, and this scares TPTB. If people like him gained the upper hand, we’d see symbiosis, not conflict, with the more radical elements of the Alt Right like TRS.

Fuentes is neither Alt Right nor Alt Lite. He’s a ‘zoomer’ revamped with Paleo-Con fundamentals. He’s closest to Pat Buchanan, a Catholic conservative patriot with racial consciousness.

A CURIOUS commenter: 

Anglin, as another puppet, will of course try to sabotage everything as he usually does by promoting infighting and drama. But he is also rapidly losing relevance.

I don’t know why anyone would take Anglin seriously. Daily Stormer is only good for laughs, dumb and retarded but with an outrage humor like Adam Sandler movies or Three Stooges shorts. The proper thing is to just let Anglin do his thing. DO NOT invite him to serious debates. Consider Daily Stormer's take on the Nick Fuentes and 'Groypers' challenge to Charlie Kirk and TPUSA. It's only for laughs. Enjoy if you must but do not take seriously. The problem was never Anglin per se but that too many people in the Alt Right and Dissident Right regarded him as anything more than a clown. https://dailystormer.name/dear-everyone-you-get-what-you-fucking-deserve/

Finally, why is Spencer really really over? Because he sold the media the persona of a sane and rational 'white nationalist' who went against the grain/stereotype of the demented 'white supremacist' so often spread by the media. Spencer's brand had value as long as he could persuade people that his true self had no relation to the cartoonish image created by the Jewish Media of the KKK and Neo-Nazis. The Spencer shtick was most effective when the Media said "Look, evil scary white supremacist monster" but Spencer smiled and presented himself as a smart guy who cares about his race and culture. Because of Spencer's privileged background and educational credentials, respectability mattered more to his image than to anyone else on the Alt Right. Sure, he could be a bit edgy and do the enfant terrible thing that could be funny.
But the post-Charlottesville rant exposes Spencer as a truly contemptuous, deranged, vile, and vicious piece of turd who feels he is entitled to rule over the world because his childish self wants all the toys for himself. Just like virginity, once lost, cannot be regained, there is no way Spencer can persuade and regain the trust/respect of anyone of good will and rationality. In some ways, it's a good thing because imagine if a far more persuasive and sociopathic Spencer had indeed succeeded with a movement by concealing his truly ugly self that finally emerged when he amassed considerable power. Spencer is not a man of sound mind and body. He's borderline bipolar and semi-sociopathic. It's like the nutty character by Keir Dullea in BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING who seems sane throughout the movie only to be revealed as batshit crazy. Spencer is not clinically crazy but batshit stupid. Spencer once argued that the enemy sees 'white nationalists'(and even conservatives) as worse than wrong; unapologetic whites are seen as worse than evil, irredeemable. Well, at least in Spencer's case, he has proven the enemy right. He really is a pile of shit. Well, at least he has that going for him: The pride of being a stupid amoral bastard.