Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right

Intersectionality, like Identity, was stolen by the 'left' from the Modern Right. It goes to show the Right was sounder on fundamental matters of power and politics. Nevertheless, the 'left' gave the themes of identity and 'intersectionality' its own perverse twist, rendering them even more problematic and useless for the preservation of stable socio-political systems.

There was a time when the Left used to denounce the politics of identity as tribal, atavistic, reactionary, particularist, and xenophobic. The Left urged all of mankind to forgo their cultural identities and tribal-ethnic-national affinities and become part of Universal Man. For Marxists, this meant the brotherhood of workers around the world. It didn't necessarily mean dissolution of borders, but it meant people around the world would formulate their core interests on the basis of class than race, ethnicity, or nation. Marxism = Interests > Identity. So, the working classes of all races, nations, and cultures would form an alliance against all repressive elites regardless of race, culture, and nation.

Among capitalist liberals, the universalist project was essentially elitist(or bourgeois). They called it cosmopolitanism whereby the best educated individuals, being so knowledgeable and sophisticated, would dissolve traditional or tribalist notions of identity. Committed to meritocracy and excellence, these cosmopolitan elites would find value and form companionship based on comparability of skills, talent, and interest than on something so 'crude' as ethnicity, nationhood, and tribalism. In time, with expanding economies and rising educational attainment among the middle classes, the ideal mode of cosmopolitanism would go from elite privilege to mass reality if all worked according to plan. With rising prosperity, expanding leisure, and growing sophistication, cosmopolitan model could define mass consciousness.

But as things turned out, identity(and ethno-cultural inheritance) mattered after all. Communism couldn't stamp out nationalism, cultural consciousness, historical memory, & ethno-solidarity, and, if anything, nationalist tensions flared up even within the socialist camp, as between USSR and Red China. Also between Red China and Vietnam, and then between Vietnam and Cambodia. Also, even within the USSR, communism couldn't eradicate the ethno-national aspirations of various peoples to break free from the Soviet Empire. And despite Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, each Warsaw Pact nation guarded its national identity and sense of history.
And Jewish Leftists who used to preach Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, or Stalinism eventually discovered that neither political ideology nor mere economic interests(usually short-term and ever-shifting) cannot supply the meaning and compass that could be found only with identity-of-inheritance(which is distinct from PC identity-of-grievance). Many reverted to Jewish identity(with proven resilience and richness) and focused on Jewish Power or Zionism.

Also, certain non-white groups in the US became troubled by the notion of assimilation. When White America was racially conscious and exclusionary toward non-whites, the effective strategy among Jews and non-whites was to weaken white sense of identity and racial uniqueness. After all, whites held most of the power and wealth. White America was Main America back then. So, in order for Jews and non-whites to gain access to more wealth and power, White America had to be persuaded that Americanism required ALL peoples, whites and non-whites, to forgo their tribal or racial identities and melt into a single pot of new-found unity. Many whites resisted this, but many whites accepted it(not least because the melding of various white ethnics into a Common Americanism had succeeded more or less in many parts of America). And as time wore on, White America opted for the melting-pot pact where all peoples would try to be generic 'Americans'. This would apply to whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and immigrants. But once this new paradigm was achieved, certain non-white groups and Jews began to fret about the overall impact of such 'melting' assimilation. After all, if US is dominated by whites, assimilation into the melting pot means non-whites and Jews forgoing their own identities & roots and succumbing to dominant whiteness. They would become ersatz-whites(meaning White Christians). So, the very people on the Left(dominated by Jews) who’d once pressured White America to let go of its racial identity and commit to a molten-identity of ‘Americanism' became the ones who found new value in the Politics of Identity. Thus arose Multi-Culturalism. Even though whites were pressured and expected to surrender their identity(mocked as 'bland' and 'white-bread'), non-whites and Jews were encouraged to defend and radicalize their own (apparently more authentic)identities against whiteness.
This was also useful in promoting 'white guilt', an effective weapon for Jewish Power in paralyzing white power and unity of purpose. Melting Pot ideal may have offended white race-ists, but it still favored White-ness uber alles since whites comprised the solid majority of Americans well into the 1980s. So, if assimilation were the magic formula for America, it meant non-whites and Jews should become more like whites and conform to white culture & standards. This might have worked if the only minorities in the US were Asians and Mexicans, as both groups generally tend to follow, obey, and imitate. But blacks came to see white people as 'weak' and 'wussy'. Black men came to look down on 'slow fa**oty-ass white boys' and didn't want to surrender their macho Negro manhood by becoming 'honky-ass white'. Also, even if blacks had wanted to assimilate to whiteness, the difference between whiteness and blackness was too stark to ignore.
If they’d so wished, Jews could have assimilated into whiteness like swarthy Southern Italians and Turkmen-looking Greeks managed to. And Jews might have done just that if not for their exclusive sense of identity/superiority and higher IQ. Being smarter and pushy, Jews felt that they could and should become the ruling elites of America. To become such, they couldn't assimilate into whiteness(at least not 100%) and become mere imitation-wasps(as some White Christian Conservatives wished them to be). Also, the wily Jewish personality found whiteness too stiff and stuffy. Once Jews reached the top, they figured it should be the whites(and others) who should try to assimilate to the Jewish Way(mainly be sucking up to Jewish Power). After all, the object of assimilation has primacy over subject of assimilation. The subject assimilates into the object, so the object swallows the subject. It’s like the food assimilates into the eater. Jews prefer to digest others into the Jewish Way than have Jewishness be digested into gentile-ness. (Assimilating into the Jewish Way isn't the same thing as goyim-becoming-Jewish. Rather, it means goyim regarding Jewish Power and Jewish 'values' to be the dominant New Normal of America and the West. For example, Homomania as replacement for Christianity.) Granted, some goyim literally do assimilate into Jewishness because they are so in awe of Jewish Power. We see this in Chelsea Clinton, Ivanka Trump, and Amy Chua. They assimilated into Jewishness, and their kids are raised as Jewish. Thus, the Best and the Brightest(and/or prettiest) among the goyim offer their wombs to Jews, and the kids of high IQ Jews and high IQ goyim are raised as Jews and serve Jewish Power.

So, the logic of the Jewish Left came full circle. The very people who'd been denouncing the politics of identity as 'reactionary' came to promote identity as 'progressive'. But of course, there is one danger to promoting identity politics. It can spawn the politics of white nationalism. After all, if identity is good enough for non-whites, why not for whites as well? This logic is partly behind the emergence of the Alt Right.
Problematically, multiculturalism among most non-whites is an identity-of-against, not an identity-of-for. It is an identity-of-grievance than an identity-of-inheritance(and reverence). Multiculturalism in the West does not encourage non-whites to grow closer to their own race, heritage, history, culture, and territory(native homeland). Indeed, if multiculturalists really believe that preservation of identity and heritage are so important, they should be anti-immigration since immigrant-invaders usually lose a sense of who they are and whence they came. Greeks in America know very little about Greece. Japanese in Brazil know and care little about Japan. Multi-culturalism does little to foster preservation of identity and heritage. If anything, it urges non-whites to abandon their own homeland nations/folks/cultures and head to White/Western nations and surrender to Hollywood culture of degeneracy, PC dementia, Homomania, and feminism. Multiculturalism is a sleight-of-hand trick. It fools non-whites in the West into believing they are empowered by the Ideology of Diversity. But surely, living in a world of Diversity makes it more difficult for any group to preserve its identity, heritage, and culture; obviously it's more difficult for a Burmese or Syrian to maintain his identity and culture in the US or Canada than in his own home nation. Homogeneity means there are others who share in your identity & culture and cooperate with you in maintaining the history and heritage of your people. Diversity means your people/culture constitute just another minority that is surrounded by other groups with different identities and cultures. Diversity undermines every culture as every group will lack a solid support system of like-minded and like-cultured national kinfolk. Surely, it's more difficult to secure Irishness if an Irish group is surrounded by many other groups who aren't Irish. There must be a constant struggle to prevent members of the group from joining and interbreeding with other groups. Also, Diversity means all groups must be united by something generic, bland, and/or superficial that has easy but shallow appeal to all groups. As America grows more Diverse, the sniffing-glue that holds America together is Pop Culture and Food. In contrast, in a Irish nation full of Irish people, you don't even have to make an effort to preserve Irishness since it's all around, organic and rooted.
Anyway, to make things even worse in the Current West, the Cult of Diversity is interwoven with Homomania, feminism, and other Western pathologies. The lie of Multi-Culturalism is that it appreciates and defends non-white cultures from Western Hegemony. Its real agenda is to associate non-white cultures with PC grievances and degeneracy. So, when Multiculturalists pretend to embrace Muslims, they don't really care about Islam per se. And they care less about helping Muslim-Americans maintain their Islamic ways and cultural values. Rather, they make a show of embracing Muslims to associate Islam with Diversity laced with homomania, feminism, and decadence. Multiculturalists who denounce 'Islamophobia' are not trying to uphold Islamic values or spread Sharia in the West. They are trying to inject homomania and feminism into the Way of Islam. They've done just that with Christianity already. Especially Mainline churches are now into Queertianity.

Multiculturalism is not an identity-of-for but an identity-of-against. Under its influence, non-whites have little idea what they are and what they are for. For example, Asian multiculturalists are not encouraged to feel closer to Asian identity, heritage, culture, and territory. If anything, they are urged to cut themselves off from their own roots in their homelands and resettle in the West. So, what is their identity under Multiculturalism? It is merely the identity of pretend-victimhood. They are to identify as 'victims' of 'white racism' and 'white privilege'. Their identity is AGAINST whiteness rather than FOR Asian-ness. Since their main identity is defined in terms of being AGAINST certain peoples/cultures, they not only turn anti-white but eventually anti-Asian as well because Asian nations are still FOR something: Asian homeland, Asian ethnicity, Asian culture, Asian history. The AGAINST mentality finds meaning only in attacking and diminishing anything that is FOR. Against-ism is a habit of mind that comes to loathe any form of For-ism.

And this is the gambit that the West is playing with Muslims. This embrace of Muslims by the Multi-Culti 'left' seems contradictory. After all, Muslims have ways, values, and manners that are so at odds with Western decadence, degeneracy, and inversion of values. So, why would the West be friendly with people who have no use for feminists and homo lunatics? The hope is that, over time, the Muslims will also develop an identity or mental habit that is more AGAINST than FOR. Once that happens, these against-ist Muslims(whose highest value is homomania, feminism, and rap culture) will wage war on for-ist Muslims who still live by the Faith.

The basis for the current alliance between Jews and Muslims, two groups who really hate each other in the Middle East and even in the West(due to reverberations of Middle East politics), is untenable in the long run because ‘leftist’ politics of identity is too thin and shallow for genuine bonding. Against-ism can never serve as strong glue for anything.
Jews and Muslims hate one another, but they are both AGAINST white nationalism as embodied by Donald Trump(even though he has been exposed as just another toady of Zionists). It is useful for Jews to portray Trump-as-Hitler even as Trump grovels before Jews. Jews and Muslims have particular reasons for being anti-white-nationalist. Jews want to keep their supremacist control in the West and fear white identity politics as a potential challenge to their power and privilege. Muslims want entry into the West for better material lives, and they fear white nationalism as an obstacle for this opportunity. Therefore, Trump-as-Islamophobe meme is a boon to Jews. It provides reprieve from the Jewish-Muslim tensions in the West. Under Obama, when mass-immigration faced no obstacles, there was the rise of the BDS movement. Muslims and Arab-Americans joined with others to condemn Israel and Zionism. But now that Muslims’ main concern is to ensure continued Muslim immigration-invasion to the West, they are willing to shush up, at least for now, about Israel-Palestinian problems and collaborate with Zionists against Trump.

http://forward.com/opinion/360847/thanks-donald-trump-you-actually-brought-jews-and-muslims-together/

Anyway, even though the 'left' stole the Politics of Identity from the Modern Right, its formulation remains shallow since it is essentially an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance. An identity defined AGAINST whites has no value without the bogeyman of White Evil. Indeed, this is the pathological crisis of the Left in a nutshell. Essentially defined in terms of AGAINST(whatever evil of the current year), it has no meaning unless there is another war to wage against something.
In contrast, the identity-of-for or identity-of-inheritance(of history and heritage) has great value even without enemies or dragons to slay. A true Greek patriot is happy to be a person of Greek ancestry and heritage regardless of whether there are or aren't enemies. He'd be a proud Greek regardless of Victim Politics. His Greekness has value apart from Hurt Feelings.
In contrast, an identity-of-against or identity-of-grievance feels empty and meaningless unless it’s pitted against something and whines endlessly about victimization. Multiculturalism offers shallow identities to all its adherents because it doesn't encourage non-whites to grow meaningfully closer to their own race, culture, and heritage. (But then, if non-whites did just that, they would turn genuinely tribal and resist serving a mega-coalition of various tribes manipulated by Jewish elites against whites.) Rather, it tells them to define their identity mainly in terms of 'victimhood' under whites. So, without the Evil Whitey to hate and blame, their identity has no meaning. Leftists and Multi-cultists suffer from a kind of 'thunderlust'. They must thunder and rail at something to feel justified. Their identity has no inner calm or innate meaning. It's about constant complaint and whining about something or someone else. It is a vanity of feeling a**holier-than-thou.
Given the anti-white vitriol of PC, why are so many white people(ranging from SJW harpies to cucky-wuck GOP Constitutionalists) on-board with the lunacy? Because white people have adopted a kind of negative-identity and fetish-for-exoticism. Given human nature, even guilt soon turns into pride, and so, it's not surprising that 'white guilt' morphed into a new twisted kind of white pride. Since whites are no longer allowed to feel pride in white identity, they seek neo-pride in White Guilt, just like Christian obsession with Sin became just another form of pride, that of sanctimony and holier-than-thou shtick. Christians took pride in their displays of atonement, and white proggies and Cuckservatives practice neo-white-pride in the form of the Great White Atonement. They indulge in Good White Pride by loudly beating their chests and bashing the 'racist' Pride of Baddy Bad Whites. Also, so many whites are now so bored with their own history and culture that they are into exoticist fetish for other cultures(and 'genders').

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/a-mighty-wokeness-is-their-god/

I imagine the Ethiopian eunuch as a delightfully androgynous soul – dark of skin, flamboyant, dressed in bright silks, bejeweled, his lips colored and his eyes lined with kohl. He is sitting under a parasol in a large chariot, and around him are mounted soldiers and attendants. A wagon carries tents and food so that he can camp in luxury on the journey home.

Even so, politics of identity, even when shallowly defined, may lead to politics of identity-of-depth. Some might start digging deeper into their own identities and find something richer and far more meaningful than constant griping about Evil Whitey. (This is exactly what happened to some Jewish leftists. Initially, these secular Jews who’d rejected Jewish identity adopted the Jewish identity of victimhood, especially in relation to the Shoah. Under this limited formulation, Jewishness had meaning AGAINST the anti-Semites and Nazis. But over time, some of these Jews rediscovered value in Jewishness that went deeper than the ever-shifting winds of politics and recent history.)
Precisely because even shallow-identity can lead to deeper-identity, Jewish Power decided to unleash Homomania especially on the white community. If politics of identity can lead to the rise of white identity politics as well, what better way to muck it up by making homo-identity the holy identity among whites? Indeed, despite the burden of 'white guilt', whites have been craving for some kind of tribal expression. But by rules of PC, whiteness is too tainted for any kind of pride or power. So, whites were offered the outlet of Zionism as the Other Americanism(or the Outpost of Western Civilization), and many white Christians channeled all their frustrated tribal-racial energies into rooting for Israel. But that was never going to be enough for all whites, especially the secular ones. So, whites were bombarded with homomania as supposedly the fullest flowering of whiteness. Notice how white homos are among the most celebrated, praised, and admired in the media. So, the subconscious message became whiteness-is-redeemed-through-Anno-Sodomini. Is it any wonder that so many whites flocked to homomania? It is one area where whites are allowed to be dominant without apology. Otherwise, 'too many whites' or 'white power' is suspect as being tainted with 'white privilege'. But white homos are blessed for their homo-ness. So, a gathering of white homos and celebration of white homos are a kind of whiteness that has been washed of 'white guilt'. This is the paradox of White Morality in the Current Year. White guilt feelings are most effectively washed with shameful white acts(of homo fecal penetration and tranny penis-cutting).

The 'left' stole not only the politics of identity from the Modern Right. It also stole the politics of ‘intersectionality’ from fascism. What is 'intersectionality' but a leftist twist on fascist theory of corporatism? To better understand this, consider the contrasting strategies of the radical left and modern right in the interwar years following WWI.
The radical left gave us Marxism/Communism. It sought to stamp out all contradictions and create a mono-ideological system. Everything in the radical leftist state had to conform to Marxist principles and communist methods. Since communism is atheist, religions had to be stamped out. Since communism is for the proles against the bourgeoisie, the business class had to be wiped out. Since communism is revolutionary and anti-reactionary, the Old had to be smashed and destroyed. Radical leftism was mono-logical. It had one idea, and everything had to submit to that idea. Anything that didn't submit had to be destroyed or banished. There was little or no room for compromise, cooperation, or sharing of power. All power and control had to be in hands of the radical left.

In contrast, fascism strove for an 'intersectionality' among the various forces of society. Mussolini was an atheist(and used to be a militant one as a syndicalist-socialist), but as a fascist, he came to value the Catholic Church for its role in Italian history and society. So, unlike Bolsheviks who waged ruthless war on the Russian Orthodox Church, the Italian Fascists came to an understanding with the Church. The result was the Lateran Pact. Also, Fascists acknowledged that economics isn't just about the righteousness of a single class. There was and always will be a class of workers. And there was and always will be a class of businessmen and managers. So, the sensible thing was not to destroy the business class or enslave the working class. The solution was to arrive at an understanding among the classes so that all would fulfill their necessary roles in society. Also, even though Italian Fascists promoted science and technology(and modernity), they also came to see value in tradition, heritage, and legacy. Therefore, it wasn’t inevitable for the forces of tradition and forces of modernity to be in a state of constant warfare where compromise was impossible. Fascism could arrive at ways in which tradition and modernity would not only tolerate one another but support one another.
The reason why there was far less violence and terror in Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany than in most communist nations was because they opted for 'intersectionality' among various classes, between secular institutions and the church, between the traditional sources of power/prestige and new forces in ascendance in politics & culture. (Of course, Hitler threw it all away and created hell on earth when he opted for inter-European imperialism and violated the nationalist principles of neighboring nations, but that is another story.) In contrast, communist nations were far drabber, drearier, and marked by dread since their mono-logical systems were Procrustean in bending and twisting everything into a single mold.

So, the current 'leftist' fad about 'intersectionality' was really lifted from the Modern Right. But when used by the 'left', it can only be a fad and fashion because 'leftist' machinations of 'intersectionalities' are almost always utterly shallow, cynical, conditional, opportunistic, flimsy, and superficial.
Fascism searched for 'intersectional' potentialities of depth and substance. For 'intersectionality' to be effective and stable, the common thread woven through the various forces has to be real and meaningful. So, if Italian bourgeoisie, Italian proletariat, Italian peasants, Italian artists, Italian Catholics, Italian secularists, Italian military-men, Italian traditionalists, Italian modernists, Italian scientists, Italian writers, and etc. all have their differences and contradictions among one another, what is the common thread that holds all of them together? Italian-ness! However their respective views or values may differ from one another, they could at least come to an understanding on the basis that what they have in common, Italian-ness, is far more important than what they have in contrast. As fellow Italians with shared history and heritage on the same territory, they have common interest in making their nation better, richer, more powerful, more productive, and more creative. And with this understanding, they could be more forgiving of other Italians with whom they disagree. Also, each could do its own thing to contribute to the larger improvement of Italy with the knowledge that all other sectors are also committed to serving Italy. Italian patriotism can bring together an Italian capitalist and Italian socialist. Italian capitalist may be good at business, and an Italian socialist may believe in more government involvement. But if both are committed to the betterment of Italy, both can come to respect one another and contribute in their own way. Even if their interests sometimes run counter to each other, the differences could be resolved when they look at the bigger picture of "Is it good for Italy?"

Because the locus of fascism was ethnicity, history, heritage, and territory, its brand of 'intersectionality' was sound and stable(as long as Italy didn't enter into some mad imperialist venture and reap the wrath of other nations far more powerful, which is exactly what happened when Mussolini made a foolish pact with pathological Hitler). There is no better ‘intersectionality’ than nationalism. It is the shared sense of blood, soil, and memory that allows various individuals and groups to cooperate and work together despite divergences in ideas(capitalist or socialist), beliefs(religious or secular), or professions(military men or civilian).
Nationalism as ‘intersectionality’ has real gravitas. It is the roots that hold all the other parts of the tree together.

In contrast, the 'intersectionality' of the current 'left' is ludicrous. Fascist 'intersectionality' is about meeting of the roots in the realm of depth. But, 'leftist intersectionality' is about the scratching of branches of different trees at the whims of winds.
Whatever their differences, an Italian Catholic and an Italian atheist has something real in common in their shared ethnicity and history. Indeed, what they have in common is more powerful than whatever happens to be in their heads.
In contrast, consider the 'intersectionality' among Zionists, Muslims, homos, feminists, blacks, and immigrants. They have NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE in common. Zionists and Muslims hate one another and find common ‘ground’ only in their fear of white nationalism(as challenge to Jewish supremacist power or hindrance to Muslim immigration-invasion to the West). Elite feminists and blacks have nothing in common except their scapegoating of 'white men' as the source of all problems. They may pretend to have something in common and compelling in their commitment to equality and diversity, but more diversity only leads to more inequality -- just take a look at California -- , and furthermore, a term like 'equality' is too vague to mean anything definitive. Notice every group invokes 'equality' to mean something different, usually, "We want bigger share of the pie". For blacks, 'equality' means "We ain't got enough, honkey." For Jews, it means, "We deserve everything we got, even though we have much more than other groups." And libertarians and conservatives invoke ‘equality’ to mean what they want it to mean. They mean 'equality of opportunity'.

It is amusing that the 'left' bleats on and on about the evils of fascism, but it stole ideas from the Modern Right because the 'left' has turned out to be so vacuous and discredited in all its formulations and conceits.

Neo-Fascism is the best intersectionality between the Real Right and the True Left. Left-Rightism must be the Way of the Future.

Jared Taylor Cannot Win with Facts and Reason Alone - Vision of Future trumps View of Reality - Richard Spencer’s Vision Needs to Smoke Less Crack

There are two prominent figures in the alternative sphere of the rightist spectrum. There is Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer.

Jared Taylor makes good sense backed with facts and logic on a host of issues, but he lacks the vision thing. After all, Moses didn’t manage to lead all those Hebrews out of Egypt just by noticing facts around him. He inspired his people with the vision of a better tomorrow and the Promised Land. He promised them the laws of God on the conviction that God, the one and only God, was on their side. Without such prophecy, neither the mythical Moses nor the historical Muhammad could have achieved what they did. We may learn a lot from someone who points to things around us and gives a factual analysis of every item. But we aren’t likely to be inspired by him or look to him for The Truth, the one that lends meaning, purpose, and direction to our lives. Rather, it is the man who points to the distant horizon and speaks of the great future that inspires people and make them want to follow him. He is the prophet who is far-sighted, whereas the ‘factualists’ are short-sighted.

We need all the fact-based people we can find as they get things done in the world, but the future is made by those who lead the people to ‘another’ world. This another world could be literal in the sense of discovering or conquering a distant territory. Or it could be a vision of how our own land could be transformed into something far greater.
Now, Jared Taylor does have a passion and objective of sorts. He is passionately committed to his own race, culture, and heritage. And he looks forward to a world where whites will be safe and secure in identity and posterity. But it doesn’t excite or inspire because the Taylor’s vision of a good society is all about the A-B-C’s of stability. If he could have a Father-Knows-Best-like society for his own people, he would be content, and that would be that. Such a society would certainly be nice, but it’s not visionary enough to inspire masses of white people to view it as their Promised Land. To inspire the masses, the vision must be more than something nice or something-that-had-been. It has to be something that has yet to be, something so great, wondrous, and glorious. It needn’t be something as fanciful(and ridiculous) as Wakanda, but the vision has to be powerful enough to turn people into zealots and true believers who are willing to kill and die for this vision.

If Bolsheviks, Italian Fascists, National Socialists, Zionists, and Lazarusites have one thing in common, it is the Vision thing. Benito Mussolini convinced Italians that they could once again become a race of heroes, like the warriors of Roman Times, if they come together as a people under his leadership. Bolsheviks intoxicated both the educated elites and landless peasants with a future vision of the End of History of justice and truth. Zionists excited Jews with the hope not only of nation of their own but the recovery of their lost Holy homeland. And the cult-worshipers of Emma Lazarus romanticized the notion of America as a Proposition Nation, the full greatness of which has yet to be realized with the arrival of dreamers from all over the world. Good or bad, sensible or insane, those -isms offer more than facts and reasons. They offer a vision.

In the end, people are not moved by clarity of the empirical mind but the fever of the imperial spirit. Clarity of facts and logic reduces our emotional heat. So, while Jared Taylor makes a convincing case on matters of race and culture, he leaves us feeling calm, cool, and collected. But history is not made by gentlemen. Gentlemen are good managers and officials. But they are not the ones who supply the heat and the juice to make the people want to do something more than the usual, the normal, the routine, and the mundane. Napoleon didn’t inspire his men with facts and data. He made them believe in him, his abilities as leader and his vision of glory for France and the Revolution. T. E. Lawrence convinced all those divided Arab tribes to follow him and serve him not with dry lectures on history or cold political analysis. And it wasn’t just the promise of loot either. He made them believe in his special powers and the dream of Arab unity and glory that had been out-of-reach under Ottoman Rule.
And he did all this despite not even being a Muslim. He managed to convince Arab Muslims to fight fellow Muslims of the Ottoman Empire because his showbiz quasi-prophet act was so compelling.

In the end, history is made by people who believe in a Taboo. They feel what they believe isn’t merely factual or true but holy and sacred. Indeed, the holy and sacred is favored even over factual evidence. After all, we can factually debunk or intellectually deconstruct much of Jewish religion, myths, legends, and history. We can say that, as there never was a God, the notion of Promised Land or Holy Land is just nonsense. Based on chemistry, the dirt in Palestine/Israel is no different from dirt in any neighboring nation. So, there was no Covenant. It was all an invention. And Moses probably never existed, at least in the version told in the Old Testament. But none of that matters to Zionists, even the most secular ones. They BELIEVE in a covenant with history if not with God. And this myth fills them with a vision of the future that MUST be. It is NOT negotiable. And this vision is so powerful that even the most secular leftist Israeli Jews will pick up assault rifles and kill bushels of Arabs, Muslims, and Persians IF that’s what it takes to preserve Israel as the eternal vision of home for the Jews.

Richard Spencer understands this need for Big Vision, a sense of not only being right but righteous. In the end, an order cannot exist for long without its zealots. Israel may have secular elites who think about ‘higher’ and drier things, but it survives only because it has its core neo-Zealots who are willing to go to any length to defend the nation from enemies from both within and without. Now, if an order is totally overrun by zealots, things can get out of hand, like Iran during it rabid Islamo-revolutionary phase. A healthy society needs more than vision, passion, and conviction. There is value in liberal open-mindedness and inquiry. But if an order is only open-minded and dryly intellectual, it won’t have the ferocity to come together and defend the order against enemies. It’s like a person needs more than passion and fists. He needs a mind and heart. But without the fists ready to fight off the threats, the mind and heart will have no security. Before any idea or value, the person must survive as an organism, and that means it must be ready at all times to move into the mode of ferocity and fists to fend off any enemy that threatens his survival and well-being. And this will to survive isn’t based on an idea but an animal passion. But since animal passion alone will just keep a person on the level of an animal(like so many blacks), the mind and heart have to create a vision for the fury and fists to serve. And this vision is something more than objective accounting of reality. Israelis are not committed to defending their nation because they have an objective assessment of their land in terms of economics, minerals, agriculture, water, and etc. After all, the rules of agriculture and market economics, like laws of gravity, are pretty much universal all around the world. All nations read from the same economics and chemistry books. No people ever wanted to defend their nation based on the mere sciences of economics, sociology, psychology, or archaeology. After all, a rational and scientific understanding of anything is a universal endeavor and belongs to all peoples. Even non-Germans can read about German history or brush up on what archaeology has to say about ancient Germanic folks. Even non-Greeks can learn about Greek philosophy, and even non-Jews can read about the history of the part of the world called Palestine/Israel. Knowledge doesn’t belong to any single people. So, if anyone can learn about the history of Jews or Israel(and can even gain more knowledge about Jewish history & culture than your average Jew does), why is it that Jews believe that Jewishness and Israel belong to them in the way such don’t belong to any other people? Why are Jews willing to fight and die for Jewishness and Israel in ways that mere gentile scholars of Jewish culture and Israel do not? It’s because Jews have something more than objective or scholarly interest and knowledge about Israel. They have a powerful sense of their myth, narrative, tragedy, and future/destiny that binds them together. And Jews feel that even gentiles who strongly identify and sympathize with Jews cannot be part of the Tribe. (Incidentally, the reason why many whites so strongly identify with Jews and Israel even though they’re rebuffed by Jews is because they’ve been denied passion in their own identity or failed to develop something on their own with their own vision of the covenant.)
Furthermore, it’s not enough to say that whites are special and especially accomplished. After all, a people who do great things only attract attention from around the world. All great empires not only tried to conquer the world but absorb the world. So, if whites are said to be so great, then, it leads to the logic of universalism, i.e. whites should spread their greatness all over the world(because, after all, greatness wants to rule and doesn’t want to be contained), and the rest of humanity should be able to partake of this greatness.
If whites are to survive as a unique race and culture, the notion of greatness or superiority(in IQ or talent) isn’t enough. Greatness only attracts the attention of others. Also, greatness wants to be admired by others. What great actor or actress doesn’t want to be loved by as many people as possible? What great corporation doesn’t want to expand its market share all over the world? Indeed, when it comes to their great achievements in science, financial power, entertainment, and media, Jews want to take over the entire world. While greatness seeks to dominate others, it also absorbs them, and as the result, the Other also becomes a part of the Great Power. Also, greatness, in its sheer meritocracy, doesn’t necessarily favor one group over another. In some cases, group differences are so stark that meritocracy does lead to total or near-total domination by one group. On meritocracy alone, women cannot compete with men in sports. If women want to play, they need a sports league of their own. In basketball, meritocracy has led to near-total black domination. But greatness in many fields does not so decisively favor one group over all others. Greatness in chemistry, physics, and computer sciences led to the rise of many white, Jewish, and Asian scientists and engineers. Since greatness favors greatness over mediocrity, white greatness will favor non-white greatness over white mediocrity. So, even if one could make the argument that whites have achieved the greatest things in history, putting greatness, ability, and talent at the center of everything will undermine ethno-nationalism and identity of collective racial inheritance. After all, even if it’s true that whites have been more adept at reason and science than other races, the fact still remains that most whites are not very smart or creative. Meanwhile, there are plenty of non-whites who are very smart and creative, and if given a chance by the Western system, will do head-and-shoulders better than most whites. And then, whites of intelligence and creativity will favor non-whites of intelligence and creativity because the system would put greatness and meritocracy at the center of all things. And this is why all this stuff about IQ doesn’t cut it. It’s interesting and informative but doesn’t support the Vision necessary for the survival of a race, culture, and territory.

This is obvious from the case of Jews. If indeed Jews should primarily care about greatness and meritocracy, then the smartest, most creative, most successful, and most powerful Jews should primarily seek out their counterparts of excellence among the gentiles. Smart Jews shouldn’t care about dumb Jews just like smart whites are told to dump on dumb whites. Smart whites are told to think meritocratically and identify mainly with smart Jews and smart non-whites. If smart and powerful Jews acted just like smart and privileged whites, would Jewish people, Jewish culture, and Jewish nation survive? After all, even though Jews are, on average, smarter than other groups, there are plenty of not-so-smart Jews. And yet, Jewish identity, culture, and nationalism remain strong because smart Jews believe they should primarily identify with other Jews, smart or dumb. So, even though smart Jews will work with smart non-Jews in elite endeavors of physics, chemistry, finance, and computers, when away from work their main identity and loyalty are with Jewishness, Jewish history, Jewish culture, and Jewish nationhood in Israel.

In contrast, look at the decline of Episcopalians despite the fact that they had an IQ equivalent or possibly even higher than of Ashkenazi Jews. So, why did Jewish power keep rising whereas Episcopalian power faded despite their individual successes. As individuals, there are still many successful, rich, and/or super-privileged Episcopalians. But because they abandoned their sense of racial/cultural unity and history/heritage, the sense of their own community was lost. Episcopalianism was both too exclusive and too weak to survive as an identity. Those within the denomination were exclusive enough to set themselves apart from other white Christians, but they lacked an communal sense that was powerful enough to hold the community together like among Jews(or even Mormons). Power isn’t more than a series of individual successes. True power is the unity of those of individualities. It’s like a bunch of individuals can be great warriors, but if each fights only for himself than coming together to form an army, they won’t stand a chance against the power composed of individuals working as a team. If every wolf acted as a lone wolf, it could not bring down a moose, elk, or bear. But if they work as a team, they can bring down the biggest game.
Jews retained a powerful pack instinct, whereas Episcopalians, despite equal intelligence, eventually turned into lone wolves. Since Episcopalians couldn’t form a pack of their own, their lone talents attached themselves to those with pack instinct. Today, most successful white gentiles just serve Jewish interests because Jews still act as a pack to form a dominant team. The only way this team can be countered is by forming counter-teams, but Jews have used their control of academia and media to indoctrinate white gentiles with the idea that pack-mentality is noble among Jews(and blacks) but downright evil and ‘supremacist’ for whites.

Imagine single beams of light. They are all very nice but unless all those beams converge, there cannot be the super-beam that burns as bright as the sun. Indeed, the Sun is powerful because so much matter converged over time within a single gravitational field to create that great furnace in space. It’s like charcoal. If you have 20 lit charcoals and place them apart, you won’t be able to cook anything because there is no combined heat. To cook a steak, you have to pack the coals together for a real flames that can cook a whole pig(though, to be sure, pigs should be spared for their intelligence). It’s like what Albert Speer pulled off at the 1936 Berlin Olympics where all the beams of light converted to create a super-beam, an artificial sun in the sky.

Jews got the heat because their coals are placed together in a pile. In this pyramid of flames, some coals are placed higher than others, but they all work together to generate the heat for the burnt offering to Jewish Power. In contrast, the only kind of coal-burning that is fashionable among white gentiles is white women having sex with black men to spread ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.
So, it isn’t enough for White National Liberators to focus so much on metrics of intelligence, creativity, originality, personality traits, or whatever. This is especially because ability and superiority tends to be disloyal to the tribe. If a white guy is good in basketball, he will play with blacks in the NBA because he wants to be with the best. A pretty white cheerleader will not side with race. Since she has something of special value(her looks), she will want to be associated with someone else with special value, and if a Negro beats a white guy in sports, she will go with the Negro because of his athletic superiority. A brilliant Chinese scientist may decide to move to the US and work at MIT because American academic institutions are where the best minds are. And even smart Jews are tempted to forgo Jewish interest IF doing so boosts their chances of being with the best people.

Fortunately for Jews, even when Jews go for total meritocracy, they can be assured of being with lots of fellow Jews since Jews have a decisive advantage in IQ. And even when Jews marry non-Jews, it’s usually the case that the latter decides to raise the kids as Jewish since Jewishness has such prestige in the halls of power. The thing is Jews didn’t become so powerful with merit alone. It wasn’t simply because Jews tend to be smarter, and therefore, there are more smart Jews in high places. It’s because all those Jewish beams of light converged to create the Jewish sun of power. Because Jews know this is the secret to their own power, they discourage it among gentiles. Without their strong sense of tribe and unity, Jewish advantage in ability and intelligence could paradoxically be a liability where Jewish power is concerned. Again, despite higher general Jewish IQ, most Jews are not geniuses or even very smart. Your average Jew has an IQ of 110 to 115, which is good but not outstanding by any stretch of the imagination. And there are Jews with IQ considerably lower than that. Israel has a lot of Sephardic Jews, and their IQ isn’t much above that of Arabs. So, if Jews went by meritocracy alone, they could easily become like Episcopalians in no time. The smart and successful Jews will only watch out for their own individual interests and, being deracinated, prefer to identify with fellow successful people regardless of their race, color, or creed. In time, the top talents among Jews will feel closer to smart Anglos, smart Arabs, smart Chinese, smart Russians, smart Latins, and even smart Iranians. The middling Jews and dumb Jews will have no representation, leadership, guidance, and protection from powerful Jews. Eventually, they will lose heart and confidence while the smart Jews just look out for self-interest like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Notice that Jews never speak up for Anglo-identity, Christian power, or European heritage. Indeed, such are seen as bad or tainted. In contrast, Hillary supported Israel even in its savage beat-down of Gazans, and Joe Biden, though a deracinated piece of turd, calls himself a ‘Zionist’. According to the likes of George Hee-Hawley, white people are evil ‘racists’ or ‘white supremacists’ if they want to preserve their own identity and heritage, but it’s perfectly okay for Jews to not only uphold their own identity, culture, and territory BUT compel even non-Jews like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, John McCain, Donald Trump, and Nikki Haley to go all out in their support of Zionism, indeed even Zionist imperialism over West Bank.

The fact is whites need to be like Jews. Smart, middle, or dumb, it doesn’t matter. If you’re white, you’re part of the family. It’s like a decent member of the family doesn’t disown his brother or sister because he or she isn’t very smart. A race is an extended family. A true nation must be a place for this extended family where every member, from smartest to dumbest, has a sense of belonging. So, even though a white chemist at work must cooperate with chemists of all colors around the world, away from work he must be a white man whose main loyalty is to his race, culture, and nation. And if Jews complain, tell them to stop having their own pack mentality.


Jared Taylor is a perfect gentleman, but gentlemen don’t make history, esp if they don’t have power. Gentlemen can inherit and manage power, but they lack the power of vision to generate the necessary passion for power. Gentlemen stand for moderation, civility, and order, all of which are fine qualities to have in an order, but the forceful will of power was not generated by those qualities to conquer lands or convert souls. Gentlemen are about compromise and negotiation, which are necessary modes in what we call a ‘free society’, but an order is almost never created by compromise but by a compulsive drive to make a vision or dream come true(as long as it has real-world chance of success). Granted, the visionaries can’t only be insistent. While it’s true that Jews realized the dream of Zionism by being insistent, persistent, and zealous, they also knew when to negotiate. Also, Jews had developed many sources of power in finance, media, and government to exert influence over goyim. If Jews had been like lowly Gypsies and just made demands, they would have gotten nowhere.
And it’s also true that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao often played it passive/aggressive. They could put on a nice face, appear moderate or willing to compromise, and be very diplomatic. But even when they were playing ‘nice’, they still had a fire burning within them for the fullest realization of their vision. They could speak softly, but they always carried their hot poker. They could lower to heat to assure rivals and enemies that they favor warmth all around, but they still tended the hot fire within the furnace of power. Jews were passive/aggressive in their push for Zionism, but the passive side always served the aggressive side. Jews were sometimes willing to seem ‘nice’ to look for vulnerabilities on the other side so that, when the time was right, they could drive the stake right through the heart. It’s like a boxer will sometimes move back, throw light jabs, and pretend to go easy... only to find that perfect moment to land the real blows to send the opponent to the canvas. So, Jews weren’t just sparring with their opponents. Even when they seemed to go ‘easy’, they had KO on their minds. And this is a kind of instinct that is alien to Jared Taylor. Raised with southern gentlemanly qualities and patrician instincts, he lacks the power of balls and the instinct to bite-and-tear-off-the-other-balls. He wants to remain above the fray and keep his hands clean. He wants to be dignified, rational, and moderate, even though his views are considered ‘extreme’ by the current Narrative. In contrast, Jews, even though they can seem civil and gentlemanly like Taylor, do have the chimpanzee-an power of balls and instinct to ball-bust other balls. Chimpanzees got big balls because they want to hump as many chimpanzesses as possible. They are truly Portnoic in their lust for domination and fun.

Pondering the balls of a chimp, we better understand the nature of Jewish Power.  Despite Jewish intellect and sophistication, the core emotional thrust of Jews is ultra-aggressive, obsessive, insistent, persistent, and boing-ish. If the gentlemanly Wasp way is to courteously back away when the other says NO, the Chimpan-Jew way is to keep pressing on and on and on. It's like Benjamin Braddock in THE GRADUATE. Sure, it's based on a novel about a Wasp written by a Wasp, but the way Dustin Hoffman played it, he was almost like an ape in heat. Or consider THE HEARTBREAK KID where Charles Grodin's character, despite his seeming passivity, goes full-ape to overcome all obstacles to stick his Portnoic pud into the prime poon of a golden-haired shikse. Jews got what Tony Montana has. Big Balls. So, when dealing with Jews, it's not enough to estimate their brain power or consider the validity of their arguments. One has to ask, "How magnum are the balls of these Jews?"

To better understand the problems with Taylor, imagine him standing naked facing off against a naked Harvey Weinstein. The first thing Taylor will wonder is, "Now, why am I standing here with no clothes on?", and he will look for some clothes. And then, upon noticing the naked Weinstein, Taylor will feel embarrassed for both of them and look for some clothes for Weinstein as well. But Weinstein thinks differently. Instead of the Wasp gentlemanly way which is to shrivel the balls into the size of beans and act civil, the Jew expands his nuts to the size of bowling balls(like in BIG LEBOWSKI) and fills himself with ultra-chutzpah. But it doesn’t end there. Like chimpanzees ferociously attack the balls of rival chimps, punching them, bashing them, biting them, and ripping them off, Weinstein the chimp-souled Jew lunges at Taylor and attacks his balls and tries to bite them off. To know your Jew is to know your chimp. Jews are like Italians and Gypsies with higher IQ. Despite their greater knowledge and credentials, they will stop at nothing to go for the kill and get their prize, and their intense tribalism will spare them from any feelings of guilt or remorse.

Anyway, the world would do well with more gentlemen but ONLY AFTER the power has been established and secured. Also, the game of power has to go beyond reason and minutiae. The Narrative Sweep will blow away verisimilitude in favor of vision.

The once glorious revival of the American South in the American Imagination despite the terrible defeat in the Civil War owed to the Southern control of their own Narrative. The South stuck with the Narrative that white Southerners were the tragic victims of Northern white race-betrayal and aggression. And Southern historians depicted the Reconstruction as rape of the South by carpetbaggers, much like Russians feel that their nation was ravaged by Jewish globalists in the 1990s. Also, Southern Whites depicted blacks as the big threat to white social and moral order. D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION had an electric effect on the nation. And GONE WITH THE WIND blew away UNCLE TOM’S CABIN. While Harriet Beecher Stowe won the war, Margaret Mitchell won the peace by ennobling the tragic defeat of the South as a romantic epic. Almost no one reads UNCLE TOM’S CABIN, but GONE WITH THE WIND still has countless fans around the world. Even William Faulkner, though very critical of the South, had great nostalgia for Southern heritage. All of this came crashing down with the Civil Rights Movement and thereafter that not only championed the rights and the counter-narrative of Negroes(which was understandable and justifiable since blacks also had a tragic narrative that had been suppressed by White Southerners) but waged total war on anything that imbued the South with tragedy, nobility, integrity, and beauty. In time, Jews got white Northerners to despise everything about the white south, and Southern elites, having been educated by Jews and Liberals, came to loathe their own heritage. According to the current Narrative, there was NOTHING redeemable about the South. So, if there's any glory to America, it all belongs to the North(mainly because it defeated the South) and Immigrants. But this is, of course, bogus since the North, even more than the South, led the Manifest Destiny that wiped out the Indians. Isn’t ‘genocide’ worse than slavery? Also, didn’t the arrival of all those Immigrants lead to greater westward expansion and more ‘genocide’? Jews may have been escaping from pogroms in Eastern Europe, but they came to a nation created by pogroms against Indians. So, how noble are the Jews? (Furthermore, Jews played a key role in the Southern slave economy.) Now, the American Narrative of Westward Expansion shows that one can have a dual narrative about a nation. One can admire the great white vision of conquering the West and turning what had been a savage wilderness into a great new nation. But one can also acknowledge the tragedy of Indians who got trampled and cast aside by the march of progress. We can honor both the triumph of the cowboys and the tragedy of the Indians. But when it comes to the South, "there is only one side", and this BS from Jews who were heavily involved in communist mass-killing, financial destruction of nations, and Nakba & Wars for Israel in the 20th century and 21st century.

This is why one must KNOW YOUR JEW before doing battle with them. For persistent, insistent, and obsessive Jews, there is no compromise. It’s their way or the highway. Notice how Putin made things very good for Jews despite his move against certain Jewish oligarchs who looted the nation in the 1990s. Many Jews were allowed to remain filthy rich, and the Jewish community in Russia gets extra-protection as anti-Jewish sentiments and actions are severely proscribed. But do Jews show any appreciation? No, the likes of Max Boot the chimpan-Jew wants to get together with other nasty Jews and chew on Putin’s balls all night long.

Jared Taylor is under the delusion that Jews can be negotiated with on grounds of equal partnership. It is a gentlemanly approach, but it is deeply flawed because Jews aren’t interested in equal partnership. They want total domination and control. Jews are pushy and fierce. They want it all. Was the guy in THE HEARTBREAK KID willing to compromise? No, he wanted total ownership of the golden shikse poon. If the father had said, "Okay, you can’t marry and screw my daughter, but she will give one blowjob per month", does anyone think the Jewish guy would have said OK? No way. He wanted the whole nine yards.
There are three reasons why Jews don’t want equal partnership with white goyim. (1) Being smarter, Jews think they have the right to dominate others. (2) Being a minority with far fewer numbers than white gentiles, Jews feel that whites may one day renege on the equal partnership and use their numbers to gain dominance over Jews, as sort of happened in Russia. (3) Jewish appetite for power and control is just insatiable regardless of any other factor. Just like Harvey Weinstein had to grab all those women and just like Anthony Weiner had to keep sending his penis pictures to so many women, Jews can’t help themselves.

So, when people like Taylor offer equal partnership, Jews see no point in negotiating. Also, people like Taylor are now so powerless that they are in no position to negotiate. While all the Zionists who support the violent policies of Israel get to run the media and all the think-tanks, Jared Taylor can’t even keep his Twitter account. And while AIPAC rallies calling on all US politicians to support Israel’s brutal occupation of West Bank are lavishly funded and held at huge stadiums, American Renaissance conferences could barely secure a venue. So, Taylor’s fig leaf to the Jews means NOTHING to the Jews. They see him as a defeated man and are out to silence him totally.
Now, if people like Taylor held the real power in America and if they offered equal partnership to Jews on the premise that Jews must be nice to whites, Jews may take up the offer strategically to bid for time as they keep gaining in power to the point where they can finally dethrone and ‘discredit’ anything associated with whiteness. It’s like Jews in the Old American South arrived at a compromise with the Plantation system, and Jews in Russia pretend to go along with Putin while looking for ways to eventually steer Russia into the pocket of Jewish ownership.

Anyway, Taylor's offer is meaningless because Jews already have the power. Why would they take up on the Taylor Plan when they have nothing to gain from him? What do the likes of Taylor have to offer to Jews who got Wall Street, Ivy Leagues, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Big Media, Deep State, High-Tech, and Biggest Law firms? Now, there is a chance that Jews may have to come to the negotiating table in the future if something really BIG happens. Suppose things get so bad for whites that there are violent upheavals in both the US and EU. Suppose the current ruling elites are toppled from power, and a New White Power emerges to take center stage. In that case, Jews better pray that there might still be some whites who are sympathetic to them.
So, one could argue that Taylor’s Offer to Jews is less about the Now than about the Later when Jews might find themselves in big trouble. Or even if whites do totally lose out to Jews and globalism, Jews may face more dangers from non-whites, especially Muslims in the EU. If indeed the EU becomes heavily Muslim and if these Muslims become ever more violent toward whomever they regard as ‘Zionist’, then Jews better hope that whites will side with them and protect them from violent Muslims and Africans.

Anyway, like it or not, the Jewish elites do have a powerful vision of uniting the whole world under the glob-dome of Political Correctness as virtue-vanity ideology, Pop Culture as the only culture, Homomania as the new religion, US militarism as the sole hammer, and Wall Street finance as the final arbiter of all things. The unholy trinity of Jewish Money, Jungle Boogie, and Justice Junkies. And masses of sheeple addicted to celebrity culture. White females to become meat for Jews & Negroes, and white males to become sappy cucks like CucKen Burns.
Yes, it’s all shallow and crass but nevertheless powerful, enthralling, and mesmerizing because it is so pervasive and relentless in fueling vice, vanity, and (delusion of) virtue as a single combo of ecstasy and rapture, best exemplified by the hysterics of Homomania, the celebrations of which convey the excesses of hedonism, conceits of narcissism, and arrogance of moralism. The vanity of vice is the new virtue.

Of course, it’s all ludicrous, but the power of the electronic media, monopoly of terminology, and fulsome pageantry override the senses that render clear thinking almost impossible for so many people. Because the power of media amplifies images and sounds that have such spellbinding impact on so many people, the effect is sufficient to win over and hold most people... in the way that Christmas lights and celebrations are enough to convince children that Christmas is so wonderful even though they know nothing of the religious foundation of the holiday. It’s like Las Vegas, and its endless cascades of lights. It’s not just the prospect of gambling that draws people there. They feel alive, like a ball inside a pinball machine being bounced around endlessly regardless of rhyme or reason.

To be sure, the very nature of globalist power is its biggest vulnerability. Because it is so false, phony, and degenerate, it can only be kept alive by endless supercharged voltage of fun, frills, and fortune. In Old America prior to the rise of electronic media, many families were isolated and had little, but they found real meaning in the family, community, Church, and patriotism. But all those are gone, so what is there but bogus visions and values? Since bogusness is shallow and stupid, it can only be sold with a lot of glitz and shine. It’s like Bread and Circuses of Ancient Rome. Once the state couldn’t provide them anymore, there was nothing to go on. True value has meaning even when ‘unplugged’. It’s like a genuinely worthy song has value even without all the layered effects of electronica. In contrast, many current hits have very little content without the production values that just add a lot of bells and whistles. It’s like a dish with lots of sauce but hardly any meat. Still, as long as the globalist elites have the juice to keep the mojo flowing, billions of people all around the world will remain captivated by the kumbaya.

Against such power, Taylor’s arguments may be sound and factual but are ultimately ineffective. It’s like facts and data sound boring, insignificant, and irrelevant when uttered between two giant speakers blasting words and music that incite the masses into chants and convulsions.
Rappers yammer nonsensical crap, but why do they have such power over so many people, even those who are well-educated and well-read? It’s because rappers are thunderous and hurl fire and brimstone to the beat. Their way isn’t to argue or discuss a point. They command and demand respect.
The thing is, before humans are creatures of reason, they are emotional and sensual beings, and the reason loses out to the rhythm. Consider the success of the utterly stupid Disney revamping of STAR WARS into yet another franchise. The sheer power of hype makes the myth live.

Whatever his faults, Richard Spencer understands that a vision, however corrupt and tawdry, has to be countered by another vision. This takes boldness and a leap of imagination. Would communism have collapsed in the Soviet Union and neighboring Communist nations if the Capitalist West hadn’t existed? After all, as inefficient and underdeveloped Eastern-European communist nations were, they were still far more advanced than nearly all of the non-white world and the Third World. So, if the US and Western Europe hadn’t existed, many people living under communism would have thought they have the best system in the world... just like the Byzantine Empire, being cut off from developments in Western Europe, thought it had the best of everything in comparison to the nearest neighboring powers. And prior to the challenge posed by the West, the Chinese were confident that they had the best of all worlds. Their own vision of things was enough. It was when the more advanced vision of the West challenged the Chinese vision of civilization that the whole system began to gradually but surely unravel, eventually gaining steam whereupon the nation came to be racked by one revolution after another. Would the people of Romania have stood up to Ceausescu if their only vision of Romania had been the one pushed by the state? Weren’t they inspired by what they heard of the world outside Romania and communism, one of freedom and enterprise and ambition and success? It is the counter-vision that undermines the current-vision.

In understanding this, Spencer is onto something. But if Jared Taylor’s view is too short-sighted and factual, Spencer’s vision is too grandiose and delusional. When the West must struggle to save itself and survive, does it make sense to dream of colonizing Africa once again... or flying off to Mars and stars for interstellar colonies? Maybe such is in the cards centuries from now, but white people today need to fix their vision on matters that are most essential. After all, if the West is lost to the darkies, there won’t be the future of great science and technology. Spencer might argue that whites being a majority is not important, because, after all, Jews are a minority yet have so much power. And Brits ruled all of India with a small imperial caste. But what eventually happened to the Brits in India? They got overwhelmed by sheer numbers and got booted out once nationalism and mass political consciousness got universalized. As for the dominance of Jewish minority elite, it's possible only because Jews have white gentiles to serve them and support them. Could Jews have gained such power if they’d stayed out of white world and set up communities in Africa, Asia, Middle East, and Latin America? Blacks would have just raided and raped them. Asians would have ignored them. Muslims would have severely proscribed their freedom. And Latin Americans would have been too lax and corrupt to provide a system in which Jews could thrive with assurance of Rule of Law and Private Property. It is no accident that Jews gained the most power among white people. So, Jewish power depends on white support. This was the case in South Africa too. Jews grew very rich there because they were protected by the white Anglo-Boer support system. But when blacks took over and the white support system dramatically weakened, Jews found their place in South Africa far less certain, which is why Jews are deeply worried about black and Hindu(who compete with Jewish diamond merchants) condemnation of ‘white monopoly capital’. Given that Jewish supremacy depends so much on the white support system, one would think that Jews wouldn’t be so eager to keep pushing for more invasion-immigration and Diversity that will diminish white power, in which case Jews will have less of a white support system to rely on.
But, the Jewish idea is that Immigration and Diversity should be pushed at least to the extent that white majority power is broken. In other words, Jews want to live in a nation with lots of whites but one in which whites cannot form a majority to block whatever agenda Jews want. Now, shouldn't Jews worry about non-whites working as a new majority against Jewish power? No. Why not? Because non-whites will be too diverse — blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. — to agree on anything and unite into an effective force. Also, even though non-whites will supply the votes(almost entirely for more immigration and more gibs), they will not get to control the agenda since most of them don’t have the means to reach elite positions, and the only ones that do, the Asians, tend to be pretty docile and obedient to the dominant Narrative and Agenda. Non-whites will supply the votes to keep Jewish elites in power, but it will be the Jewish elites who make all the important decisions. And if non-whites get restless, Jews can always use the power of media to direct non-white ire at 'white privilege'.

Anyway, the Vision is the key. Whites must be instilled with a passion so powerful that makes them feel the world is intolerable UNLESS their vision is realized. This vision must essentially be national since white people need to respect the national visions of other peoples as well.
In big things, there must be mutual respect and reciprocity. The notion of one people or nation ruling or controlling the whole world will lead to more disasters. One must have a passionate vision, but one must also have a sense of limits.
Richard Spencer thinks white people have some 'Faustian' destiny to rule, but this is total misreading of history. So much of the world was once easy to conquer because (1) The West was so advanced in arms and technology and (2) the Non-West societies lacked national consciousness. So, when whites conquered a territory and took out its elites, most natives didn't care because their concept of power was something that happened above. They saw themselves as subjects than citizens. So, what did it matter if they were subjects of local power or foreign power? Subjects are meant to obey. So, if foreign imperialists took out local elites, it was the war between the 'gods' that had little to do with most native folks.

That was then, this is now. All the world have gained development in modern technology, and all peoples around the world have national consciousness. India even has nukes. What would happen if the British tried to invade India or China today? Even the lone superpower like the US got badly bogged down in a third-rate power like Iraq.

People need vision, but every vision must have limits. The world is not a STAR WARS movie where people get to play Darth Vader. On the other hand, Taylor's C-3PO-like factualism doesn't quite inspire.

The Core Coding of the System Will Determine Its Future. The West Is Dying Because Its Central Coding has been Altered

Rule of Narrative changes the Rule of Law.

When the New Narrative is made sacrosanct, the Law succumbs to it because… it’s a ‘dream’, and who wants to defer a dream?

The gloomy fate of America and Europe too is due to the fundamental change in the premise of the New Narrative that was pushed by Jews who gained total control of media and academia.

If whites had insisted that US and Europe are white lands and belong to white people BUT white people are nice enough to take in some non-whites, the new arrivals would have come with a sense of gratitude, appreciation, and respect. After all, they were magnanimously allowed in as guests in another people’s homeland.

So, the new arrivals always feel owed to the native people. They feel that the native folks, out of the kindness of their hearts, did something they didn’t have to do. They were nice enough to let in non-whites who have a chance of a better life.

But suppose the premise of white nations are changed. The new narrative is “white lands were always nations-of-immigrants” on the basis that there had been earlier invasion of peoples in prehistoric times. Also, suppose premise says that Diversity is magic and More Diversity is wonderful for a nation. And fundamental Change is what a nation should be all about.
Then, the corollary is homogeneity and continuity are bad things. Homogeneity must be replaced with magical Diversity, and continuity must be severed by ‘reinventing’ the nation in the spirit of Change.
So, the primary destiny of white nations comes to about increasing endless Diversity and to welcoming total Change.

Under reigning ideology of PC, not only are white people inculcated with such value system but non-whites in white lands no longer feel appreciative as lucky guests but as rightful owners of white nations. After all, the New Premise says Diversity and Change must take precedence over Homogeneity and Continuity(that are deemed ‘racist’, ‘hateful’, ‘extreme’, and ‘far right’).
Thus, foreigners who arrive in white lands don’t come with gratitude but with moral and ideological arrogance. They come to make demands to let more of their kind into white nations and for white institutions & industries to favor non-whites in high positions to make things more ‘just’ because, after all, white nations no longer belong to white people but to the World in the spirit of Diversity and Change.

Core ideas are that important. Changing the central idea of a nation is like changing the code of a computer. If a computer code is programmed to favor red dots and eliminate blue dots, red dots will be favored. Over time, there could be 1000 red dots and only 10 blue dots remaining. But suppose the code is changed to favor blue dots over red dots. Red dots may not worry since they greatly outnumber blue dots. I mean, how much harm could 10 blue dots do to 1000 red dots? But the altered code will mean that blue dots will gain with every passing hour until they will greatly outnumber the red dots. While red dots are eliminated one by one, the program allows blue dots to multiply.

When the Western code was altered, most white people didn’t react with alarm since they looked all around and saw white people and white power. So what if the New Laws & Values favored Diversity and Change? What could possibly happen?
Well, look around the big cities of Europe. It led to the invasion by tons of non-whites who cannot be expelled because the core code of the West now say they are what the West and its ‘values’ are all about.

Why do these Usurpers act with such arrogance and contempt for White America? Because the new code favors them. They no longer feel grateful and appreciative. They no longer plead for favors. No, they just make demands and act like the West is theirs to pilfer and plunder. All the great things created by Anglo whites and other whites exist to be claimed and taken by non-whites… or so the New Code says.

If you have title to your house, it’s your house. Now, suppose there’s a homeless person and you let him in. It’s still your house because you hold the title. The title encodes the house as yours. So, your act of kindness to the homeless person is your decision. It’s your decision to let him stay or to tell him to leave.
But suppose you decide that you’re gonna share the title with him. You tell him, “my house is your house”, and you expect the guy to be grateful and kiss your pinky. But instead, the guy feels that since he owns the title to the house just as much as you do, he will do whatever suits his fancy in the house. Also, he has friends and families who have much to gain by coming to the house. So, he calls them over. You protest, but the law no longer favors you since you shared the title with the guy. You find your house, which is no longer yours alone, filling up with more ‘new owners’ invited by the homeless guy(who is now co-owner of the house). In time, the house has a 100 people, and all those people don’t see themselves as guests but as co-owners. So, you went from owning the house to being 1/100th owner of the house. Boy, wasn’t that dumb?

Whites in the West have only ONE way to save itself. Take back the Title to their National Property. In Europe, this is totally justified since Europe is the ancient homeland of whites. Denounce Diversity and Change as the cult of neo-imperialism and colonization. Tell non-whites to return.
The change in the code was fatal to Europe. As Europe is so much richer than the Third World, what was likely to happen if the Code were changed? Naturally, the poor masses were gonna flock to the West for better material lives. And they were gonna call more of their kinds to share in the loot. If you feed animals, what do they do? They send out signals and more of them come. And if they initially came with gratitude and appreciation, they later come making demands for more and more and get angry if you don’t feed them.

Nothing can be saved without the Change in the Code. Sure, they will accuse the rise of nationalism as ‘racist’, but if nationalism was good enough for the Third World in driving out white/European colonists and imperialists, it’s good enough for white people to kick out Third World mobs of usurpers. White people must reclaim the Title to their lands. And if it means war and violence to topple the vile elites and kick out foreigners, so be it. Viet Cong didn’t just hold up signs. They fought. So did the Algerians resistance fighters to drive out the French.

The re-coding of the West to favor Diversity and Change over Solidarity and Continuity was the fatal flaw. Every society is a system, like a computer is a system. And just like a computer follows its codes, a social system functions in accordance to its legal coding and narrative drives. As long as the Code favors Diversity and Change, we can kiss the West goodbye. Diversity and Change must be properly identified and diagnosed as virus and cancer embedded into the Western DNA by vile globalist elites. They must be treated like disease that must eradicated from the core DNA of the West. Diversity and Change are like HIV. They are meant to weaken and destroy the Immune system of the West by brainwashing whites into thinking that any thought and action for self-preservation is Evil. Nationalism is an immune system to defend and conserve the social system of a people. When nationalism is attacked by globalist cancer, the immune system fails because the people are made to believe that there is nothing more evil than their desire for solidarity and continuity as a people and culture.

White folks must rise up and attack Diversity as Demise and Change as Extinction. A great people don’t need to be replaced and ‘reinvented’. Diversity-and-Change was a case of fixing something that was not broken. The idea of ‘fixing’ the rich and stable West with dysfunctional Third World morons who wrecked or degraded their own nations was too funny, but no one got the joke because white people were ‘guilt-baited’ with Shoah and made to feel that Nationalism was the root of all evil in WWI and WWII when, in fact, both wars were the result of imperialism that violated the national sovereignty of weaker peoples.
The real reason for the rapid recovery of the West and Japan owed to restoration of nationalism. Nazi and Japanese imperialism was defeated, and nations could be free and sovereign again.
The new danger was that the Cold War gave rise to Soviet and American empires. But then, with the fall of communism, it seemed as though every nation in Europe would be sovereign and free. Then, there would be peace and prosperity predicated on security and stability. But then, there was globalism that led to EU neo-hegemony and expansion of US as the hyper-power that treats other nations as vassals, but then, US itself is the vassal state of a bigger power of globalist networks dominated by Zionists.

It is because Zionists want to control the entire world that they push Diversity and Change on all nations(except Israel). With Diversity and Change as the elite mantra in every nation, nationalism will weaken as native elites will not defend their nations but serve the globalist elites who offer them lots of money and prizes if they go along. And then, every nation can be infiltrated and taken over by foreign capital and New Cosmopolitanism whose only truths are Homo Worship and Rap music.