Showing posts with label Kevin Michael Grace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kevin Michael Grace. Show all posts

Monday, January 6, 2020

Kevin Michael Grace vs Rodney Martin on Trump's Killing of Soleimani on THE LUKE FORD SHOW — Who Is Right?




The video above begins with Kevin Michael Grace's defense of Donald Trump's assassination of Soleimani and Iraqi militiamen as justifiable retaliation against the attack on the US embassy(which, in turn, was a response to earlier US attack on pro-Iranian Iraqi forces). Rodney Martin joins the discussion at 34:00 to condemn Trump's actions as being on behalf of Israel-Firsters, especially when, as Tucker Carlson has pointed out, so little has been done about Mexican Drug cartels and broken borders. (Of course, Carlson is too afraid to Name the Jew.)

Kevin Michael Grace as co-host on the Luke Ford Show is a man of journalistic experience and exhibits many positive attributes of the profession: Curiosity, erudition, and a critical mind. As a staunch conservative, a rare breed in journalism nowadays, he's been resistant to whims of fashion that have come to define Western culture and values. (But then, conservatism, like any -ism, comes with its own set of biases and blind-spots.) People like KMG are outliers not only because they're conservatives in an overwhelmingly Liberal profession but because they have 'liberal' tastes in arts and culture. Now, there is no reason for conservatives to be anti-art or anti-intellect, but in the modern era more liberals than conservatives have been invested in arts, culture, and ideas. One merely needs to survey the media, academia, and institutions. This imbalance has been more pronounced in America where conservatism has either a strong populist or Evangelical strain. As for conservatives committed to the arts, they've generally favored traditional arts, established reputations, or conventional genres. William F. Buckley Jr.'s idea of music was limited to classical. In contrast, KMGs' cultural sensibility and tastes are closer to those of Liberals though his analyses and judgments have a right-wing, Christian, and/or pro-white angle. Unlike the more staid culture warriors of Conservatism, KMG really gets and appreciates modernism, the avant-garde, and pop culture. He even dabbled in punk culture albeit for right-wing reasons. But KMG's inquiring mind and openness go only so far. Sometimes, he falls back on stereotypes and shopworn cliches to spout off on something he knows little or nothing about, as when he caricatured 60s Drug Culture in the manner of silly educational films only good for laughs. Though not a druggy myself — I don't even wanna try pot — , I know enough about hallucinogens from books and friends/associates that they aren't about seeing Magic Dragons. Though KMG is correct about the negative effects of drug culture(that got even worse with cocaine in the 70s, crack in the 80s, and meth in the 90s), he mis-characterizes something he knows nothing about. From Aldous Huxley's DOORS OF PERCEPTION & HEAVEN AND HELL and Jay Stevens' fascinating STORMING HEAVEN, it's clear that psychedelics weren't just escapism into a neural video-game with pink magic bunnies. Besides, doesn't Catholicism believe in miracles, a notion that has been exploited by charlatans to milk tears and dollars from suckers? KMG has interesting things to say when he opens his mind to any subject. Thus, even conservatives have something to gain from the liberal spirit; liberalism becomes a problem when it turns into dogma, as with Political Correctness, whereupon it becomes liberal-in-name-only and stuck within a iron-cast-of-mind. (Likewise, the radical leftist spirit has value insofar as it is willing to question and challenge the existing power structure. It turns sour when the spirit turns into dogma, as with Marxism-Leninism and hardens the passion into a cold iron fist.) Granted, liberals would do better with some degree of conservative anchor or roots as freedom without attachment is like leaves blowing in the wind: Free but fated to brown and wither. At any rate, one of the less appealing aspects of conservatism is to fall back on familiar biases without questioning assumptions. Sticking to the tried-and-true is usually good rule-of-thumb, but it doesn't provide all the answers. That the 60s drug culture went very wrong should be obvious to all, but to characterize psychedelia as KMG does surely misses something crucial. It's unlikely that so many people were drawn to such drugs just to lose one's sense of reality and to see objects turn into monsters. KMG's simpleminded take on Counterculture can be heard 46:00 in the video below.


Rodney Martin is an off/on guest on the Luke Ford Show, and I know little about him except that he's an American patriot, an upstanding member of Middle America. Though a regular American, he speaks more sense that most of the commentariat in Mainstream Media(that are as 'mainstream' as so-called Mainline churches are 'mainline'), and it's heartening that someone who isn't a professional in academia and government is as knowledgeable about world affairs and strives for moral consistency on US foreign policy. In the Grace-Martin discussion, Martin comes off much better because of this very consistency. To better understand the issue, consider the Politics of War in American History. The Liberal-Left opposition to Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vietnam War notwithstanding, most of the political discourse on War has been a matter of, "It's bad if your guy does it, it's good if our guy does it." We saw this with Liberals, leftists, and Progs from Bush II to Obama. While many on the Left opposed and condemned Bush II's invasion of Iraq(not least out of fear that it might turn out well), most were either silent or supportive of Obama's even worse destruction of the Middle East(Syria), North Africa(Libya), and Ukraine, not to mention the 'new cold war' with Russia. In contrast, the 'conservatives', who couldn't get enough of warmongering during Bush II's presidency, were either tepid in their support of Obama's war or even mildly voiced opposition. One of the remarkable things about Trump's 2016 campaign was his pledge to bring the troops home and make peace with Russia. He also denounced the invasion of Iraq as a total disaster. He also reiterated the obvious that the destruction of Libya and Syria only emboldened the terrorists. He did spew bile against Iran, but it was understood he had to throw some red meat to the Zionist oligarchs to get their money. At any rate, something remarkable happened as a result. The Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton became pigeonholed as the pro-war candidate, whereas Trump, for all his bluster and machismo, came across as an anti-war candidate. Thus, his supporters also became anti-war, and this angered the Neocon Jews who see the US as one giant aircraft carrier for Zion.

One of the developments since the end of the Vietnam War was the tendency to root for(or at least not oppose) war IF the commander-in-chief happens to be your guy. To the credit of the American Left, it opposed the Vietnam War when LBJ, a Democrat, was president, and then it opposed the war under Richard Nixon. There was a certain consistency in their position. But a narrative developed since then that the Progressive opposition to a Democratic administration led to the rise of Richard Nixon and Silent Majority. Therefore, the new strategy was one of vociferously opposing wars by Republican presidents while supporting or at least not-opposing wars by Democratic presidents. GOP, in turn, was likely to be far more supportive of GOP-led wars than Democratic-Party-led wars, but overall, its 'support the troops' mentality meant that its anti-war stance was weak at best. And so, Bill Clinton got away with lobbing bombs and missiles all over the place. And there was virtually no opposition to Barack Obama's war on Libya, coup in Ukraine, and aid to terrorists(labeled 'moderate rebels') in Syria. But then, Trump Phenom happened in 2016, and incredibly enough, it seemed as though American Conservatives could be the new anti-war voices and on principled than mere opportunistic basis. This was most welcome since the kind of people who are most likely to get killed in war are conservative white men. Furthermore, the Invade-Invite Strategy undermines American nationalism. By invading and destroying other nations, US loses moral credentials on nationalism, i.e. why should Americans have right of nationalism when their government violates and tramples on the sovereignty of other nations? Furthermore, the US strategy has been to give its invasions a human face with the invite-policy. "We may destroy your nation, but we are so warm-hearted and welcome you displaced folks to our nation." This has been going on since the Vietnam War. Kill millions over there but put on a human face by taking in untold numbers of refugees. This policy is especially damaging to American Conservatism since most of these newcomers end up voting for Democrats. One reason is the Democrats are for more immigration, but the other reason is, despite the fact that Jewish Democrats are the biggest globo-imperialists on Earth, the Democratic Party pays lip-service to concerns of People-of-Color and has at least some factions that speak up for Palestinian rights and oppose war(though never effectively). Thus, Democrats can enjoy their wars and imperialism while feigning 'progressive' credentials of peace and tolerance. In contrast, the GOP comes across as entirely pro-imperialist and pro-war. This was precisely why Donald Trump was so threatening to both Democrats and Republicans in 2016 when he ran, more or less, as a Peace Candidate. Though he projected power & pride(unlike spineless George McGovern in 1972) and supported the US military, he said all the wars in Middle East and North Africa have been disastrous, leading to more terrorism, more instability, more dead soldiers, more dead civilians, and the demographic invasion of Europe via Libya. He took a hardline position on Iran(unfortunately) and promised to reverse Obama's semi-conciliatory policies, but overall, he totally went off the GOP reservation to the ire of Neocon Never-Trumpers. And the passionate support for Trump among many American Conservatives(who cheered in the South when he said Bush family is responsible for the disaster in Iraq) suggested a sea-change in popular opinion. Could it be that American Conservatives are becoming Anti-War in principle? Could it be that Peace, Conciliation, and Diplomacy will become conservative positions while deranged Democrats will clamor for more wars(and cold wars)? Will American Conservatives break with the contemptible tradition of "War's okay if my guy's president, war's not okay if your guy's president." And for awhile, it seemed that way. Whenever Trump said he's about to pull out troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, many on the New Right cheered whereas Democrats, wenches like Rachel Maddow, and Never-Trump Neocons crowed. It seemed as though the Progs really were stuck on More Wars whereas the New Right was set on No More Wars.

But as Jews run the US, Trump has been unable to make peace with Russia. Not only did the Jew-run Media blast Trump for any sign of thawing with Russia but the hysteria of Russia Collusion Hoax made sane diplomacy with Russia impossible. After all, if half the nation is convinced that Trump is Putin's Puppet, Trump will be denounced as traitor for any overtures to Russia. And despite his many noises, Trump hasn't been able to pull out troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan because the military-industrial complex and Jewish faction in the GOP are too powerful. Still, the fact that Trump managed to avert a new major war was seen as something. But perhaps it's the 'beat the wife and kick the dog' syndrome, the one where the man who is berated by his boss at work goes home to mete out violence against weaker members. Trump, having had his manhood taken away by Jewish Zionists and Globalists, is now a castrated and cucked man. As Jews have subverted and destroyed much of his first term, the logical thing for him would be to denounce Jews and maybe bomb Israel for its endless aggression and provocations against Syria, making it more difficult for the US to bring about any closure in that part of the world. But as we know, US is idolatrous of three groups as holy-schmoly — Jews, Homos, and Negroes — , and that means the Holy Holocaust People cannot be opposed or even criticized no matter what they do. So, even though Jews have been breaking Trump's balls from day one, he has to suck their cock and bend over to take it up the ass. Having been thus emasculated, how does Trump go about demonstrating his manhood? He plays dog to the Jews and mauls Arabs/Muslims or barks at Russia(or China). But no matter how loud a dog barks and how hard it bites, its 'toughness' is in service to its master.
A typical cuck celebrates the Jew-run US's attack on Iran/Iraq. He implies that Obama was a weak appeaser while Trump is a resolute patriot. In truth, Obama destroyed Libya, wrecked Syria, and pulled a coup in Ukraine at the behest of his Jewish masters. Obama also started New Cold War with Russia. Also, the money sent to Iran was Iranian money that the US had stolen and kept as 'frozen assets'. But the Jew-run media and cuck-politicians & pundits created this false meme that Obama showered Iran with free cash. Jew-run USA is an empire of lies.
The way Trump is going, he might trigger the biggest war in the Middle East yet, something that Jews want. (Even the peace deal under Obama was really just a trick. Jews were playing good-cop/bad-cop with Iran, throwing it some meat in the hope of driving a wedge between Iran and Russia. Notice that there has hardly been much opposition from Jews and Democrats for Trump's reneging on the Iran Deal.) Trump's reckless actions go to show just how powerful the Jews are in the US. Jews attack and destroy you, and your response is to cuck to them harder. It's like a dog trying to show greater loyalty to the master that beats it up. It's like a slave yelling, "Massuh, massuh, please, massuh", as the master beats him. Jews have done most to derail and defame Trump, but the cuck-man is sucking up to Jews to the point where it might lead to another war. Provoked ceaselessly, Iran might have to respond one day, and that will serve as pretext for another general Middle East War. Trump acts tough, but he knows he's close to being check-mated by Jews, and so he cucks to one faction of Jews in the hope that they will provide him sufficient moral cover and money to survive another day. And the price demanded by this pro-Trump Jewish faction is "MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL, you mangy dog-cuck." And of course, Fox News and other GOP dogs are barking to the script, regurgitating all the talking points about how Soleimani is responsible for 600 dead Americans — I guess 600 is a neat number like 6 million — and how Iran is the main sponsor of terrorism around the world(while anti-war voices on the Right grow more silent by the day). Once again, ugly opportunism is rearing its head over principled opposition to imperialism and war. Tucker Carlson is one of the few anti-war voices left, but even he sticks with the script that Soleimani was a bad bad guy. (Yeah, he's so very very bad, unlike all those heroic US generals who invade and bomb nations thousands of miles away at the whims of Zion, the globo-homo Sodom and Gomorrah of the Middle East.) Again, we are lurching into "My guy's wars good, your guy's wars bad." How long before all those dummy populists will cheer for War with Iran because their guy Trump is commander-in-chief?

Given KMG's keen intelligence and broad knowledge, one would hope he'd know better, but the fact is sensibility and prejudice often trump logic, consistency, and principles. And it seems KMG is turning into a War-Cuck because the basis of his worldview is Western hegemonism, Crusadism, and power-worship-ism. KMG says he's a nationalist and opposed to imperialism, but that means he's for Zionism but not for Palestinian nation-hood. Nationalism only matters to his kind and peoples he likes and to NO ONE else. He opposes non-white invasion of the West, but he feels it's okay for the US to drop bombs and assassinate people in other nations as an occupying force. And even though Jewish Power has done most to castrate and destroy the white race since the end of WWII, he claims to be Philo-Semitic. In other words, nationalism for KMG is mere opportunism to protect and preserve the West and to honor Jews. It doesn't apply to Palestinians and Arabs/Muslims who apparently exist to be bombed and murdered by West's pro-Zionist war machine.
But then, why does KMG admire the Jews? Because Jews are smart, rich, and accomplished. Because Jews are a great powerful people, he dreams of an alliance with them against the non-white world. In a way, KMG's fatal attraction to Jews is akin to Adolf Hitler's mis-perception of Anglos. Hitler admired the Anglos so much that he hoped for alliance of UK and Germany against much of the world, esp. against Jews and Russia. It was a sentimentality on Hitler's part that proved fatal. As Anglos were allied with Jews against Germany, the natural thing would have been for Hitler to maintain his alliance with Stalin. But he attacked Russia instead. Hitler's Anglo-dreams proved to be utterly useless. Likewise, KMG's Philo-Semitic dreams are useless. While a handful of Jews might think well of KMG, most Jews regard him as no different from neo-Nazi ilk. After all, KMG has called out on Jewish bad behavior and interviewed Kevin MacDonald(who is allied with David Duke and Jared Taylor). To Jews, Kevin MacDonald is evil incarnate, and anyone who gives him a fair hearing must be a 'nazi sympathizer'. It doesn't matter that KMG, despite his criticism of Jews, is ultimately a cuckish Philo-Semite because the ONLY kind of Philo-Semite that is acceptable to Jews is one that never ever dares to utter a single syllable critical of Jews. KMG is a sentimentalist about Jews because he thinks his kind can form a sound, stable, and fair relationship with Jews: One where Jews criticize whites, whites criticize Jews, but where both sides respect one another and carry on more-or-less as equal partners. In fact, such isn't in the cards given Jewish personality, arrogance, and megalomania. Jews want whites to be their dog, horse, and cattle. Whites better obey and serve. KMG is willing to serve, but he wants to speak his mind about bad Jewish behavior wherever such exists, but Jews will not tolerate any such. Thus, KMG has been purged just like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor, another sentimentalist about Jews, the very people most responsible for his deplatforming. KMG is right to denounce the seedier and crazier elements of 'white nationalism', but he's under the illusion that Jews regard him any differently because he denounces Richard Spencer and David Duke. No, in Jewish eyes, he's no different. As Jews got the power, it doesn't matter what KMG wishes or thinks. What matters is what Jews think, and Jewish Power says KMG is a white-nationalist-supremacist-neo-nazi-homophobic-catholic-bigot.
I can understand cultural and intellectual Philo-Semitism. Like them or not, Jews have been a great people who contributed notably to arts, culture, religion, science, ideas, and entertainment. So, naturally Jews are worthy of admiration and respect, especially among those goyim who are engaged in the life of the mind and creativity. The problem is POLITICAL Philo-Semitism, i.e. the notion that because Jews have been great in many cultural and scientific spheres, they are somehow above the law or more-equal-than-others. Such pseudo-moralism is a kind of nihilism, a perversion of meritocratism that says those with superior intelligence or achievement have the right to push others around. Consider the Germans and Japanese. Both are highly accomplished peoples with fascinating cultures. Germans made great contributions to music and science. Japanese absorbed influences from China, India, and the West and produced interesting variations. So, one can understand Germanophilia or Japanophilia. But that doesn't mean Japanese have the right to conquer and push around less accomplished peoples. It doesn't mean Germans should invade and push around, say, Bulgarians and Slovaks who are less accomplished intellectually and culturally. The problem with Kevin Michael Grace is that his Cultural Philo-Semitism has turn into Political Philo-Semitism. So, he supports Zionist Nakba of Palestinians and the Occupation. He apparently feels no sympathy for Arab victims of Jews because they're inferior culturally and intellectually. (Or perhaps, there is at work a kind of Spiritual Philo-Semitism, which is the flip side of Spiritual Antisemitism that has been identified with Christianity that long blamed Jews for the killing of Christ. If Christian Antisemitism especially blames the Jews, Christian Philo-Semitism especially blesses the Jews as the Chosen, not least to atone for the Holocaust carried out by 'Christian Europe', though Nazis were Neo-Pagans. By current standards, KMG would be a Christian Anti-Semite for his dogmatic conviction that there is no salvation for Jews in the hereafter without Conversion, but on a subconscious level, he seems to balance this 'moral deficit' via Christian Philo-Semitism that says, even if Jews-as-Jews cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they are deserving of the Holy Land and the support of the Christian community, despite the fact that Jewish-controlled foreign policy have caused grave harm to Christian Arab communities. Or, as a staunch Catholic who has never abandoned the Crusading mind-set, perhaps KMG feels that Europeanized Jews taking the Palestine from the Muslims is a kind of semi-victory for Christendom despite the fact that Jews have turned the Holy Land into Sodom-and-Gomorrah with massive globo-homo debauchery.) This is rather ironic since Jews see the white goy race as inferior in intellect, ability, and wisdom, therefore deserving to be used like horses, dogs, and cattle by Jewish masters. In other words, Jews look upon white people like KMG looks upon Arabs and Palestinians: An inferior people who deserve to be pushed around and made to obey. Kevin Michael Grace says he loves Jews and only dislikes those secular Jews who are paranoid about whites. But the fact is MOST Jews fall into the secular-and-hostile-to-white category. Most Jews voted for Hillary, and many Neocons became Never-Trumpers. And even those Jews who stick by Trump do so ONLY BECAUSE he cucks to Israel and worsened relations with Russia. Furthermore, if indeed KMG is a Philo-Semite, it is largely because of his admiration for SECULAR Jews who achieved most in the realm of arts, ideas, and science from the late 19th century. I doubt if KMG would be so awed with Jews if most of them were religious dogmatists with middling IQ who never contributed much to Modern Culture. Jewish pride and prestige since 'Emancipation' in the 19th century owe almost entirely to secular Jews, many of whom were radical and/or hostile toward whites and Christians. KMG dismisses as 'sentimental' the people in the West who sympathize with Palestinians, but it is he who is a sentimentalist about Jews. Most Jews are hostile to the white race and the West. They are pushing White Nakba and cheering for the Great Replacement. It's not Muslims or Palestinians who control the commanding heights of the West. It's the Jews. Also, KMG, like so many others like him, despair of some Jews being victimized by Diversity. But why should they care when Jews do NOT care about whites victimized by Diversity? If anything, Jews rejoice when whites are victimized by blacks, browns, and other members of Diversity. Just read the pages of the NY Times. Just watch all those TV shows that defame and vilify whites as the New Kulaks or KKKulaks. KMG is stuck in an unrequited love relationship with Jews who only piss all over guys like him. Same goes for Jared Taylor who was deplatformed by Jewish Power but still sucks up to Jews and cheers Zionism even though the grand Jewish Plan is to turn whites into New Palestinians. KMG may point out that Jews in UK and Canada now vote majority-conservative, but what does this mean? Jews have already turned 'conservatism' in Anglo-sphere nations into cuck-politics that cheers Diversity, waves the globo-homo flag, and worships Jews to high heaven. In other words, the kind of 'conservatism' that managed to win over the majority of Jews in Canada and UK is nationalist ONLY when it comes to Israeli interests and Jewish Pride. In other respects, it's hardly distinguishable from 'liberalism' that, in Canada and UK, may be a tad less enthusiastic about All-Things-Zionist. Besides, the reason why the so-called 'conservatives' are even more servile to Jews is because Jewish Elites are still on the 'liberal' side. As Jews are now revered as a holy people and as Jewish Elites got the real power & all the money — the real source of Jewish power isn't votes but money & media — and lean 'liberal', the 'conservatives' must make an extra effort to woo Jews to their side. We see the same thing in the US. Most of Jewish elite power is with 'liberalism' and the 'Democratic' Party, and that is precisely why 'conservatives' pander to Jews even harder. Why don't 'conservatives' just regard Jews as the enemy? Because Jews have been elevated to Holy Holocaust People, and it simply wouldn't do to alienate this god-men, even if they are busily attacking and defaming you and your kind.
So, does this mean that KMG should embrace Neo-Nazism and the crazier elements of Alt Right because Jews see him the same way? No, of course not. We should all keep our distance from lunatics(though, as the saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and we should acknowledge that even someone as compromised as David Duke has made certain worthy contributions to the cause with courageous talk, as in this brilliant video). But we should also dispel the myth that Jewish Power will tolerate honest criticism and respect other groups on equal terms. Jews are in Judeo-Nazi mode and demand submission and obedience. We know this from how Jews work on Congressmen, virtually all of whom are made an offer they can't refuse: Sign a pledge to Israel or else. Jews are also the biggest hypocrites in the world. They berate whites for 'racism' and 'white supremacism' and say US/Canada belong to all the world and Diversity, but then they turn around and say ALL Americans & Canadians of all races and backgrounds must cheer for Jews(and Homos) uber alles. If indeed Jews are for racial equality and against ethno-centrism, why must all Americans favor Jews over Palestinians in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict?
And yet, KMG favors the Jews because, despite his knowledge and intelligence, he is at heart a Crusadist-imperialist, power-worshiper, and misguided in his racialism. After all, would KMG really care about Jews if they weren't so rich, so accomplished in arts & intellect? KMG's elitism favors the great peoples over un-great peoples even at the political level. Such attitude isn't much different from the Nazi notion that Germans deserve to invade and rule over the less accomplished Slavs. Jews > Palestinians, Germans > Slavs. Also, as European Jews are half-white, KMG favors them over them Ay-rabs and Muzzies. To many white pro-Zionists, Jews in Israel are 'our whites' and Palestinians are 'those niggers'. KMG even denigrates Palestinian resistance by associating the term 'intifadah' to what black thugs do in the US. Palestinians used intifadah to oppose ongoing Zionist invasion and occupation of West Bank and Gaza, but for KMG, such resistance is no different from black criminal elements wreaking havoc to rape, loot, and rob. Never mind that the Jews are robbing Palestinians of the remaining territories. KMG projects his own rather pathetic sentimentality about Jews onto those who defend Palestinian right of nation-hood. According to KMG, championing the most basic right of nationhood for Palestinians is 'sentimentalism' while sucking up to Jews who hate, defame, and smear people like him apparently constitutes moral rectitute.
Why one or the other? The current orthodoxy holds that one can be both a total tool of Jews and a New Hitler. Consider how Jews regard Donald Trump. They use all their power to ensure that Trump will be totally pro-Zionist in waging more wars for Israel and crushing the national aspirations of Palestinians. Jews make sure that Trump, as puppet of World Jewry, will worsen relations with Russia and increase tensions with Iran. But at the end of the day, despite all of Trump's cucking to Jews, he is still smeared by the Tribe as the New Hitler. Then, the same Jewish Logic applies to people like Kevin Michael Grace. In Jewish eyes, he is both a useful tool of Zionism and a 'white supremacist' far-rightist, even a 'Catholic-Nazi'. Indeed, anti-Trump Jews and 'pro-Trump' Jews play good-cop/bad-cop as they mindfuc* Trump. Anti-Trump Jews accuse him of being an evil 'white supremacist', and so, Trump needs moral protection from so-called 'pro-Trump' Jews, but this comes at a steep price: More New Cold War with Russia, more Wars for Israel, and shut down of BDS and the First Amendment. Jews cannot be appeased. KMG can cuck to Jews all he wants, but he will still be a 'nazi' or 'white supremacist' to them because he doesn't cuck 100%. That's the kind of people he is so Philo-Sentimental about.
There seems to linger a hope-against-hope among the likes of KMG and Jared Taylor(who are so besotted with Jewish power, achievements, and moral status stemming from the Shoah) that IF, maybe just maybe, whites demonstrate their fealty to Jews and Israel just one more time, the Jews will come over to the White Side. But in fact, just as Hitler's sentimentalism about Anglos was misguided, so was Stalin's misconception of Hitlerism. Just like, despite Hitler's overtures to the Anglos, the Anglosphere turned against the rise of German Imperialism, no amount of Stalin's 'trust' of Hitler was going to turn Nazi Germany into a true ally of the USSR. When the time was ripe, Hitler invaded Russia for keeps. Likewise, Jews are in supremacist mode and want to keep the white race as its dog, horse, and cattle. There cannot be mutual respect between Jews and whites. Jews think, "We win, you lose", or "We command, you serve." Jews know they got the meritocratic advantage while whites got the majority-advantage. Jews know that whites will stop serving Jews IF white elites decide to represent the white majority than cuck to the Jewish minority elite. Therefore, all vestiges of white consciousness, even "It's Okay to be White", must be banished from the public sphere. In the end, people like Jared Taylor and KMG are crit-cucks but cucks just the same. Crit-cucks are willing to notice and criticize Jewish Power but, when push comes to shove, they will side with Jews, serve Jews, and obey the Oi-Vey. They aren't like the cuck-cucks who constitute Congress & white elites who totally submit to Jewish Power like Oriental servants kowtowing before the Emperor of Wanton Mercilessness, but they will always reliably side with Jews against Palestinians and the 'muzzies' even when Jews are in the wrong.
Of course, Luke Ford himself is a crit-cuck, not least because he converted to Orthodox Judaism. Ford often speaks bluntly about Jewish Power and Jewish bad behavior, but as a Jewish Convert he is committed to Israel, Zionism, and Jewish Power. His loyalty to Jews contradicts his contention that all groups are tribal and ethno-centric. If so, why isn't Ford, a man of Anglo origin, not sticking with his own kind and fighting for Anglo-national identity? Why did he go over to the Jewish side? It's because there's something even more powerful than tribalism and nationalism. It's power-ism, the Will to Cower before the Will to Power, as when French women in droves ran into the arms of Nazi Occupiers. As Jews got the Will to Power and the Actual Power, so many white cucks(and cucks-of-color) act the bitch and bow down before Jewish Power, the new emperor of wanton mercilessness. Furthermore, obeying Jews or becoming a Jew(as Ford has chosen to do) comes not only with material benefits(or shield) but moral sanctimony as Holy Holocaust Worship has replaced Christianity, what with Anne Frank as the new madonna. Why did Ford convert to Orthodox Judaism than Reform Judaism? Partly because his conservative-leaning values are more likely to be found among Orthodox Jews. But in a way, it could be a way for Ford to compensate for his lack of Jewish roots by serving a hardcore strain of Judaism. After all, if you're born Jewish, you don't have to make an effort to be Jewish. Even if you never attend Temple or traveled to Israel, you can rest on the laurels of being Jewish by blood. But if you converted to Judaism, you must make a big show of being the Real Thing. Thus, becoming a hardcore Orthodox Jew gives Ford a chance to feel more Jewish than Jews-born-Jewish. Often, imitators without the title of originator make up for their deficit with zeal. Is it any surprise that Northern Europeans who came to Christianity later developed more puritanical strains of it?

Anyway, Rodney Martin comes across with more integrity in the discussion with KMG on the Luke Ford Show. Unlike KMG, he calls out on Trump's actions as a show of obsequiousness to Jewish supremacists, all the more pathetic since Jews are leading the charge against Trump. Also, Martin provides the context within which the attack took place. According to KMG, the US had to do SOMETHING in retaliation against the attack on the US embassy in Iraq. Now, if out of the blue Iranians/Iraqis decided to attack the US embassy for no good reason, then KMG would be correct. An attack on an embassy is a serious violation, and a superpower like the US must take action. However, we cannot ignore the context of why so many Iraqis/Iranians/Arabs/Muslims are irate with the US. The attack on the embassy didn't just happen out of the blue for no reason but because the US, as proxy-power of Zion, has been tearing the Middle East and North Africa apart. So, while purely on principles, KMG is right about violation of embassies, the fact is principles are dead in the Middle East and Jews & US killed them. Just consider. The US concocted lies to invade and occupy another nation, namely Iraq, under Bush II. Meanwhile, the nations most responsible for having created the Al-Qaeda — the US, Pakistan, and Saudis — averted responsibility. It was the Saudis and CIA that had armed the Jihadis in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with it, but Iraq got the blame. In the Clinton 90s, it was said 100,000s of Iraqi kids were killed as the result of sanctions. But the madness didn't end there. Under Obama, Libya was targeted and destroyed for trying to create a gold-based currency for Africa. KMG and others like him may accuse Obama of 'weakness' for not having defended the US embassy in Benghazi, but Obama was sure 'tough enough' to wreck an entire nation. Indeed, the attack on US embassy was the direct result of US arming and aiding the Jihadis in that nation. Obama and Jews even pulled off a coup in Ukraine by allying with Crypto-Nazi elements. And Obama and Hillary, as servants of Jews, began the process of arming Jihadis in Syria, tearing that nation apart, all the while tolerating Israel's constant attacks on that nation. Under Trump, the US lied about chemical attacks and lobbed missiles into Syria and continues to occupy oil fields.
Now, what is a greater violation of international law, norms, and decency? What the US, Israel, and Saudis have done or the hapless attack on US embassy in Iraq? Given the context, it seems what was done to the US embassy was NOTHING compared to crimes committed by Jews and the US. But even as KMG has opposed US interventionist policy in the Middle East, he has expressed little moral outrage. Rather, his real ire is about the attack on US embassy where NO ONE died. His Christian moralism is entirely racial(and misguided since the current US isn't even Christian but globo-homo as Queertianity is the new faith under Jewish hegemony). At Benghazi, only four Americans died, but that is a bigger outrage than all the Libyan cities and towns destroyed by Zio-NATO intervention. According to KMG's moral logic, the US invasions of other nations and violations of sovereignty are less outrageous than the attack on US embassies as imperial outposts.
Btw, if attacks on embassies always call for counter-strikes, would KMG have cheered China's retaliation by killing US generals following the US attack on the Chinese embassy in former Yugoslavia? US claimed it was an accident but really? Or, will KMG say the Chinese deserved it because they were doing fishy things in that part of the world? If Chinese deserved it for shady behavior via their embassy, couldn't the same be said for the US embassies in Libya(where US armed the very Jihadis who turned against them) and Iraq(where no one died by the way, in contrast to what happened to the Chinese embassy)? KMG invokes Jimmy-Carter-as-wimp as foil to Trump, but Carter had his hands tied because the Iranians were holding 55 American hostages. Also, the US was in an embarrassing situation because it had backed the much loathed Shah of Iran(hated by all sectors of Iranian society, from secular liberals to Islamists), a CIA-puppet. Also, as New Iran was both anti-American and anti-Soviet, the US risked pushing Iran into the arms of the USSR if the US waged war on Iran. This was still the era of Cold War and Post-Vietnam fatigue. An Iran allied with the Soviets would have undermined US ambitions in Afghanistan. Also, once Reagan came into office, he sealed the money-for-hostages deal with Iran. He didn't attack Iran either. And when Marines were attacked in Lebanon, Reagan's immediate reaction was to pull out all troops. Was he a wimp for opting out of more intervention in that part of the world? And speaking of craven cowardice, it was the US that did NOTHING when Israel pulled the Lavon affair, stole nuclear material from the US, and willfully attacked the USS Liberty to kill ALL servicemen. To this day, the US hasn't officially recognized what really happened on that day. This is the cuck-coward nation that the US has become under Jewish domination, but KMG laughably invokes Douglas MacArthur's quote about victory. It's the Jews who've occupied the West and are bringing it to ruin. It's the Jew-run West that's been wrecking the Muslim World and killing 100,000s of people. US under Obama and Trump have also aided Saudi Arabia's near-genocidal war in Yemen. And yet, KMG's idea of victory is cucking even harder to the Jews and attacking Iran, one of the few nations that resist the Jew-run US.
Given the context, the US has no right to speak of principles or rights. It violates all principles and all international norms to get what it wants, which is cucking to Jews. What is worse? An Iranian-backed attack on US embassy or the US plotting to bring down an entire government in Ukraine? Also, the very Jews who did regime-change in Ukraine plotted likewise in the US against Trump, pushing the crazy Russia Hoax lunacy and then finally having Trump impeached over the Ukraine comedy, but what does Trump do at the end of the day? He cucks to Israel and attacks Iran. This is 'victory'? If we lived in a world of peace and mutual respect and IF Bad Ole Iran attacked US embassies in other nations, I would agree that the US must act. But the US is now an evil globo-homo nation whose culture is rap, twerking, porn, and Jewish-made TV shows & movies that defame & dehumanize the white race as 'evil nazis who must be hunted down and killed'. But all said and done, KMG's sentimentality for Jewish Power and Awesomeness gets the better of him. He is critical but ultimately a cuck, or a crit-cuck. A crit-cuck may be preferable to a cuck-cuck like Ben Sasse, but it's still pathetic given what Jews have done to the US and KMG's beloved Canada, where the new 'conservatism' means More Diversity for whites and national-rights only for Jews and Israel.
If we go by the adage of bad nations deserving their comeuppance, then the US and Israel need to be bombed many times over. Most of their elites need to stand trial and be hanged. If Japan got what it deserved for its attack on Pearl Harbor, the US deserves far bigger punishment for its lies and invasions. But of course, the US can do as it likes because it's the sole superpower. It's not about principles but the privilege of power. While it's true that power matters and we can't expect all nations, big and small, to get the same treatment — stronger powers will always have more leeway — , there needs to be limits to the power of any nation, but the Jew-run US is now committed to doing ANYTHING to get what it wants. So, if Jew-run US is about Zionism Uber Alles, the hell with Palestinians in West Bank, the hell with Syrians who suffered so much, the hell with Iranians, the hell with Russians, and the hell with white Americans and Canadians who are fated to be replaced by Diversity at the order of Jews. And if Jews feel like cooking up total nonsense like Russia Collusion Hoax and dividing the nation politically and derailing peace with Russia, so be it. Israel, that has 300 nukes made from stolen US material, gets showered with billions while Iran that has allowed international inspections must be sanctioned to death. KMG ignores this larger context and huffs-and-puffs about the attack on the US embassy. Imagine if a black guy taunts, spits on, beats up, and cripples a white guy, but the biggest moral outrage is that the white guy, in retaliation, called the black guy a 'nigger'. That's about the level of KMG's moral integrity when it comes to the Middle East. What is a greater violation of international norms? The Jew-run West and Trump cooking up lies about Assad's chemical attacks and shooting missiles into that country or some ragtag Iraqis attacking the US embassy because the US occupation/imperialism never ends and acts more arrogant by the day?
But what kind of VICTORY? Given that the West is under Jewish Supremacist Control and that this power is pushing for White Nakba & Great Replacement, shouldn't white people be working toward national liberation via total victory over Jewish Power? As different as whites in the West and Iranians are, they have one thing in common: Both are victims of Race War carried out by Jews. Sorosian Jews are hellbent on turning all white nations into Diversity Hellholes and having white wombs be colonized by black seed. Iran, for all its faults, is defying Jewish supremacist power, whereas whites are cucking to the very power that is doing them the most harm. Whites are cheering on the very people who've devised the grand plan of great replacement. It's the Jews in media, academia, and Hollywood who've spread the most anti-white TV shows and movies. KMG complains about how Chinese and Muslim pressures have affected Hollywood products, but the MAIN censorship in US Entertainment is Judeo-centric, i.e. virtually no critical discussion of Jewish bad behavior, e.g. THE VICE blames oil companies for the Iraq War while being mum on the role of Neocon Jews. If anything, white people should take a page from the Chinese & Muslims and collectively threaten Hollywood with racial boycott unless Jews stop with the anti-white vitriol. So, if KMG is for victory, he should be calling for Total Victory over Jews. But his idea of victory is Trump being led on a leash by Zionists to attack Iran, one of the few nations that have managed to stand up to Zion and survive. Back in MacArthur's day, the US was ruled by Anglo-Americans. American Victory back then was victory for White America. In our day, the US is ruled by Jewish globalist whose ideology is essentially Soros-ism. Victory is impossible for whites as long as they are under the tyranny of Jews. No matter how many bombs Trump drops on Iraqis and Iranians to make himself look tough, the only victory will go to Jews who love to make goyim fight goyim. But KMG is too sentimental about Jews to see the big picture.
Another sicko calls for genocide against the Iranians, but this is A-Okay with Twitter that is supervised by Jewish supremacist ADL and SPLC.
Rodney Martin is the true patriot because he understands the context of what is happening. US is under Jewish Supremacist Occupation, and Trump is now little more than a globo-homo ambassador of Zionist hegemonism. He made noises about pulling out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but it was all empty talk. And though having averted a major war in the region, he is now threatening Iraq with sanctions IF it expels US troops and threatening to blow up 52 targets in Iran, even historical and cultural sites, in the service of Zion. The US and Canada are now nations where historical monuments are being torn down, where churches are vandalized & desecrated by globo-homo symbols, where tattoos & piercings are commonplace, where young white girls are conditioned for jungle fever & young white males are trained to be cucks, where 100,000s of 'white trash' have been killed by Jewish-peddled opioids, and where every white town is targeted for Great Replacement — and Jews have a key hand in all these trends — , but Trump as 'tough guy' is threatening to bomb historical sites in Iran, a nation that dares to defy Zionists and Israel. And KMG, though willing to criticize Jews, ultimately cucks to them by declaring himself a Philo-Semite with the delusion that 'secular' anti-white Jews are negligible when, in fact, they constitute the great majority of Jews, especially among Jewish elites who hold all the cards. And KMG isn't the only one to cuck thus. All these white guys who haven't the balls to to resist and oppose Jewish power flex their muscles by beating up on 'muzzies'. It's the White goy Will to Cower before the Jewish Will to Power. Jewish Power is turning people like KMG into the New Palestinians, but their idea of 'victory' is bombing and killing Muslims for the merriment of Zion. At this point, any rhetoric about sanctity of embassies ring hollow because the US violates ENTIRE NATIONS with invasion and destruction. But according to KMG's logic, invading and destroying another nation is a lesser deal than attacking an embassy. KMG claims to be a nationalist opposed to imperialist, but when push comes to shove, he is a Crusadist who cheers on MacArthurite Imperialism and sucks up to the biggest power, which now belongs to Jews. In this, there is precious little difference from KMG and lunatics like Frank Burton. In a way, Luke Ford and KMG, as crit-cucks, illustrate why Anglos lost to Jews. For all their criticism of Jewish Power, they remain Philo-Semitic toward the very people who've done the most harm to the white race since the end of WWII. Ford converted to Judaism, and KMG declares himself a Philo-Semite, as if that will temper the hatred and contempt that most Jews feel for him.
The mindset of KMG offers a glimpse into the fatal sentimentality with which so many whites in the West behold Jewish Power and Prestige. For all his critical acumen and commitment to Catholicism, it's as if KMG's life is incomplete without demonstrating that he too is very much with the Tribe despite its War on Whiteness. You see, the Problem Jews are those secular ones and just never mind that MOST Jews voted for Obama and Hillary and rub their hands with glee over the Sorosian prospect of the West becoming Diversity Central. Jews push invade-invite policy with the Muslim World because the Invite gives a human face to the Invade, i.e. "We may invade Muslim nations but look how we are welcoming and embracing them as 'refugees'." Jews spread anti-Muslim tropes among white Christ-cucks to make them fight Wars for Israel in the Middle East but then spread anti-white and anti-Christian tropes among Muslim immigrants to make them side with Jews against whites. And yet, KMG's gripe about Muslims is that might attack Jews. He cares about Muslims hurting Jews even though Jews don't care about Muslims(or any non-whites) attacking and killing whites. In the end, Crit-Cucks are as useless as Cuck-Cucks.
Frank Burton suggests that those who oppose war and resist the Zionist control over the US are looking to Iran as some savior nation. This is utter bull. Anti-War Right's position is that the US and the West are no longer in any position to be lecturing to the world about freedom and justice. US is a nation where people are fined and jailed for refusing to bake 'gay wedding' cakes. It is a nation where Jews, Homos, and Cuck cultural-vandals can desecrate Christian Churches with globo-homo victory banners, but a man is sentenced to 14 yrs in jail for burning such a vile symbol. It is a nation where white cuck dads raise their daughters to emulate Miley Cyrus and have babies with black men. UK is a nation where people are jailed for tweets, and there is an entire litany of 'hate crimes' — concocted by Jews and homos mostly — that effectively shuts down free speech and freedom of assembly. Anti-War voices don't look to Iran as some utopia. They believe the West has no moral qualification to be pushing others around. What is truly 'pozzed' is how so many whites in the West cuck to Jewish Supremacism. To the extent that Iran, for all its problems, has remained outside the globo-homo orbit and defies the Jew-run West, it is deserving of respect.
More utter BS from Frank Burton. If Mexico declared itself an ally of Iran and sent pro-Iranian forces across the border to harm Zio-American interests, you bet the US would be shutting down the border and bombing Mexico. This isn't about geographical distance but about who has the power. Jews control the US, and Jews see no sense in getting tough with Mexico because, if anything, they regard Mexico and Latin America as allies in the browning of America to reduce white power. It won't be long before it's Bye Bye Texas for the GOP. The US is at war with Iraq/Iran because Jews control the US and control its cuck-politicians. After all, if distance is the key factor in US belligerence, why doesn't it attack Israel for its war crimes, support of ISIS & terrorism, espionage against the US, ongoing occupation & oppression of Palestinians, and etc.? The reason why the US has especially been belligerent against Iran and Venezuela is because both nations are loathed by Jews who call the shots. Trump, like most US politicians, is little more than an attack dog that barks and bites for Zion.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

People on the Alt Right and Dissident Right and their GODFATHER Personality Counterparts. Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes, Jim Goad, Irony Bros, Matt Forney, Mike Enoch, Jean-Francois Gariepy, Stefan Molyneux, Kevin Michael Grace, Vox Day, Jared Taylor, Matt Heimbach, Ramzpaul, Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Anglin.


THE GODFATHER(directed by Francis Ford Coppola and based on Mario Puzo’s novel) is an instructive movie on the nature of power, i.e. that the dynamics of rivalry isn’t only about intelligence and ability but personality and temperament. After all, smart people can be lacking in will and audacity — risk-taking is an essential element of power. Or, they could be bold and confident to the point of recklessness — consider what happened to Hitler when he attacked the USSR. There are many fine things about THE GODFATHER, and one is about the Machiavellianism of Personality as guide to Power. As the story, in parts I and II, goes from end of World War II to the Cuban Revolution — the prequel section of part II deals with young Vito Corleone’s rise in the 1920s — , there wasn’t enough time to go into nitty-gritty details of strategy and negotiations. Instead, there was a broad narrative of how the Corleones, the top mafia family in the New York area, got embroiled in a war with the other families over the issue of Narcotics. THE GODFATHER PART 2 is somewhat more detailed, but we don’t learn much beyond how Hyman Roth attempts to lure Michael Corleone into Cuba(a sinking ship) & have him assassinated and how Michael Corleone makes counter-moves in anticipation of Roth’s agenda. If THE GODFATHER movies had been a TV series(like BOARDWALK EMPIRE), they might have delved into the minutiae of sharp minds maneuvering in the ruthless game of power. But even at 6 hrs and 15 minutes, there is only enough time to portray the Corleones and their inner circle in emotional and dramatic terms. What comes across most memorably are the PERSONALITIES of the characters. And from the movie — and from countless examples from real life — , we know that personality matters. While no one gets far without brains, how far one is willing to go depends on will, drive, and nerves, all of which are shaped by personality. We see this with dogs and cats. Even among dogs or cats of same intelligence, dog personality or ‘canality’ or cat personality or ‘felinality’ goes a long way in shaping dog or cat behavior. Some dogs are more aggressive and bold. Some are more timid and cautious. Some cats are fierce and aggressive. Some are mild and gentle.
In the end, Hitler was undone by his personality and temperament. And what drove Mao to the madness of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution owed much to his manic personality. If Hitler had died in the late 30s and if someone like Hermann Goering had taken over, there would have been far less likelihood of war, let alone World War II. Ultimately, it was Hitler’s egotism & megalomania, burning will, and hubris that drove him to the reckless decision of attacking Soviet Union, whereupon the stakes became win-all or lose-all. Ideology holds meaning and logic independent of personality, but in the end, it is personalities, not ideology, that govern the world. Therefore, ideology is molded according to whims of personalities with power. So, despite the ideology of National Socialism, its fate could have been very different if led by someone with a personality starkly different from that of Hitler. And consider the contrast between Mao and Deng in Chinese history. Both came to prominence as men committed to communist ideology, but whereas Mao was megalomaniacal and visionary, Deng was pragmatic and conciliatory.
Can people control their own personality? Yes, to an extent. On their paths to power, both Hitler and Mao could be compromising and yielding. They had to be as they were at a political disadvantage. But upon gaining absolute power, their sheer egotism made it nearly impossible for either to restrain one's prophetic vision of history and one's role in it. In contrast, Stalin, despite his own megalomania, was steered by a more anxious personality. Even as a gambler, he played patiently, slowly increasing his number of chips and waiting to scavenge off the reckless moves of others.

What can be learned about the figures on the Alt Right and Dissident Right based on their respective personalities? And which GODFATHER figures do they resemble most? Finally, a question worth asking but that can only be answered by the actual practices of the figures of the Alt Right and Dissident Right is, “Can people transcend the limits of their personality flaws and choose the wiser path?” Granted, one could argue that the problem is less a matter of personality-flaws than personality-balances. In other words, every personality trait has value in the right dosage and at the right time. It’s like salt is an essential ingredient in most cooking, so the problem isn’t salt per se but insufficient or excessive salt. The personality trait of boldness is necessary in power. In sports or any competition, one can’t get anywhere without making moves that carry the element of risk. Every move on the chessboard is both an advantage and disadvantage. Every throw by the quarterback can mean a touchdown or an interception. Excessive conservatism is cautious to a fault. Caution is generally good, but too much means fear of adventure, the necessary bridge to victory. The key element in the rise of the West over the East had to do with cultural personality(which could be genetic as well). Asians had comparable intelligence and basic elements of high civilization but lacked the Western spark and spirit. Now, one could argue that Western Adventurousness led to imperialism, genocides of non-whites, slave trade, and myriad other ‘crimes’, but it also unified the world and transformed all of humanity with new paradigms and possibilities. It was tragic but also triumphant.

Now, which GODFATHER characters do Alt Right and Dissident Right figures resemble most? Let’s begin with the MSM’s favorite ‘Face of the Alt Right’ Richard Spencer.

1. Richard Spencer = Carlo Rizzi


In some ways, one might say this comparison is most unfair. Unlike Carlo, Spencer does have a mind. He is capable of cool analysis like Tom Hagen. He wants to lead than follow. He has the vision thing, and his admirers might ague he has something of Michael Corleone. Also, Spencer’s unmistakable Waspiness may warrant comparisons with Senator Geary than with an Italian-American boy like Carlo. Then, why Carlo?
Because Spencer’s fatal flaws are very much like Carlo’s. Vain, narcissistic, petty, resentful, egotistical, spoiled, and bratty. It appears Carlo grew up adored and favored among family and friends because of his good looks. That’s why Connie, the daughter of the top Mafia don, married him. He thought he could get far with his cookie-cutter looks and charm, but when the Corleone’s didn’t place him in a position of importance, he grew bitter and took his frustrations out on Connie. Also, he’s incapable of personal loyalty, a trait shared by Spencer who's been unable to keep the trust of his closest allies and wife. Spencer has the 100x the mind of Carlo and the potential to be an importance person, but his shallow personality has led him to series of humiliations and setbacks.
All said and done, Spencer expected to coast on his looks and persona. He thought the Media were swooning all over him because he’s so provocative with ideas and the girls were putting out to him because he’s so handsome. The latter may be true, but the media were only using him.
Even so, he had a golden opportunity as the world, if only for a moment, descended on him as the Face of the Alt Right. But then, he blew it all away with reckless gestures and stupid alliances. When a man of intelligence has the personality of a fool, personality wins. For example, Spencer’s recent spat with Nicholas Fuentes makes no sense. Fuentes is an up-and-coming 20 yr old. Spencer is twice the age with double the experience. He should be playing the role of captain of an exciting movement, but he’s wasting his time squabbling with captains of smaller ships who just wanna do their own thing. Spencer pontificates about the vanguard but is too busy turning his head at those behind or beside him to fix his gaze toward the finish line.

2. Nick Fuentes = Moe Greene



Nick Fuentes’ fame or notoriety owes to his ridiculously young age. As a freshman in college, he was quickly spotted/scouted as a bundle of energy, a new face with quick wit and fiery passion. He is exactly the kind of person that Conservatism Inc and Neocons want on their side. The problem is people with real intelligence and passion don’t want to be told what to think and do. It’s no wonder that Establishment Politics usually ends up with those with brains but lacking in passion or those with passion but lacking in brains. Those with brains are likely to know what is really happening but generally lack the spine to stick up for their own beliefs and convictions. So, most brains just go along and become ‘paycheck conservatives’. Well, it’s a living. As for those with passion but no brains — the average SJW type — , they are happy to be barking dogs of the System.
It seems the ONLY people with real brains and real passion in the System are Jews because the status quo allows Jews to be passionately Jewish and work for Jewish interests. As white goyim aren't allowed passion for their own identity, they must mute white consciousness if they seek admittance into the System. White goyim in the West are essentially like Palestinians in West Bank. Their only chance of entry is by accommodating themselves as collaborators to the Jewish Supremacist System. Because Fuentes has a genuine independent streak and refused to play ball with Neocon Inc., he was expelled by Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, and he chose the path of Indie-Conservatism.
For awhile, he was associated with the Alt Right, but again, his independent personality recoiled from what he found to be morally ugly(the flirtation with Neo-Nazi elements) or strategically foolish(the optics debate on political aesthetics). Fast mind and fiery heart have served Fuentes well in terms of integrity. He missed a golden opportunity in career in politics by daring to mention the JQ during his stint at Daily Wire, but this is different from Spencer’s dropping the ball. Fuentes lost out because of personal honesty, whereas Spencer went from failure to failure by making awful alliances with morons and clowns like Andrew Anglin, Matt Heimbach, Chris Cantwell, and etc. As Ramzpaul said, the Alt Right’s advantage was in being an alternative to both Neocon GOP and old Neo-Nazi garbage.

So far, the positive qualities of Fuentes have been mentioned. What are his negative sides, and why is he like Moe Greene? Fuentes is often immature and bratty, on occasion even obnoxious. He is hot-tempered and goes off the rails when he feels slighted, often disproportionately. His mudslinging with James Allsup made both look stupid, but Fuentes came off worse because his nastiness was so vicious, unrelenting, and unhinged. Nick the Knife relishes a fight, and he just doesn’t know when to stop. It’s not enough to slice or stick the guy. Fuentes has to push the blade all the way in, twist it, and then rub salt on the wound. There is almost a sadistic glee in his personal attacks on people that take on aspects of torture porn.
Also, because of excessive pride, Fuentes is too easily dismissive of views and ideas that doesn’t jibe with his worldview and morality, and this is especially true when it comes to Catholic vs Pagan debate. His self-righteous sadistic side just can’t resist putting on the robe of the grand inquisitor and insulting neo-pagans and stretching them on the rack.
Like Moe Greene, he can’t check himself when he gets into a fight. It quickly becomes personal and toxic, and it’s kill-or-be-killed. Also, because Fuentes is too quick to judge, he has a tendency to willfully misread others' statements and intentions. When it came to Spencer vs Fuentes I, Spencer had the moral advantage because Fuentes willfully misinterpreted what Spencer meant by pedophiles and child porn. But in Fuentes vs Spencer II, Spencer is clearly in the wrong because he dug up the hatchet and flailed away at Fuentes(and just about everyone else in what seemed like a demented rant to reclaim the Alt Right as a Spencentric Movement). Perhaps, Fuentes is drawn to Catholicism because he intuitively surmises that his hot ego, if unregulated by faith in God, can easily fly off the handle like that of fellow Latin Mussolini. It’s like a willful dog needs an especially powerful leash to restrain it from running wild and crazy. But for Fuentes, his Catholic leash has become more than a check on his emotions. It has become a check on his intellect and imagination, even to the point of dismissing evolution and entertaining the retarded notion of geocentrism. It has also become an easy whip of moral indignation. In this, Fuentes has something in common with the young Pat Buchanan who, as a young conservative, was an odd-man-out in Columbia Journalism school filled with Liberals(as recounted in his delightful autobiography RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING). Buchanan always had brains and passion, but his overt Catholicism limited his imagination and scope as a thinker, culture critic, and politician. It’s interesting that Fuentes is most like Buchanan but most admires Donald Trump who, being free of religious dogma, has been able to forge a new style of politics. In the end, the problem isn’t religiosity per se. It is dogmatism and excessive piety as crutch of righteousness. Some of Fuentes’ religious rambling is as counter-factual and unthinking as the PC derangement of the SJW-NPC types.

3. Jim Goad = Sonny Corleone



To be fair to Jim Goad, he insists he’s not part of the Alt Right or even Dissident Right. Goad sees himself as a maverick thinker, maybe in the tradition of Gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson. His columns read like Mike Royko writing for Hustler. Like Fred Reed, he is as likely to piss off the Right as the Left. But given that the current dogma is PC, a tool of proggy globalism, Goad’s worldview is currently more aligned with the Right. Same is true of Youtube personality Styxhexenhammer666 who, under normal circumstances, would not be considered as part of the Right. But because of PC-domination in industry and institutions, even a larping ‘satanist’ like Styx often finds himself making common cause with the Right against the Zio-Globo-Homo-‘left’ that spearheads efforts to shut down Free Speech and Free Spend. If one knows Jim Goad only by his columns, one will have noticed the smarts(of books and streets), toughness, and wit. Goad is often a gifted writer with turns of phrases that are as humorous as ham-fisted. If Curly(of the Three Stooges) were a polemicist than a clown, he might have written like Jim Goad. Funny, inspired, crazy, and exaperating. Goad is also an equal opportunity offender, which is what makes him most like Mike Royko, albeit in a bare-knuckle and breaking-the-balls way.
Also, just because he hates your enemies doesn’t mean you likes you any better. Goad attacks both SJW’s and religious types for delusional thinking and holier-than-thou piety. He sees all kinds of religiosity and dogma as a crutch for weak minds and infantile souls. His view of life is essentially the school of Mean Streets existentialism. Everyone must accept his or her own journey in life, take the blows, give as well as they get, lick their wounds, and crawl back home to bed. Goad says his views changed a lot over the years, and some of his pieces are very confessional. Goad doesn’t confess to priests but to the world. One might find parallels between Goad(as his own god) and the Harvey Keitel character in BAD LIEUTENANT, albeit with a much bigger pud as Goad often likes to point out. There is a reason why Goad has a cult-following. In a world with so much born-again hokum on the ‘right’ and save-the-world hysteria on the ‘left’, some people find Goad’s hard-boiled ‘Mike Hammer’ style of writing refreshing and even liberating. You can’t get any more honest than writing a confessional piece about how you got your penis sucked by a black teenager in your youth.

But there is a disturbing aspect to Jim Goad’s character, and one wonders if Goad’s toughness is genuine or an exaggerated defensive mechanism concealing a fragile soul. People who always act tough are often trying to hide something wounded and vulnerable that they can’t or don’t want to deal with. Goad has spoken of his abusive father, but his own behavior and persona have often been abusive to the point of pathology. It’s fair game for Jim Goad to make fun of other people’s looks when such is relevant. If some fat green-haired feminist passes herself as hot stuff, mocking her looks is justified because they’re part of her shtick. Or one can’t fault Goad for making Matt Forney’s obesity because Forney has positioned himself as sexual guru or hot stuff with women. But when Roger Ebert was lying in bed in a pitiable state dying of cancer, it took a truly demented mentality to mock Ebert's appearance. It’s especially sickening when one considers Jim Goad’s first wife died of cancer, and he himself had brain tumor removed. It would have been fair game to attack Ebert’s politics or opinions, but his physical state had NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, and Goad’s nastiness just seemed vicious and cruel. But Goad is so often hotheaded, angry, thuggish, and blowing steam from every orifice that he seems unaware of how monstrous he can be. And it is in this respect that Goad is like Sonny Corleone whose rage often gets the best of him. Granted, Goad is smarter than Sonny, but this makes Goad’s dementia even more infuriating as one would think a man who has been through so much should know better. Rage may feel good and even win over fans who like a good fight, but it can just as easily lead men astray... which is what happened with Goad in his encounter with the Irony Bros.

4. Irony Bros = Assassins



Irony Bros seem to have Alt Right or Dissident Right sympathies, but their main shtick is to mock anyone in the movement who takes himself too seriously. Beardson is reportedly an atheist whereas Shawn is a Christian, but there is hardly any difference in their irreverent approach to their targets, which could be just about anyone. Beardson gained notoriety by baiting Matt Forney, but it seems they've become ‘friends’ since. So, everything the Irony Bros does has to be taken with a grain of salt. They are driven by trollogy, not ideology, even if they may have ideological leanings in the rightward direction, not least because the enemy of free speech and freedom in general now comes from the globo-homo ‘left’.

One could argue that Irony Bros are bad for the movement. Spencer surmises that they might be working for the Fed(LOL). Some might say they are toxic in their nihilism and nastiness. All very true, but one can’t expect too much from trolls. Irony Bros are essentially jesters and pranksters, like the Yippies in the 1960s. For that very reason, they can be an auto-subversive element on the Right. But then, a movement led by people who can’t sometimes laugh at themselves has become a bit stiff and stodgy. Furthermore, while Irony Bros sometimes do ‘punch to the right’, they can be merciless in trolling the ‘left’. The trick is not to fall into the trap of taking anything by them too seriously, which is precisely what Jim Goad did in the now infamous Luke Ford Saturday Night Massacre Livestream. Ironically, even though Matt Forney and Jim Goad want to tear off each other’s balls, they have one thing in common in having been trolled by Beardson Beardly. Irony Bros are essentially like hired-killers in THE GODFATHER. They just enjoy the ritual bloodbath of massacring sacred cows and big egos. So, just like the hired goons in THE GODFATHER will mow down anyone for the right price, Irony Bros will spray bullets onto any target for good times. Naturally, one cannot have a honest or ‘good faith’ argument with such personalities, but Goad fell for the trap, exposing himself to ridicule and death by thousand cuts. Irony Bros mow down Jim Goad:

5. Matt Forney = Philip Tattaglia



Some people say Matt Forney is a talented writer, but I never bothered to read his books or articles. I did skim over his attack on Ann Sterzinger, and it just made everyone look foolish. The general impression from his dealings with other people suggests an insecurity that hides behind exaggerated manhood, conviction, or animus. More than anything, he seems eager to be accepted by his 'superiors'. So, for a while, he was the sidekick of Roosh. Never mind he made a rather ridiculous figure for Manosphere and advice on picking up women. Then, when Richard Spencer’s wing of the Alt Right foolishly attacked Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Forney piled on, especially by calling out on Johnson’s reputed homosexuality, as if playing lapdog to Spencer & Co. might score some points with the Big Boys. Of course, Spencer felt nothing but scorn for such an eager-beaver. Now, this isn’t to say that Forney’s revulsion for Johnson wasn’t genuine, but his frothing-at-the-mouth during the ugly incident came across as  'desperate to be with the in-crowd'. It’s like what an unpopular fat kid does to up his chances of admittance into a fraternity. At the very least, someone like Goad has the spine to go his own way and stand on his own two feet. In contrast, Forney is a stray dog in search of a master who may put a collar around it for keeps. And it is this side of Forney that makes him like Philip Tattaglia. Tattaglia is a big time gangster but a pimp. He lacks big ideas and has to latch onto Barzini and Sollozzo. As Vito Corleone said of Tattaglia, he couldn’t have outfought Santino(Sonny) on his own. Indeed, Goad vs Forney was like a wolf mauling a bulldog, that was until Forney was saved by Aurini the dane or Irony Bros weasels.
That said, it seems Forney in recent yrs has grown more independent in will and ego. His Terror House Magazine may be a start of something important if it attracts writers of talent and insight. Maybe Forney finally learned the lesson of his former hero Jim Goad: If you're naturally a strange and eccentric kid, you have to forge your own path and not give a damn what others think.

6. Mike Enoch = Sollozo the ‘Turk’



Mike Enoch of The Daily Shoah has been one of the most abrasive and hard-hitting members of the Alt Right. His approach is no-holds-barred and cuts to the bone. He strikes fast and hard, and members of the MSM that tried to hoodwink him got owned. Also, because he’s not a dreamy-eyed visionary like Spencer, he focuses on real power and real problems. His head isn’t up in the clouds with fantasies of conquering stars and being Darth Vader of the galaxies. He stares closely at those with real power in the West, and of course, it’s the Jews. When it comes to dissecting real power and cutting open the cancerous tumor, Enoch is like a surgeon with a butcher’s knife. He is utterly brutal but has a keen surgical eye in spotting the heart-of-the-matter amidst the bloodletting. Because of Enoch’s slaughterhouse Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre approach to political analysis, he isn’t for everyone, which is precisely why his show is called The Daily Shoah.
And it is for this brutal honesty that Enoch is like Sollozzo the Turk. Whatever one may say of Sollozzo, he is the most honest gangster in NY. The Corleones and other families put on airs of respectability and take care to appear semi-legitimate. Even the Five Families that are drawn to the narcotics trade want it keep it ‘controlled’. Sollozzo, in contrast, has fewer inhibitions about what gangsterism is really about. Also, he enjoys doing his own killings. He feels no shame in being a hoodlum. He wears corruption on his sleeve. In a similar vein, Enoch is a brutally honest Alt Right thug. Nick Fuentes might say Enoch has troublesome optics. Undoubtedly, Mike Enoch has been one of the most uninhibited of Alt Right figures. He doesn’t shroud his racial politics with talk of Faustian-Nietzschean something-or-other or Christian sanctimony. As far as he’s concerned, Jews run just about everything, and Jews shit on whites. So, whites must shit back on Jews. Jews are a bunch of crooks and gangsters, and they must be exposed as such, and whites must fight like gangsters to expose and shame the Jews. Enoch’s bear-wrestling style of Alt Right politics certainly has its advantages. It is more honest than most.

But he shares the ugly aspects of Sollozzo as well. Sollozzo is so hellbent on getting what he wants that he oversteps the bounds of gangsterism. Being an honest crook is one thing, but there is a thing called honor even among thieves. Sollozzo is such a total gangster that he will break every rule in the book to get things his way. No system and no movement can operate on sheer brutality alone. Sollozzo is so dogged and driven that after his first hit on Vito Corleone, he goes for a second attempt at the hospital. And given his nature, no one trusts him. Either you side with him or you kill him(because he will kill you otherwise). In the end, it didn’t turn out so good for Sollozzo. Michael read him correctly and figured that either Sollozzo is killed or he will keep coming after the Corleones one way or another. In a similar manner, Enoch is nothing if not dogged in his pursuit of the enemy, namely the Jews. But because he’s so aggressive and brutal in his animus, he’s often been mistaken for madman lunatic.
In his role with TDS(The Daily Shoah), it’s most likely that he was ‘larping’ or pulling pranks, but what works in roughhouse satire doesn’t translate well in the streets. Howard Stern is amusing as a shock-jock radio personality, but his shtick would be way out of line in politics. If Enoch had limited himself to being a shock-jock of the Alt Right, his boorish crudity could have been appreciated for what it is. But when he pulled ‘Nazi’ shit in public events meant to convey a larger political message, he was just being ugly and demented. He failed to remind himself that satire and politics work differently. Now, is it possible that Mike Enoch is a genuine Neo-Nazi? I don’t believe it as he seems too smart and knowledgeable. Granted, a smart person could be psycho, in which case he might really be for Neo-Nazi nuttery. But Enoch doesn’t seem insane. So, my take is that he was ‘larping’ with Nazi salutes and pulling other such stunts in public events to show what a ‘badass’ he is, a real Alt Right gangster who fights hard and takes no prisoners. But just like Sollozzo with his moves, Enoch overestimated the momentum of the Alt Right and his role in it. In the end, he just made it more difficult for more sober and saner members of the Alt Right to reach out to Middle America.

7. Jean-Francois Gariepy = Peter Clemenza



It’s generally understood that J.F. Gariepy’s The Public Space is the best Youtube forum on Alt Right and Dissident Right matters. The Gariepy approach is to be edgy and controversial without giving undue offense by violating Youtube’s Terms of Service on ‘hate speech’. This isn’t easy because ‘hate speech’ is an Orwellian term invoked by the Power to shut down whatever speech it doesn’t like. Consider how Jared Taylor has been banned from Twitter and some of his American Renaissance videos have effectively been censored on Youtube: It’s been placed in ‘limited state’, which is more Orwellian BS.
How has Gariepy been able to succeed where many others have failed. He comes across as jovial & friendly and will engage anyone from right to the left with a professionalism that is generally lacking in the Amateur Hour style of Youtube commentary. In this, he is sort of like Clemenza, the seemingly easygoing gangster who is liked by the members of the Corleone family. But deep down inside, Clemenza is a killer just like the rest of them, and when push comes to shove, he delivers. And there’s no mistaking that Gariepy, for all his civility and warmth, has hardcore convictions when it comes to identity and survival of the West. He is a warrior at the core with a gun or knife inside his sleeve. But just like Clemenza, he cannot be the leader of the movement, the spearhead. He functions as a reliable operator who keeps ideas and spirits flowing through the Alt-Right-sphere.

8. Stefan Molyneux = Tom Hagen



Like Jim Goad, Stefan Molyneux has insisted he is not part of the Alt Right or even the Dissident Right. Molyneux sees himself as a libertarian who happens to be conscious of racial diversity or HBS(human-biodiversity). The difference is that if the Alt Right tends to put Race at the center of ideology, Molyneux favors individualism and freedom above all. To preserve the culture of liberty and trust in the modern world, Molyneux believes it would be disastrous to allow massive inflows of lower-IQ people from Africa, Muslim World, and Latin America. So, if Alt Right defends race for race’s sake, Molyneux defends racial preservation of the West as the necessary condition for maintaining the hallmarks of modern Western Civilization: Rule of Law, Free Markets, Property Rights, Individual Liberty, and etc. But no matter how much Molyneux protests against being pigeonholed as a ‘rightist’ or race-ist, the fact is a person is as much defined by his enemies, haters, and detractors as by himself and his admirers. Molyneux has a lot of enemies and haters, and most of them are on the Proggy side. As far they're concerned, no amount of self-justification on Molyneux's part can absolve his thought-crimes of 'white supremacism'.
And yet, because Molyneux prefers ideas and values more than identity rooted in race or tribe, he tries to maintain his cool and explain his positions as evaluations based on evidence and reason than on blood-and-guts passion. His approach is ‘business’ than ‘personal’, and this makes him rather like Tom Hagen. Though an emotional person like any of us, Molyneux’s persona on Youtube is as a popular philosopher who logically puts forth arguments stamped with rationalist pedigree. Molyneux is like a lawyer of philosophy, and it is why many on the ‘left’ are infuriated because he won't just come out of the 'racist' closet so that they could all pile on him as a 'nazi'. But, he has exasperated some on the Alt Right as well because they see Molyneux as espousing Alt Right ideas without giving due credit and without taking sides where it really counts. They see him as essentially a Man of the Right who refuses to get ‘personal’ in the culture war because of his conceit of neutrality grounded in empathy with all things. He’s not a wartime consiglieri.


9. Kevin Michael Grace = Jack Woltz


Jack Woltz is a Jewish Hollywood mogul and pervert whereas Kevin Michael Grace is a Catholic Reactionary, so they don’t have much in common in terms of culture or values. But both are devilishly opinionated and dig in their heels on things that really matter to them. Even though KMG isn’t part of the Alt Right, he is more than your ordinary Catholic Reactionary. He has bohemian taste in the arts & culture, is conversant on matters of HBD(human bio-diversity), and addresses the JQ(in ways that most Catholics might feel uncomfortable), though, to be sure, he is a also a staunch supporter of Zionism(at least within Israeli borders). KMG used to have a show with Kevin Steel, but the chemistry wasn’t there as Steel was too much like the bland Andy Richter in the early Conan O’Brien show.

KMG’s chemistry with Luke Ford is much better as Ford gives ample space to KMG’s opinionizing while offering his own perspectives, often in counter to KMG’s own. It works like oil and vinegar. To the best of my knowledge, KMG has had almost no direct relation with members of the Alt Right, the exceptions being a few Alt Right figures who joined Luke Ford’s Youtube Livestream. KMG agrees with Greg Johnson and Luke Ford that Richard Spencer was most responsible for running the Alt Right wagon into the ditch. KMG’s strength is curiosity + experience + knowledge + opinion. Some people know a lot but lack passion. Some people are full of passion but lack depth and knowledge. KMG makes for interesting personality because he knows a lot and has heart-in-the-game. Sometimes, his opinionated views may come across as intolerant, bilious, & contemptuous, and his inability to suppress his real feelings has resulted in nasty(and hilarious) spats with Jim Goad the hardline atheist and David Ebert the moral relativist.

10. Voxday = Hyman Roth



Hyman Roth is nothing if not intelligent, and Vox Day claims to be high-IQ himself. (He does lack Roth’s modesty even if false.) Also, like Hyman Roth, Vox Day goes for the Big Picture. With background in science-fiction, his thought-processes are more analytical and systematic than that of Richard Spencer the Nihilo-Romanticist. Spencer’s idea of Sci-Fi is STAR WARS, and he gets all excited like Captain Kirk on STAR TREK. Vox Day barely reveals his emotions even when upset with certain individuals or ideas. He has an air of Zen about him, sometimes talking like a robot or Dr. Spock. Instead of expressing rage, he drolly tears apart his opponents like a child removing wings and legs of an insect. In the exasperating debate with Andrew Anglin, he kept his cool while Anglin's emotions were all over the map. Vox calmly kept his head above water while Anglin thrashed wildly to keep himself from drowning. It was like the swimming match in BREAKING AWAY between the college jock and townie played by Dennis Quaid. One almost got the impression that Vox was taking pity on the Daily Stormer hick and lending him a hand underwater to keep him afloat.
Hyman Roth also almost never shows his emotions, though his rage flared briefly when provoked by Michael Corleone. Despite his been-there-done-that demeanor, Roth is a ferocious character who, upon developing a grudge, just can’t let it go until he gets his vengeance. He is calm waves above but violent undercurrents below. Michael Corleone is his Moby Dick to harpoon and destroy. Despite his diplomacy with Michael Corleone, he can't let go of the fact that Moe Greene, almost like a son to him(and fellow Tribesman), was killed by the Corleones. So, Roth is sworn to the destruction of Michael Corleone no matter the time and cost.

This obsessive side of Roth can be seen in Vox Day, especially in his near-maniacal agenda to destroy Jordan Peterson. Most people are take-it-or-leave-it on the subject of Peterson, but Vox Day reacted to Peterson as though the Canadian superstar violated some fundamental principle of the universe. Thus, Peterson isn’t just a bad guy or charlatan but akin to an evil scientist or grand sorcerer of sci-fi or fantasy novels who must be utterly defeated to restore balance to the world. Vox Day’s war on Peterson isn’t merely over ideas or issues of character. Peterson obviously triggered Vox Day in a way that most people can’t fathom. Vox Day took it 'personally'(even though the two men never met) because Vox has his own grand theory of the world. As Peterson’s worldview is so at odds with Vox's own, it’s like a gangster turf war among Big Think philosophers.
Now, why would Vox Day be so upset with Peterson in particular when, surely, there are so many other thinkers Vox Day disagrees with? It’s because Jordan Peterson has been promoted by the media as a 'man of the right' who stands up to Political Correctness. Being Anti-PC is the proud battle flag of the Alt Right; therefore, as Vox Day sees it, only genuine Alt Rightists and Dissident Rightists should have the right to carry the banner. But there is Jordan Peterson propped up by the powers-that-be as a courageous member of the 'Intellectual Dark Web' when, from Vox Day’s perspective, the man is nothing but just another Establishmentarian shill. Most people can ignore or get over the cult of Jordan Peterson and move onto something else, but Vox Day can’t let it go. He feels he must carry on with the anti-Peterson vendetta until Peterson’s reputation is utterly exposed and destroyed(at least in Alt Right circles in which Vox Day has not insignificant influence).

11. Jared Taylor = Senator Patrick Geary



This is an unfair comparison in more ways than one. Unlike Geary, who is a rank hypocrite and sleazebag, Jared Taylor has been a man of dignity and principle. Unlike Richard Spencer who acts debonair(modeled on 007?) in interviews but does airhead things in most other occasions, Taylor has been genuinely respectable at all times, and even many of his enemies admit that he is a gentleman in the best sense of the word. Then, why is he like Geary? Oddly enough, it is the primacy of respectability itself in the lives of both men. Even though Geary's respectability is bogus whereas Taylor's is genuine, both men are concerned above all with maintaining the image of respectability. Geary is a sexual pervert, which makes him an easy target for blackmail. But his career relies on respectability, and so, he will do ANYTHING to put forth a clean image of himself. Jared Taylor espouses views that are most un-respectable in today's elite circles of media and academia, but he is ever mindful to come across as respectable. But, no matter how civil and refined he acts, the powers-that-be will paint him as a 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazi'. Does this mean that Taylor should drop his manners and act like Andrew Anglin since ADL and SPLC will always put them in the same hole? Of course not. If you're not a white supremacist or Neo-Nazi, there is no reason to act like one just because the media paint a Hitler mustache on you no matter what.
Still, Taylor's commitment to respectability has made him delusional in hoping that American Renaissance(his outfit) will ever make inroads into higher respectable circles because of the good manners of the attendees at its conferences. Style is important, but the truth is ADL and SPLC(and the vast Jewish Network) will always characterize the substance of Jared Taylor's ideas as 'white supremacist'.
And it doesn't matter how pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist Taylor insists he is. Given that Holocaustianity and Jew-Worship are the biggest 'religions' in the West, Taylor thinks he can score points by praising Jews, but in fact, most Jews hate him because his mission of 'white advocacy' implies emancipation of white consciousness from serving the Other. To Jews, they themselves are the main constituents of this Other. Only with continuous injection of 'white guilt' drug into the Western bloodstream can Jews paralyze white pride and agency, thereby making whites seek moral restitution by serving the 'holy' Other.
On a darker note, we see in both Geary and Taylor a rather servile attitude to the Ultimate Power. Geary, despite his cocky Waspiness, all-too-easily becomes a toady of the Corleones upon realizing the kind of power they wield. He used to look down on Eye-talians as greasy gangsters, but once fallen into their trap he grovels at their feet like an indentured servant. Likewise, Taylor is so impressed with Jewish Power that he clings to the hope that all-powerful Jews may one day appoint him as their most loyal Wasp servant. In some ways, Taylor is more pathetic than Geary on this point because whereas Geary is handsomely rewarded for sucking up to the Corleones, Taylor has gotten NOTHING from carrying water for the Jews and defending Israel. (Taylor supports Zionist treatment of Palestinians, but American Jews treat Taylor like Israelis treat Palestinians. What bittersweet irony.) Indeed, ADL that monitors Twitter got Tayor banned, and all the Jew-run media gleefully piled on the de-platformed Taylor and gloated like laughing hyenas. It's all well and good to be a gentleman, but this is war, and one must be willing to get down-and-dirty against the powers-that-be. In battle, even officers must be ready to get mud and blood on their uniforms. Taylor is too finely tailored for the coming battle, which is really a Race War waged by Jews against whites.

12. Matt Heimbach = Luca Brasi



Unlike Luca Brasi who seems rather dimwitted and tongue-tied in THE GODFATHER, Matt Heimbach is no dummy and gifted as a speaker. Of course, that hasn't prevented him from acting like a moron all too often. As the 'cowboy' says in MULHOLLAND DR., one's attitude goes a long way to decide how one's life will be, but then, one's attitude is largely shaped by one's personality. Heimbach is a monster-man like Brasi. Actually, if he lost some weight, he might look like a normal, even rather pleasant-looking, guy. But as fatso and bubblebutt, he looks grotesque, more Malt-Right than Alt-Right. The fact that he seems unable to shed a few pounds suggests a pitiable lack of self-control. He's like Cookie Monster. Also, despite his large body, he has a cherubic face, which he toughens with a beard, which only makes him look even more ridiculous in combo with nerdy glasses. So, there is Monster-Matt, someone who looks like a professional wrestler as couchpotato as baby-faced Paul Bunyan with specs of a computer nerd.
But what makes him especially like Brasi is the compulsion to associate himself with betters and the one-dimensionality of what he has to offer. Like Brasi the killer, Heimbach and his crew were only useful as street-fighters, the Fist of the Alt Right. Also, Heimbach was so eager to associate himself with someone like Spencer who is better-looking, better-educated, and better-mannered(at least in public). Brasi in THE GODFATHER is a self-loathing creature whose fanatical loyalty to Vito Corleone is founded on gratitude for having been offered friendship by a superior man. Even though Heimbach proudly defined himself as a Man of the White Working Class, the fact was the kind of people he dealt with tended to be crude and vulgar. Also, Heimbach got too close with Neo-Nazi stuff to ever gain respectability(or credibility among anti-Nazi Alt Right types). So, Heimbach's sole ticket to 'better optics' was to align himself with 'high-class' Spencer and serve as his Luca Brasi. But if Vito Corleone used Brasi in covert operations, Heimbach's overt actions for Spencer only served to tarnish the image of the 'superior' man.
At any rate, Heimbach now sleeps with the fishes because he can't recover from his Jerry-Springer-ish romp with his father-in-law Matt Parrot's wife. For a man who's berated the Jews for subverting Western Morality, it wasn't exactly the best move. Ironically, what Heimbach now has in common with Richard 'superior man' Spencer is Wife Problems. For all their public declarations for the White Family, they totally in affairs of personal and/or pubic life.

13. Ramzpaul = Johnny Fontane



As with most pairings on this blogpost, there is unfairness in comparing Ramzpaul with Fontane. Fontane is a corrupt and craven character who begs Don Corleone for favors to land a movie role. I can't imagine Ramzpaul stooping so low to get anything his way. He is classicly Waspy in sense of right-and-wrong, unlike the more clannish-minded folks of other tribes(non-whites and ethnic-whites, especially Jews and Italians). He's also shown considerable courage in sticking to his convictions despite media hostility. If he's gained in racial consciousness in recent yrs, it was with a certain reluctance in reaction to the changing political climate where non-whites are urged by Jews(especially) to blame everything on Whitey or White Privilege. Though individualist-libertarian by nature, he believes that whites have no choice but to be racially conscious because (1) they are headed toward minority status even in nations of their making and (2) PC dogma vilifies whites for all problems.
Now, why is he like Fontane? He is naturally entertaining and might have made it in comedy if he'd chosen another career path. He certainly enjoys the limelight and knows how to amuse his audience unlike most on the Alt Right who, as personalities, range from earnest to hotheaded. Another way he is like Fontane is a certain defeatism. His jokey personality, being most at home with cheerful lightheartedness, often succumbs to gloom-and-doom when pondering future prospects of the White Race. After all, no amount of joking can save a condemned man from the hangman. He admits he came close to quitting his Youtube stream several times and had to be slapped back into form by Tina the Finnish Godmother.
Ramzpaul doesn't have the vision and audacity of Spencer, and he has admitted he isn't the leader type. He's more a commentator and satirist. But overall, his view of the Alt Right has been saner than that of Spencer & Co. who decided to wage all sorts of internecine wars(mainly against Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, which served NO purpose) and charge into radical acceleration mode in what was still a rickety and incomplete vehicle over bumpy roads. On a road strewn with so many obstacles and traps, Ramzpaul called for cautious and sober driving. Spencer decided to down the bottle and put the metal to the pedal... with rather predictable results.

14. Kevin MacDonald = Don Tommasino


Like Don Tommasino, Kevin MacDonald has been there from the beginning. A former radical socialist in the 1960s, he soon came to realize that Jewish Idealism is often wedded to a deeper Jewish Tribalism. If Wasps took the New Idealism at face value, Jews used it to maneuver themselves into power as the New Elites to not-so-covertly push their tribal supremacism uber alles. After much thought, MacDonald theorized that recent Jewish behavior is nothing new and, if anything, fits into a wider and deeper pattern of history, culture, and possibly genetics.
Because of his experience, he is weary and wounded warrior and has few illusions as to what the Power is really capable of. In this, he is different from the young crop of Alt Right crusaders who, in their gushy enthusiasm and naivete, hurled themselves into the fire like Siegfried... only to get scorched. Due to his age, MacDonald is in no position to lead the movement, and besides, he's more a scholar type than activist type. But like Don Tommasino, he has earned respect in the Alt Right community for key contributions and for having his paid his dues in the most suppressed movement in America.

15. Andrew Anglin = Fredo Corleone


Andrew Anglin isn't really part of Alt Right or any Right. He's essentially been a class-clown and troll all his life. Some say Daily Stormer is a Fed Operation run by Jewish Weez to make the Right look bad. While I don't subscribe to the notion of Anglin as agent, no good can come from taking him seriously. If Daily Stormer has any use, it's in the boundaries of free speech and mocking sacred cows of PC. Granted, its way of 'satire' is often so crude and ugly that it ends up soiling the Right as well muddying the Left.
That said, if the Alt Right had left Anglin to do his own thing, it would have been better for both sides. But, the Unite the Right Rally at Charlottesville invited the Anglin-Stormer crowd. Spencer had long public policy discussions with Anglin, as if Anglin could be taken seriously as an expert on anything. And Red Ice interviewed him as a person of importance. All bad moves. Class clowns are best handled like Adam Sandler. Laugh when they do funny stuff but do NOT invite to weddings and funerals.
Now, unlike Fredo, Anglin isn't exactly low-IQ. But when it comes to immaturity, he(and Weez) beats Fredo by a mile. There is something slightly endearing about Anglin and Weez when seen as bad-goy clowns and stooges but only revulsion when taken seriously. There's a reason why Michael Corleone limited Fredo to frivolous Mickey Mouse tasks. Fredo could not be trusted with serious responsibilities. You don't take Curly of the Three Stooges and put him in a War Movie or Serious Drama.