How JUSTICE really functions in the IDOLATRY POLITICS of the Jewish-Supremacist West — The Immorality of Moral Immortality — US is a Theocracy of 'Idolocracy', a mindless worship of Jews, Blacks, and Homos

Justice, especially political justice, is a matter of who/whom: Who has the power and which groups have 'sacral' worth? This is also true of individuals — notice how certain Jews tend to get pardoned more than people of other groups, and consider how the Law pretty much allows black thugs and shoplifters/looters to walk free — but especially true at the political level. In Central America during the Cold War, the white-led right-wing regimes could employ 'death squads' and mow down countless indigenous brown folks suspected of being sympathetic to Marxist guerrillas. That was 'justice' in those parts, with the acquiescence of US power. In communist nations, the secret police could arbitrarily arrest anyone and charge him of treason, espionage, or 'bourgeois' thought crimes. The accused could be sent to prison camps or shot dead in basements. That was 'justice' under communism. So, justice is usually the tool of the power. It is what the Power wants and says it is.

Under liberal systems, there developed the idea that justice should be impartial, fair-minded, based on strict adherence to laws(applicable to all), and protective of the 'universal rights' of all citizens, rich or poor, regardless of color or creed. Though liberal systems were far from perfect in the practice of administering justice, it could be said that, more or less, the West was moving toward greater impartiality and fairness up to the 1960s. This mode of justice was based on individual rights. But the Civil Rights Movement wasn't just about the right of blacks as individuals but as a group, and that agenda, along with other trends, provided the groundwork for a different kind of justice. If traditional rightist justice favored the upper classes and certain races over others and if the radical leftist justice favored the notion of 'social justice' that trampled on individual rights in favor of the supposed good of the collective, the classic liberal notion of justice emphasized the rights of individuals. But the New Liberal theory tended to be both more collective-utilitarian(though not to the extent of communism) and special-interest-oriented in the name of reversing past injustice. Collective-utilitarian notion of justice was at the heart of the New Deal. And special-interest notion of justice animated the Great Society program of LBJ and the rise of Holocaust Cult. By emphasizing the problems of black history, the idea was that blacks as a group deserved special recognition. And because Jews suffered the Holocaust, supposedly the greatest evil act in all of history, they were deserving of special sympathy and consideration. (Initially, pro-black & pro-Jewish attitudes and policies were based on sympathy, but the rising cult of their Noble Suffering and their spectacular success in 'idolic' fields of brains & brawn led to idolatrous worship of them as the Truly Superior Races.)

This came to function as a template for other groups as well. Noticing how blacks and Jews gained so much by pushing for justice on grounds of special interest than individual rights, many groups in the US began to develop their own form of Identity Politics. Identity Politics was different from national chauvinism of old that was premised on the conviction of one's own people being somehow superior and/or more powerful than others. In contrast, Identity Politics was based on the cult of victim-hood. Your people could be said to be more special if they suffered more than others. As Identity Politics emerged when the white West pretty much dominated all the world — even the Soviet Union was mostly white, something Red China exploited in its appeal to the non-white world during the Sino-Soviet Rift — , the general impression was of White Dominance and Non-White Victim-hood. Still, as the scales of victim-hood were still determined by the Power, it all came down to who/whom/when/where as emphasized by the Narrative, the product of media & academia.
Victim-hood mattered more if the villains were white and if the victims were non-white or Jewish. And it mattered MORE if the oppression happened IN the West, especially the US or Northern Europe. And it was mostly about the 19th and 20th century. As blacks were oppressed in America by whites, they had a good claim. As Jews suffered in Europe in World War II, they too had an easy claim. But much less sympathy goes to non-white victims of whites in non-white lands. More blacks and Hindus were mowed down by whites in Africa and India, but there is far more outrage about far fewer number of blacks who were killed by whites in the US. As for all the violence among non-whites, they don't matter. Who cares about what's been happening in Kashmir? Even as anti-whites claim to call for 'de-colonization of the mind', they are hopelessly 'West-centric' in emphasizing what happened/happens in the West uber alles. (Furthermore, these 'de-colonizers' are desperate to depart from their own native lands to go live in the West. It's as if they still consider the West to be the only Metropole that matters. And of course, even most anti-Western rhetoric has been cooked up by self-hating Westerners whose minds were colonized by Jewish Power and fueled by post-Christian need for absolution by some other means. So, anti-white politics is essentially about non-whites adopting the politics of white self-loathing, and as such, non-whites are still under white mind-control, albeit that of self-loathing whites. And the fact that many of these non-whites prize Jews, blacks, and/or homos over their own kind suggests that they're still totally 'colonized' by Western Powers that now happens to controlled by Jews.) A truly de-colonized mind would stop seeing the West as the source of all good and evil — the paradise to emigrate to and the hell to denounce — , but such is the state of your average non-white & anti-white mind.

Because of the Rules of Identity Politics, various non-whites groups must demonstrate their worthiness of sympathy by emphasizing their victim-hood at the hands of whites in the West, especially in the 20th century(and maybe 19th century). But as many of these groups are relatively recent immigrants, their experience of oppression under whites happened mostly in non-Western lands, and that means their suffering counts for less than that of Jews and blacks. (Even as globalism attacks the notion of national territorial rights, the tragic worth of any history is largely determined by WHERE it happened, i.e. if the police kills a black man on US soil, that is an outrage, but if the US military kills scores of innocent civilians abroad, it doesn't matter. The logic of Tragic Dirt.) Shoah happened in Europe, and black slavery happened in the US, and as such, they matter more. (Oddly enough though, their cults of suffering are transferable to all others of their kind. So, even though American and Anglo Jews were safe during WWII, indeed infinitely more so than white goyim in Europe who died in greater numbers than the Jews did, they too can invoke 'muh holocaust' as fellow Jews. Likewise, recently arrived black African immigrants in US and Europe can also invoke BLM nonsense and 'muh slavery' even though their ancestors captured and sold black slaves to Arabs & whites and even though black-on-black oppression & violence in black nations are far beyond anything whites have done to blacks in recent years. Also, the fact that American Indian experience doesn't count for much in the Narrative shows that the rules of Identity Politics are not set in stone. If a certain group tends not to be vocal and exhibits no special talent in the 'idolic' fields, it is mostly ignored regardless of its tragic history at the hands of whites. Today, American Indians, the people with the biggest claim to victim-hood in American History, get less attention than Asian-Indians who are always talking and balking.) Identity Politics is based on victim-hood points, but over time, it has fused with the All-American culture of winner-takes-all. Jews and blacks began their Identity Politics by wailing abut their victim-hood but, in good ole American fashion, gained special consideration because of their success with money, humor, arts & culture, athletics, & entertainment. So, over time, Identity Politics became more like Idolatry Politics. In other words, 'muh victim-hood' wasn't good enough. What really mattered was 'muh victor-hood to accentuate muh victim-hood'. In other words, if a group could demonstrate superiority in some key field, its victim-hood was to be considered MORE TRAGIC on account of injustice having been done to something better. It's like it's deemed worse to kill a gorilla than a baboon or to kill a giraffe than a gazelle.

So, what we now call Identity Politics is essentially Idolatry Politics. We don't have mass parades in favor of Palestinians where everyone shows up and waves the BDS flag. But we do have 'Pride' Parades where peoples of all colors sing homosannas to fruits and trannies draped in 'rainbow' colors. Of course, Jews want it this way because an Identity Politics where all groups have equal worth — or where all non-white groups have equal worth — would be threatening to their Zionist-globalist supremacist agenda. Indeed, what would happen to Jewish Power if Americans were to give equal hearing to Palestinians, Syrians, and Iranians as to Israelis and their Jewish-American enablers? Also, so many groups around the world have had unpleasant experience with Jews, be they blacks in South Africa or the peoples of Latin America. And European History wasn't only of Antisemitism but Jewish chicaneries, some of which came to do great harm. This is why Jews are wary of all-out Identity Politics. It's like Ben Shapiro denounces it because it means groups such as Palestinian-Americans can have their day in the sun as a victim group as well.

As far as Jews are concerned, the only kind of Identity Politics that is acceptable is an Idolatrous one where Jews get to decide the who/whom. So, Jewish Identity and Jewish Suffering are special and must serve as the basis of goyim making amends to Jews by doing whatever Jews demand. And Jews have especially chosen homos and blacks as fellow Idolatrous Groups, not only because both are highly profitable to Jewish industries in fashion & entertainment but because blacks can be used to bait 'white guilt' and homo-celebration can be used to replace Christianity with Queertianity. (Deep in their hearts, Jews still regard Jesus and Paul as renegade Jews, and there is no 'hate symbol' more 'triggering' to Jews than the Christian Crucifix. Of course, as the West was overwhelmingly Christian for over a millennia, Jews couldn't say that outright, but their big dream was always to destroy Christianity and banish the Crucifix. They tried this by destroying churches in the USSR, but it didn't work, and so they are now working to spiritually corrupt Christianity with Anno Sodomini and worship of Magic Negro or Fentanyl Floyd.)

There can be no true justice or impartial justice with idolatry, which is a cheap form of theology. Idolatry may not be deep, but like religion, it is about blind or mindless worship/faith. As such, US justice system is essentially theocratic or 'idolocratic'. Just like religious folks cannot question, blame, or condemn God or gods(no matter what), the idolocratic US cannot condemn sacred Jews and holy blacks(and homos) no matter what they do. The ONLY time Jews, blacks, and homos come under fire is when they insult or attack one another. So, Donald Sterling the Jewish oligarch had to be denounced because he said unkind things about blacks. So, Nick Cannon has to be bitch-slapped back into 'sense' for having said nasty stuff about Jews — never mind what he said about whites. It's perfectly okay for Jews to insult, defame, and smear whites. It's okay for blacks to denounce whites as the devil. No matter how much abuse is heaped on them, whites must keep their mouths shut, do nothing as their symbols & monuments are vandalized by mobs or removed by the establishment, take the knee, and cuck out. Or, whites can go into brainwashed Janissary mode like Antifa goons or the likes of John Bolton & Dan Crenshaw and join with Jews against the Culture War on whites and nationalism. How can true justice operate in such a world?

The fate of Arabs and Muslims in the current order is a sure sign that Idolatry Politics has rendered Justice into a tool of special groups, namely Jews, blacks, and homos. BLM means black lives are precious, white lives are not. And, it's always who/whom. When blacks kill blacks, never mind. As blacks are special, they may kill other blacks, just like gods may fight gods. But how dare these inferior low-life white mortals dare to kill a black god like Fentanyl Floyd or Gentle Giant Michael Brown? Blacks have been robbing, raping, assaulting, and murdering whites in alarming numbers since the 1960s, but who cares? The god-race may attack the mortal-race. Gods are deemed immortal, and blackness has been immortalized in the sense that the black tragedy of American Slavery has been essentialized to apply to all black folks and all of black history. (Also, electronic recording means that all future generations of whites get to worship Otis Redding and Bob Marley as immortal gods of pop culture.) After all, the so-called 1619 project applies even to black African immigrants, the descendants of blacks who captured and sold slaves. So, all of blackness from time immemorial to all the future is to be defined by tragic suffering at the hands of whites. So, never mind Bantu genocides against other Africans. Never mind Zulu atrocities. Never mind the likes of Idi Amin and all those nasty black thugs in the US and elsewhere. All of blackness through the eons is now about 'muh slavery' and ennoblement by suffering under white 'racism'. 100,000 yrs of blackness is to center around 200 yrs of slavery in America. And Jews have done the same with 'muh Holocaust'. All of Jewish Identity and History are to be associated with that tragedy. It's as if all of Jewish-Gentile history led up to that point and all of Jewish-Gentile future must revolve around that memory that condemns whites while consecrating Jews. So, it doesn't matter if Jewish history is full of bad Jewish behavior and if Jews do terrible things now or in the future. Jewish Identity has achieved Moral Immortality via the Holocaust Cult. Of course, in practice, Moral Immortality can only be a monstrous immorality as it's downright demented for any human group to act like they're eternally hallowed and sacred, thus above the rules that apply to other groups.

What does Moral Immortality for blacks and Jews mean in practice? Consider the fate of Muslims and Arabs. There was the photograph of the Muslim man whose business was destroyed in the aftermath of the Ferguson riots. He'd done no wrong. He was strong-armed and robbed by Michael Brown, and later big bully Brown attacked a police officer and got killed in the altercation. But the ONLY narrative that mattered was 'black lives matter' or Negrolatry. The livelihoods or the lives of Muslim businessmen didn't matter at all. The Jewish Media pushed Idolatry Politics of blacks uber Muslims. And one wonders how many Muslim businesses were destroyed this time around following the death of Fentanyl Floyd? To the New American Mind, only Jews, blacks, and homos have starring roles as the good guys while whites have the starring roles as villains. All other groups have supporting roles(at best) or exist only as blurry extras in the background. In movies, we don't care how many people get killed as long as the main characters survive. In INDEPENDENCE DAY, who cares if the entire city blows up as long as the key characters are alive and well and get all the glory?
I'm assuming many more Muslims had their lives ruined as the result of riots following the death of Fentanyl Floyd, but no one cares. So, blacks have a righteous right to riot, burn, loot, and attack people. Their lives(and lusts) matter, but others don't matter. This proves the utter hollowness of all this 'liberal' yammering about Diversity and Equality. Not only are immigrant groups being slated to pay the bulk of 'reparations' to blacks but all these 'nice white liberals' show no sympathy for people such as Muslims who were attacked by black violence.

But it is even worse with Jewish Power and its use of Mass Murder Inc, aka the US military. When Neocons smeared the 'Arabists', what were they really attacking? An American policy of blindly favoring Arabs over Jews? No, so-called 'Arabists' were calling for a more fair and balanced approach to the Middle East by considering Arab/Muslim interests as well as those of Zionists. If anything, your average 'Arabist' was nevertheless more pro-Zionist than pro-Arab. Still, he wasn't 100% pro-Zionist and willing to lend an ear to the other side, especially in service to American Interests. But, that wasn't good enough for Jews, for whom it had to be 100% pro-Jewish and the hell with Arab/Muslim interests. In other words, US foreign policy must be totally JEWIST, but of course, all the cuck-shills of Zion aren't called that. Idolatry Politics means Jews are special, wonderful, and oh-so-admirable in every way. Jews being so great, how can anyone oppose any Jewish demand?
So, whatever the problem or consequence, the US must always favor Jews EVEN IF these policies lead to wanton destruction of countless Arab/Muslim lives. Jewish Lives Matter, Arab Lives Don't. Jews can wipe out Palestine off the map, but never mind, and Long Live Israel. Instead, focus on paranoid fantasies of how Iran is going to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Israel ignores international standards and has 300 nukes with stolen technology and material from the US while Iran has no nukes and has caved to every international demand. But never mind. Shower Israel with billions in aid while starving Iran and subverting its economy, making millions suffer. And if Jews cheer on Saudi Arabia's genocidal war on Yemen on grounds that it's good for Jews and bad for Iran, that's great too. And even though Mossad is carrying out terrorist attacks in Iran(and aiding the most demented terrorists in Syria), ignore all that and just accuse Iran of being the #1 terrorist nation, as worthless Donald Trump does all the time as the pathetic dog of Zion.
So-called 'liberals' are so into idolatry(of Jews, blacks, and homos) that they are incapable of fair-mindedness. And for all their bleating about injustice, they are such craven cowards who dare not offend Jews lest they lose their precious jobs in elite institutions and industries. As for 'conservatives', their hierarchical mindset means they will kneel before whomever has the most power and privilege. Whether it's Sean Hannity praising Amazon or Rich Lowry cucking before his Jewish donors, 'conservatives' are following in the grand tradition of sucking up to the royal court. As for some others on the right, cheering for White Jews over Brown Arabs is a subliminal way of White Pride. It's ironic of course. Jews prohibit white identity and white agency, but Jews wink-wink urge white rightists to cheer for white Jews and Israel(as outpost of Western Civilization) against those Sand Ni**ers. If you can't have Apartheid and Jim Crow anymore, you can at least cheer for Jim Crowitz and IDF death squads mowing down those brown women and children. The likes of David French will virtue-signal by denouncing Old America but cheer on Israelis defending the border and shooting women and children in Gaza. A truly surreal case of whites, having had their own 'racism' canceled by Jews, must outsource their 'racist' fantasies to 'white' Jews who, being Moral Immortals, have the license to mow down brown people in the old ways of colonialist-imperialist wars.

Moral Immortality means Jews and blacks get to loot the world. Jews, being smart, used financial trickery to rape the Russian economy. Jewish banksters in Wall Street got massive bailouts and grew even richer during the Great Recession at the expense of Main Street. Ever more billions are poured into the coffers of Israel while coffins multiply in the Muslim World. The likes of Paul Singer and George Soros can loot entire nations.
Blacks, being stupid and childish, loot in the savage-barbarian way of smashing windows and running off with the goods. And beating up or shooting anyone in their way. Outwardly, blacks seem to do far more damage, but the amount they steal is a pittance compared to cargoes of Jewish Booty. At most, blacks will destroy a part of town. Jewish oligarchs and sharks loot entire economies. Not for nothing was George Soros called 'the man who broke the Bank of England'. But just like most black looters get to walk away scot-free with their loot, Jewish globalist sharks are allowed to keep their ill-gotten loot and look to steal more and more.

But, Jewish Power isn't only about white collar crime. By controlling cuck-politicians of the US, Jewish Power gets to employ Mass Murder Inc, aka US military, to wage Wars for Israel, thus destroying entire nations with invasions, bombings, drone attacks, and blockades. The death tolls abroad from such ventures are far beyond the murder and mayhem committed by blacks. But what do Jews and blacks care? Even when they are caught doing bad stuff, they usually get a slap on the wrist or get pardoned. Most black looters will walk free, and so many bad Jews are never investigated, and even those who get convicted serve in minimum-security prisons or get pardoned. Such is justice in Idolocratic America. Justice follows the theocratic mode of worshipful attitudes toward certain groups who can almost never do wrong even when they do wrong, whereas certain other groups, especially whites, Palestinians, Russians, and Iranians, are always deemed wrong even when they do right. But what would be right-and-wrong in a world of 'gay marriage' and 'trannies are women' logic that has inverted all sense of reality?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/UZaI1ZqikkNH/

Dangers of Jewish Ethno-Stalinism or Tribal-Dictatorship — Biggest Contradiction of Current U.S. Power is between Jewish Power and Universal Principles — End of History and Beginning of Beastory — How Jews are METO(More Equal Than Others) over the Rest of Us

What was one of the most striking features of Stalinism? It was premised on communist principles of equality and justice for all. Stalinism was nothing new in terms of tyranny as brutality and repression have been around since the beginning of history. What made Stalinism perverse was the contradiction between its principles and its practice of power. Granted, the very term ‘Stalinism’ implied a perversion of communism from a universal-egalitarian ideal to a cult of personality, an idolatry centered around an individual elevated to quasi-divine status. At least in this respect, communism was a bigger moral failure than Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, ‘ideologies’ that openly and honestly insisted that a strong leader with power of vision and charisma should rule and define the destiny of his people. Though Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were anti-individualist when it came to mass politics, they were ultra-individualist when it came to the Great Leader, Il Duce or Der Fuhrer. Presumably, such a man was so awe-inspiring that he needn't operate by the rules of ordinary folks. He belonged to the pantheon of the greatest men in history. It was as if they were imbued with the stuff of myth. In the 19th century, many Romantics regarded Napoleon that way, seeing him more as god-man or force of nature than merely a military leader or historical figure. A man of destiny.

In contrast, communism claimed to be about ideas and principles than idols and power. Sure, communists would have to gain and even monopolize power to realize their Utopian project, but the end-result of such monumental endeavor would be a world in which all peoples would be equal in freedom, work, justice, and responsibility. Granted, modern communism came to be defined by Karl Marx(though communism as an idea predated him), just like much of modern psychology came to be, at least for a crucial period in the 20th century, shaped by Sigmund Freud at the expense of other more empirical but less imaginative experts. Some may argue this was 20th century communism’s fatal error, the allowing the thoughts of a single individual to exert such vast influence on an idea and movement. Beginning with Marxism, communism was less a generic idea of social justice based on collective ownership of property than the prophecy of an individual who, as Modern Moses, insisted that communism must be something more than a blueprint formulated in the minds of men: It was a historical inevitability that no will or power could stop. It was only a matter of when. Prior to Marx, communism was more a matter of social philosophy than grand history, i.e. communist ideals arose from the minds of men, and communist reality could be achieved only by the determination and will of men committed to revolutionary change. Without such conscious will and decision-making, communism would never be realized in the world. In other words, communism was the will of man. Men had to make it happen. As such, it was kind of humanism. Early communists were like the pagans who believed in a plurality of gods and heroes. Nothing was certain, and history was determined by the clash of wills and visions of men. The winners would decide history.
In contrast, Marx believed that consciousness follows material conditions. Though an atheist, Marx believed in a power beyond the will or wish of men. This power was History, a monomaniacal force like the Jewish God. Just like individuals are helpless and powerless before the one and only God, mankind cannot do anything to change the course of History. People can only be agents of History, like people are only pawns of the one and only God. At most, people can try to understand this uber-power; and when this power demands change, one must be ready to ride the waves or be swept aside. According to Marx's view of History, as economic factors change, social relationships also change, and such shifts affect the way people view reality and their place in it. There is a historical logic and dynamics beyond what people may wish to think or believe. Also, most people cannot think or imagine beyond the material limits of their reality. The material reality must change before the mind follows and changes accordingly; it's like in evolution, organisms react/adapt to the changing environment. Economic reality changes with the evolution of production that, in time, comes to favor one class over another. The rise of trade eventually came to favor the merchant-bourgeoisie over the aristocracy. And as Marx saw the future, the dire contradictions within capitalism must inevitably lead to the rise of the proletariat and the fall of the bourgeoisie. While Marx wasn’t averse to individual will and commitment — indeed, one of his boastful comments was that the role of scholar isn't merely to study but change the world — , he thought the Revolution couldn’t be hastened or delayed by much. When it will happen, it will happen. It’s like a pregnant woman may try to have the child earlier or later, and she might alter the date of birth by a few days, but the fact remains most children are born after around 9 months.
Because of Marx’s elaborate theories and deep intellectualism, many communists convinced themselves that Marxism wasn’t really a personality cult but merely the best and most complete theory of communism as revealed by a great thinker. Supposedly, it was like Darwinism that merely attributed the discovery of evolution to the English scientist: Not a reverential cult of Charles Darwin as a know-it-all genius but credit due to the man who first worked out the basic theory of how evolution works. Likewise, Marx was seen as the first social scientist who figured out the true working dynamics of history. Still, whereas Darwin was respected as a great scientist, Karl Marx did come to be revered as a near-divine figure in the communist canon. Perhaps, the theme of justice is more powerful and emotionally charged than the theme of facts. Whereas Darwin merely figured out how biology works(on the amoral level), Marx figured out how history ultimately works to bring about a just world for all mankind. Truth is like ice, cold. Justice is like fire, hot. That mankind may have evolved from apes was mighty interesting, but it didn’t do anything to improve the lot of man, but the idea that material history eventually resolves its contradictions by toppling the exploitative class in favor of the toiling masses was deeply heartening to many who’d gone through the often traumatic Industrial Revolution.
That said, because Karl Marx remained a thinker all his life and never gained political power, his official status was that of a man of ideas. One might even say Karl Marx was too good and pure to dirty his hands in the world of politics with its betrayals and compromises. Similarly, Moses remained a prophet but never became king. And Jesus preached ideas and died for them but didn’t go about the ‘petty’ business of setting up organizations to spread the Gospel far and wide. Muhammad notwithstanding, when the man of principles also becomes a man of practice, much of the luster is lost.

It’s usually the case that the thinker or prophet retains a degree of purity in that he dreams big dreams and dies before his theory is put through the wringer of practice that has a way of mucking things up. After all, even the most pristine, cautious, and well-thought-out plan often goes wrong when put into action. Even the most powerful thinkers cannot foresee all the details and complications. Also, those who involved in the practice often turn out to be madmen, incompetents, hustlers, opportunists, egotists, or deeply flawed individuals. And for this reason, it’s hardly surprising that the failure of communism was usually blamed on men like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, or Mao than on Karl Marx himself. Plenty of True Believers insisted that the practitioners of communism misinterpreted, betrayed, abused, or perverted True Marxism. The chances are that a system ruled by Marx himself would likely have failed too, but we will never know as the Great Man died before communism became a real political force in the world.

What we do know is that communism, as practiced by men like Vladimir Lenin, Bela Kun, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-Sung, Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, and etc., proved to be failures. Granted, not all communist nations were guilty of mass-killings, and furthermore, plenty of grisly acts were committed by right-wing and capitalist nations in the 20th century. But in the end, communism failed to deliver all the things it promised. It lost to capitalist nations by standards of materiality, freedom, and justice. If communist nations had produced less goods but nevertheless managed to offer more freedom or justice, that would have been something. But over time, it became more apparent by the day that capitalist nations were not only able to produce more goods but procure greater progress in justice and freedom. In contrast, not only did communist nations lag in technology and consumer goods but failed to deliver freedom and justice as promised. Diehard purists may argue that Marxism cannot be blamed for this because communism came to power in mostly pre-industrial nations, thereby turning Marx’s theory on its head. Marx argued communism would follow late capitalism and then the proletariat would inherit the earth from the fallen bourgeoisie. Marxism was a theory of inheritance, not installation, of industry. After all, Marx himself argued that no force was as revolutionary and transformational as capitalism, and for that very reason, despite its evils, it was an absolutely crucial stage toward the development of communism. Just like there must be night before dawn, there must be capitalism before communism.

As no fully developed capitalist nation turned communist, we still don’t know if post-capitalist communism will work wonders or not, but we can still guess as to how such a system will turn out. While the U.K. didn’t turn communist after World War II, the Labour Party did nationalize many key industries, and that didn’t do much for the economy. If anything, the more market-oriented European economies did better. Also, the paucity of material incentives in communism makes one wonder if a capitalist-made society will remain prosperous for long under the new rules. And facts of human nature suggest communism is, at best, over-zealous idealism blinded by narrow definition of ‘justice’. Still, given the rising contradictions of capitalism in our globalist world, it is safe to say that the End of History(as suggested by Francis Fukuyama) failed the understand the power dynamics and its implications for the future.
In terms of Fukuyama’s definition of ‘History’, he was more right than wrong. The end of the Cold War witnessed the closing days of the battle of Big Ideas. Oddly enough, the smaller, humbler, and more moderate ideas had won over the Big or Grand ones. Moderate Liberalism won out over Radical Leftism with its Macro Theory of History. And seemingly, moderate nationalism and moderate internationalism won out over ultra-nationalism that was once synonymous with imperialist ambition. In a way, one might say it was the triumph of the Anglo/American model over others, far left and far right. But one wonders if Anglo/Americanism won out mainly because of its wisdom and good sense or its good luck. While one can find much that is praiseworthy in British-American ways & values, would Anglo/American power have been so great if not for the superb luck that Anglos got to conquer, settle, and develop North America, the best land in the world? And were ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ really crucial in the development of the United States as a great power? Suppose Imperial Germany had taken North America and developed it along autocratic lines. Wouldn’t it have been just as powerful with all the land and resources utilized by a talented and hard-working people? Indeed, when we compare liberal democratic UK and autocratic Germany in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the latter was gaining over the former. So, perhaps, ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ have been over-emphasized as the reason for the power of the United States.
Anyway, the closure of the Cold War did bring about something like the End of History in that people were no longer into mega-ideologies. According to Fukuyama, this was due to the fact that ‘liberal democracy’ triumphed over the final Big Idea of Marxism, the grand theory that claimed to hold the key to the workings of history and culmination of justice. In contrast, ‘liberal democracy’ made no such claim and made incremental progress based on liberty, empiricism, pragmatism, individualism, ingenuity & innovation, and free flow of ideas. Instead of one Big School dictating the Truth, liberal democracy allowed many schools and shops to bloom and offer their ideas and products in the marketplace of choice. Termites won over the elephant.

And yet, Fukuyama was wrong in one significant way. Though he valued liberal democracy for its freedom, moderation, and pragmatism, he also elevated it as the Final Idea that would define and dominate the world. The problem of such view was in assuming that The Idea has final power over the Forces within the System. According to Fukuyama, since Liberal Democracy prevailed over Communism(and Fascism), the dominant force in the West is Liberal Democracy, i.e. nothing, no one, and no group in the West can become greater than Liberal Democracy that is all about ‘individualism’, ‘liberty’, ‘free speech’, ‘rule of law’, and etc. But in truth, ideas have no life of their own. Even though every idea favors something over something else, it is also malleable in the hands of those who have the power, especially lots of power. Also, Liberal Democracy doesn’t preclude the monopolization of power or dominance by a certain group. The sheer prevalence of blacks in the NBA and NFL is obvious proof of that. Thus, the End of History with Liberal Democracy as the Final Idea can easily lead to the Beginning of Beastory with the most talented, intelligent, strong-willed, egotistical, maniacal, and/or organized groups using liberty and freedom to accumulate the most power for themselves. And with such monopolization of power, they can easily manipulate the Rule of Law and ‘liberal democratic’ principles to serve their narrow tribal and/or egotistical principles.
Granted, under a system like the US, no group will be able to gain the power wielded by Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, but given the current condition and global trajectory, it is very possible for a few groups to gain such market and elite dominance as to dictate their agenda and narrative to the rest of us. The passing of Big Ideas from the world stage doesn’t guarantee that the moderate rules and principles of Liberal Democracy will hold sway over all the world or even the West. This might have been the case IF everyone and every group in the West were equal in talent, intelligence, drive, ambition, and egotism, but the fact is certain groups are far more talented and driven than others. As such, they will gain so much more power in a state of relative freedom, even entire monopolies. Just like liberalism in sports only led to black domination and near-monopoly in many position, liberalism in industries and institutions led to the pre-eminence of Jewish power in so many areas, indeed to the extent that we live under what might be called the Ethno-Stalinism of Jews. Thus, the beastly ambitions of certain groups gain a stranglehold over the principles of Liberal Democracy. It is the Beginning of Beastory.

What is the similarity between Stalinism and Jewish Power in the US? Josef Stalin was the leader of a communist state where everyone was supposed to be equal in power, property, and justice. Now, given the nature of reality, it was hardly surprising that the leader of a communist nation would be ‘more equal than others’(or METO). Such is to be expected even from the most principled leader in the most principled community. But Stalin wasn’t mildly METO over the people of the USSR but totally METO over them. The rules that applied to others didn’t apply to Stalin at all. He could do just about anything and get away with anything. He wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god over men. While he could condemn millions to imprisonment or death, others could hardly criticize him. Indeed, it was deemed a crime to show insufficient enthusiasm for the man and whatever he muttered. Such tyranny would have been less perverse IF the USSR had been founded on the principle of Stalin-Worship, but it wasn’t. As brutal and ruthless as communism was from the beginning as a political movement, the idea was that radical will and violence were necessary to sweep away the old decrepit order to make way for the new where all would be equal. Of course, such outlook was hardly unique to communists. The US in World War II was willing to use ruthless means to defeat the Evil Enemy so as to lay the groundwork for a New World Order amenable to US interests and ideals. Many people rationalized communist violence in the same manner that others had justified violence in the name of Christianity, Islam, Homeland, Enlightenment, Civilization, and/or Freedom. Most white Americans acknowledged the tragic dimension of taking land from American Indians but believed it to have been justified as savagery and wilderness gave way to towns with schools and churches for womenfolk and children. In that sense, communist commitment to violence as a force of change was hardly out of line with historical narratives: Means justify Ends.
But Stalinism’s hyper Cult of Personality was something else. It didn’t merely compromise communist principles but totally overrode them, in effect turning the USSR into a kind of Stalinstan. And for Stalin to have more individual worth as the infallible leader — so infallible that even when events proved him to have been wrong, everyone had to make believe HE was right and history was wrong or ignore or rewrite history altogether — , the people of the USSR had to have less individual worth as citizens of the state. In time, Stalin wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god among minions. While the lives of millions could be expended by a mere twirl of his finger, no one could find fault with any aspect of the man and his erratic whims. If he said black is white and white is black, you had to nod along and agree. If he changed his mind, you had to agree again, but he might have you killed because, earlier, you had been ‘wrong’. Never mind that you’d only agreed with the Great Man because he’s always right. But if one man is always right, then all those around him bound to be always wrong because they lack the immunity of the Great One. Stalin could change his mind all the time and be right at every turn because the only law he lived by was "Stalin is always right". That gave him immunity from being wrong. So, he could go from A to B to C, and he would have been ‘right’ in all three cases because he is always right. But as those around him had no such immunity or license, they would have been wrong at every turn because they also switched positions from A to B to C. If the current state says C is correct, those who’d pledged to A or B would have been wrong. But of course, Stalin was never wrong because he was right even when he was wrong because he was above the law, with the only law applying to him being "I’m always right."

We see something like Stalinism with Jewish Power, though some might call it Political Trotskyism as most Jews preferred the Jewish Trotsky over the Georgian Stalin. By ‘Political Trotskyism’, we mean the nature of Jewish Personality and Will to Power than the Marxist-Communist ideological underpinnings of Trotskyism that no Jew(at least in power) believes in anymore. In the US, Jews are not merely somewhat METO(more equal than others) but totally so. Jews are always right, even when wrong. And goyim are ‘wrong’ even when they agree with Jews and reiterate what Jews have said. Plenty of Jews have said the Tribe does own the media. They said it with pride. But if goyim agree and say Jews control the media, they are denounced as ‘antisemitic conspiracy theorists’ and dragged through the mud. Jews claim to push for mass-immigration and celebrate the prospect of whites becoming minorities in their own nations, but if whites notice as much and say Jews are behind Diversity-mongering, they are attacked as ‘haters’ and ‘nazis’. Jews can say whatever they like. They can even brag about their sinister plans for other races and nations. They can taunt others and spew bile, but if you, as goy, take notice of Jewish attitudes as particularly Jewish, you are ‘wrong’ and denounced as an ‘Anti-Semite’. Just like Stalin was always right(even when wrong) and his victims were always ‘wrong’(even when right), the same kind of dynamics exists between Jews and goyim. The charter of the Jewish supremacist organization ADL is premised on the notion that in 99% of Jewish-Goyim relationships, Jews must be ‘innocent’ and goyim must be ‘guilty’. So, it’s perfectly okay for Jews to stereotype, demean, defame, and pigeonhole certain groups of goyim(especially whites) as ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘paranoid’, and/or ‘hateful’, but goyim better not notice general patterns of behavior among Jews(unless such happen to be positive and flattering).

As with Stalinism, it is the sheer hypocrisy and contradiction that makes Jewish Power so repulsive. Unlike Ivan the Terrible who ruled openly as an iron-fisted tyrant in the Age of Tsars, Stalin ruled as Secretary General of a ‘republic’ committed to equality, justice, and liberation. So, the sheer discrepancy between what the USSR claimed ideologically and how Stalinism operated in reality was absolutely outrageous, so much in fact that Stalin had to tighten the totalitarian screws to make sure that no one said the Obvious: Stalinism was Tsarism x 1000. Though there were some social improvements and certain impressive achievements in the Soviet Union, if the system was equal in anything, it was in forcing blind obedience to the State that went from Stalinist dictatorship to oligarchic one-party rule.


*Incidentally, it appears Jews at Youtube manipulated algorithms so that if one searches for "Stalin Netanyahu applause ovation", no video that draws comparison shows up even though MANY have observed the oddity or similarity. It goes to show that Google/Youtube isn’t really ‘leftist’ but Jewish-tribal-supremacist. If Google Jews were truly ‘leftist’, why would they cover up for Netanyahu’s regime that is more ‘far right’ than even the most right-wing government in Europe? If Jews are so ‘liberal’, why do they push for Anti-BDS legislation that silences and destroys the lives of those who call attention to injustices faced by Palestinian underdogs?*

With Jewish Power, we see the same kind of contradiction in the US and the West in general. Jews make the most noise about ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘fairness’, ‘rule of law’, and ‘freedom’, and yet most of what they do is to secure special privileges, supremacy, and hegemony for Jewish Power. Indeed, more often than not, what Jews SAY is merely a convenient cover for what Jews DO. Jews TALK to distract us from how they WALK. Think of a Jew who walks to Point A while making so much noise about how he’s headed to Point B. We need to judge by what Jews do, not by what they say. But even what they say go against what they say. Jews say the New America is no longer about Eurocentrism or ‘white privilege’ but about equal rights and respect for all groups, but in the next breath, Jews insist that America must regard Israel as its closest and greatest ally, and that all Americans must be especially sensitive to Jewish feelings uber alles. Never mind all the anti-Muslim movies made by Jewish Hollywood. Never mind all the anti-white movies(usually set in the American South) produced by Jews. Jews also make lots of movies and TV shows with evil Russian monsters and yellow-peril villains. So, Jewish Power can defame and demean any nation or people, casting it or them as the Enemy of America. Jews can declare Iran or Russia the Great Enemy, but if Palestinian-Americans and their sympathizers try to draw people’s attention to the plight of those in the West Bank and Gaza as the result of America’s blind and mindless support of Zionist tyranny and terror, they must be shut down with Anti-BDS laws and resolutions. This is why Jewish Power is essentially ethno-stalinist. The stark difference between what Jews say in one moment AND what Jews say in other moments(and really DO) is totally outrageous. And just like Stalinism could perpetuate itself only via totalitarian tyranny that compelled the tyrannized to exclaim that they were equal, happy, and liberated under Stalin’s rule, the ethno-stalinism of Jewish Power insists that we all tell ourselves, others, and our Jewish masters that there is nothing more American as Apple Pie and 1776 as praising, flattering, revering, serving, obeying, and worshiping Jews. We must love Jewish Power like Winston Smith loved Big Brother in 1984. Unlike with Stalinism, heretics are not dragged off to be shot, but ethno-stalinist Jewish Power is very effective in maintaining control because Jews know that the fate of the nation is decided by a handful of elites. So, as long as Jews can buy off politicians and threaten goy economic elites with total ruin(by defaming their reputations as 'racist', 'antisemitic', or 'homophobic') if they deviate from the Judeo-centric Narrative and Dogma, just about everything is under control.
Also, as Jews have perverted the freedom of so many Americans by addicting them to hedonism and vices, so much of American liberty doesn’t go toward seeking truth and real justice. Generally, half of Americans only care to use their freedom for mindless pleasure, and the other half of Americans, having been molded by media/academia controlled by Jews, have a hard time conceiving of truth and justice beyond what they’ve been spoonfed since kindergarten. They grew up with the ideology and idolatry as controlled by Jews.

For a truer America, we need something like ethno-de-stalinization, just like the Soviet Union sought to de-Stalinize itself after the tyrant’s death(or murder) in 1953. But it’s difficult to change old habits, and vestiges of Stalinism remained to the very end of the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was that failure to truly root out Stalinism that prevented real reforms that could have made for a better system. Likewise, our de-ethno-stalinization must be total and absolute. It must not be a half-measure, especially as Jews have virulent personalities and radical wills. Just like there is no moderate way to deal with cancer, there is no soft way to deal with Jewish Power gone cancerous in the West.
Cancer is perversely contradictory in that it's about more life that leads to sure death. Cancer produces more cells, thus more life, but it also disrupts balance within the organism. Likewise, Jewish Power works like a contradiction. It speaks of more equality and justice, more progress, but just about everything that Jewish Power does is really to increase and maximize Jewish Power at the expense of all else. Jews are pushing for More Diversity not because they want to share power equally with all groups. No, it is only to create divisions, distrust, and strife among goyim so that Jews at the top can play goyim against one another. The result will be a society that becomes even more unequal and unjust, much like California where the rich(especially Jews) keep getting richer while too many people fall through the cracks and live in a state of ethnic, cultural, and political distress. And if indeed California is the future of America, we can look forward to a one-party state. It is time to wake up, see Jewish Power for what it is, expose its obnoxious & radical hypocrisy, and implement a drastic program of de-ethno-stalinization.

Mormons, Two Meanings of Justice, and Future-Socialism

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive

“What’s happening here? The state population is now about 13 percent Hispanic, but only 1 percent black. Part of the explanation is probably the Mormon Church’s century of institutional racism.”

Race-ism is best foundation for social-capitalism. Swedish model of social-capitalism was working just fine when Sweden was all Scandinavian... but then Diversity came along. (By Race-ism, I mean, "Ism means belief, so Race + Ism = Belief in the Reality of Race and Racial Differences; and the need for Racial Consciousness".)

In a way, Mormons became the way they are because they excluded others, but it was also because others excluded them. In this respect, they are like Jews who were excluded by others but also excluded others. Thus, Mormons developed a ‘ghetto’ mentality.

There are Two Meanings of Justice.

1. Legal Justice and Righting wrongs. So, if Bob does something wrong to John, Bob owes John compensation. It is about redress and punishment for violation of the law or social contract. This concept of justice is represented by "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" in the Bible. By its standards, if someone didn't do you any wrong, there was no injustice, and he owes you nothing.

2. Tribal Justice. A sense of shared survival and success. This concept of justice is found in the Exodus. Moses feels a sense of obligation to lead ALL Jews out of Egypt. He doesn't owe them anything as he hadn’t done them wrong(on a one-on-one basis) in his capacity as an individual, but as a Jew, he feels responsible for other Jews. This concept of justice says it is not enough for a person to be successful as an individual and care only about himself. He must belong to a community and work for the common good.
Greek mythology is more individual-oriented. It's about the rare hero who rises above the rabble and demonstrates his superiority, like Perseus in the slaying of Medusa. To be sure, through his extraordinary feat, he saves others of his kind. And Theseus protects his community by slaying the Minotaur who gorged on human offerings. Still, the emphasis is on individual feat and personal glory. It is about how the hero stands APART from the rest.
In contrast, the stories in the Bible emphasize how every individual's deeds relate to family and tribe. Communism, a secular form of Judeo-Christian worldview, tried to realize this Jewish-communal-sense-of-justice on a universal scale, but it was too grandiose and unwieldy. Just like a tower erected too high will collapse, so will a bridge built too long.
The ideal of communal justice works best on the ethnic/tribal level and even on the national level IF the nation is racially & culturally homogeneous or reasonably so. This ideal that a people must all make-it-together and not leave others behind is found in the Zhang Yimou film NOT ONE LESS, a kind of 'no child left behind'. It only works within a shared racial community.

Mormon capitalism is bound to their brand of social-culturalism. But, it will fray if the Mormon community becomes overly diverse. Mormon theology is hardly profound stuff. What has made Mormons special has been (1) a sense of community based on shared race and history (2) Muslim-like emphasis on daily rites, some of which are sufficiently strict to prevent members from giving into excessive vice.

When it comes to family formation, Mormons have an intuitive sense that generating children amounts to a kind of future-socialism or bio-socialism. In a way, having children is 'socialist' in the sense that you have to share your earnings with others. Purely from an economic viewpoint, children are 'parasitic'. They do no work and leech off the wealth of parents. Parents must buy them food, spend time with them, clothe them, provide medical care, and etc. It is very taxing, economically and emotionally. So, why do it? Because it is a kind of future-socialism. Why is future-socialism rewarding in ways that paying taxes to provide benefits to total strangers isn't?
Because there is a special bond of love & happiness between parents and children. Also, unlike faceless strangers who live off the tax revenues of others(via the confiscatory state) and show NO gratitude(and often demand MORE free stuff as a 'right'), children are happy and grateful for what they receive from their parents, even just an apple or orange. It's socialism of emotions than just of materials. (This is why prolonged welfare dependency is corrupting to both parents and children. When kids see their parents struggle to make ends meet, they feel appreciation and gratitude, even a bit of guilt because parents work so hard for the family. But when kids see their parents as mere leeches off the state, they feel no sense of obligation because it wasn’t the parents who provided for them. So, do they feel grateful to the state? No, because the state is faceless and abstract as far as they’re concerned. It is just a system to milk.) Also, if children are raised properly with sound nurturing of identity, culture, history, values, arts, and appreciation-for-nature, they carry on with the heritage even after their parents have passed away. Indeed, they see it as their obligation to do so. And in earlier times, they would have taken care of their parents. This was a big theme especially in traditional societies. Kids were seen as organic Social Security. Parents provide for their children, and later, the children-as-grownups provide for their parents-grown-old. So, family formation has always been a bio-cultural socialism into the future. Parents share their wealth with kids, and in turn, kids feel obligation to their parents and the culture they all sprung from.

This sense has weakened over the years because the state or industries came to provide for old people. Also, with the fading of identity and real culture, there is less of a sense of inheritance from parents and bequeathing to children except in monetary/material matters.
If a people no longer believe in what they are in the racial-cultural-historical sense, they feel no need to pass the torch to keep it going. Today, most young people culturally identify with celebrities and what Chris Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion, a frivolous(but intensely charged) Fantasy World, than in the richness and depth of the line-of-my-people.

Orthodox Jews and Mormons still have strong identities, and they feel their cultures must be kept going through the ages as living inheritances and timeless inspirations. And the ONLY way to ensure that is to have children and teach them well. More than anything, one’s wealth, knowledge, experience, and genes must be SHARED with one’s children. That is the deepest and richest kind of socialism. Bio-Socialism.

Richard Spencer and the George Bailey Rule — Why Clarence’s Law matters in Politics — Why No One is saying "I am Spencertacus"

If anything seemed certain at the time, Jesus got whupped real bad. He was captured, tried, whipped, stripped, crucified, and humiliated. It’s hard to imagine a worse whupping. The Romans didn’t take Him seriously. He was just another Jew who had to be executed. Most Jews rejoiced as they regarded Him as a heretic and blasphemer. And peoples of various other tribes who assembled to watch the punishment and death of Jesus may have found entertainment value in the spectacle. After all, Romans had crucified scores of people. So, the death of Jesus should have been just one more among the countless, and that would have been that.
But what made a difference? The fact is Jesus inspired such love, devotion, respect, and reverence among His Disciples and followers that even after they scattered, denied, and/or renounced Him, they were overcome with guilt that slowly hardened into a resolve to serve His spirit. And that small but steady fire would gradually spread and even convert & conquer the souls of Romans. Many of Jesus’ followers suffered and even died in their service to the spirit, but they were willing to do so because of their deep love and respect for Jesus. Without such devotion on their part, Christianity wouldn’t have had a chance.

We see something similar in two films, IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE and SPARTACUS. What George Bailey realizes at the end is that all his good deeds and good works made him a beloved figure in the community. Sure, he had to sacrifice his personal ambition, and there were rough roads along the way, but the things he did for the community were remembered by the people of Bedford Falls. Furthermore, people respected him for his intelligence, conscientiousness, and self-sacrifices. In the end, even the capitalist enterpriser Sam Wainright sends him money in time of need. So, when Harry Bailey toasts his older brother as ‘the richest man in town’, it’s not about money. It’s about respect, gratitude, and trust. It is what Mr. Potter will never have despite his immense riches. Even though Bailey had been ground down by daily routine, the fact is every good thing he did earned him respect among members of the community. In the end, he reaps what he’d sown... in the positive sense.
In the case of Spartacus, his rebellion fails. The slaves are killed or enslaved once again. Or they are captured and crucified. The captured men are promised mercy IF they name Spartacus, but none of them does. They respect and admire him so much that they’d rather die with him than spill the beans to the Romans. Spartacus earned such respect because he’d proven by words and deeds that he was for all of them, for freedom and dignity.

Since Charlottesville, Richard Spencer has faced a rough road. And his deplatforming has gotten worse and worse. He is being targeted and isolated for the Kill by the Powers-that-be. A frivolous lawsuit has been made against him, but it carries weight because some of the most powerful Jewish Supremacist law firms and the Jewish-supremacist media are working hand-in-hand to bring him down to set an example for the world. As such, Spencer has asked for support and help, and some have been willing to donate funds to his defense.

But what is most striking is the general lack of care and concern for Spencer despite him being the most well-known face of the Alt Right. There is little affection and love for Spencer, and not much respect or trust either. In his time of need, Spencer is mostly an isolated figure... even though perhaps some might see value in Anti-Spencerism(by the elites) as a welcome lightning-rod. After all, if so much Establishment thunderbolts are aimed at Spencer, then OTHER Alt-Right and Dissident Right figures will be spared. They may figure, "Let Spencer draw and take bulk of the heat while we remain relatively safe and carry on with the conversation and financial transactions." Indeed, lightning rods have spared many communities from being blasted by heavenly rage. Because Spencer is the most recognizable figure of the Alt Right, much of the violence(physical or rhetorical) by everyone from the Establishment Elites to Antifa bottom-feeders has focused on getting HIM. Also, there is the Eastwood factor. Notice that in many Eastwood action movies, we learn that the hero had been nearly lynched by the Mob. It’s as if the mediocre-looking types want to destroy, out of subconscious envy, the figure who looks better than them. Indeed, much of Antifa rage is steeped in what might be called ‘Fassbinderism’(after the famous German director of the 1970s). It is the War of Ugly on Aesthetics. Anyway, the elites generally think a movement can be neutralized or destroyed by taking out the head honcho. So, the French thought their troubles were over in Algeria when they took out the rebel elites. And the Apartheid government of South Africa thought Mandela would be helpless behind bars. But in the end, the Algerian uprising returned with greater fury. And Mandela eventually triumphed. But then, even as those revolutionaries had been vanquished, exterminated, or captured, there was much love and respect among the masses for those people. It’s like the love for the dead rebel leader among the poor folks in UNDER FIRE.

But has any White National leader won such respect and devotion among his fans and followers? I can’t think of one. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that most of Modern History was one of domination of the Rest by the West. It’s far more difficult to feel sympathy for the over-dog or top-dog than for the underdog. And even when white warriors were on the margins and fighting an uphill battle, like the remnants of white colonialist types in Vietnam, Algeria, Rhodesia, and South Africa, they were regarded as struggling to maintain white privilege in lands that were not theirs. Jesus and Spartacus were clearly underdogs. And even though T. E. Lawrence was an agent of the British Empire, he took on an ‘underdog’ role by leading the Arabs against the Ottoman Empire that was allied with Germany.
In contrast, despite the uphill underdog struggles of men like David Duke and Richard Spencer, it’s hard for them to garner wider sympathy because the History and the Narrative for so long has been ‘white hegemony’ over the world. Also, David Duke ruined his chances as a White Advocate by doing stupid stuff like joining the ridiculous KKK and blaming EVERYTHING on Jews. Jewish Power is immensely important as challenge and threat, but Duke turned it into a cartoon. As for Spencer, it’s hard to see him as a man struggling for justice for his people when he spouts off about how the West must be like the Empire in STAR WARS, how super-rich Bruce Wayne(Batman) and amoral James Bond are Alt Right archetypes, how Africa must be conquered again under neo-Kipling-ism, and how the only game left is an endless struggle for Power in a globalized world of constant flux. Spencer’s idea is that the Classic West is over because the Dark Invasion cannot be stopped, therefore, the New White Right must learn how to conquer the world as the world conquers the West. It’s really a futurist-right variation of Soros-ism. In a world where borders and security can no longer be taken for granted, there is an endless struggle for domination, and Spencer thinks the white race can win this game and rule over the world like Darth Vader over Ewoks and Jawas or something. Well, at least Darth Vader had massive starship fleets to mess up entire star systems. And at least Batman had tons of money and all sorts of gadgets with which he could beat up ‘bad guys’. And at least James Bond was so favored by luck that even when he fell out of an airplane, he was sure to land on his feet on a yacht with bikini-clad babes. But reality is another matter. It just sounds ridiculous for Spencer to pontificate about Vaderian greatness when he can’t even pay for a drink with a credit card. It’s close to being comical, even pathetic.

Now, I don’t say anything with glee or personal amusement. I do respect Spencer to the extent that his life could have been smooth sailing IF he’d taken thirty pieces of silver and played the game like Peter Keating in THE FOUNTAINHEAD but did not and took a bold path in life. Spencer could have been someone like Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney. He could have been a well-paid shabbos goy toy of the Jews. Unlike some people who gravitate toward ‘radical’ politics or ‘extremist’ views because of they are ‘losers’ with low status and no talent, Spencer could have had a much better material and social life. He could have played the game. Though no genius, he is intelligent and had written some thoughtful and penetrating pieces about the nature of US politics. And he has the right personality and image that could succeed in politics or the corporate world. So, even his critics have to give him credit for giving up a lot to pursue a risky cause in our PC-dominant world. But like the character of PRINCE OF THE CITY, Spencer hasn’t given up enough, and that, ironically, is one of the main sources of his problems.

If you want to lead a cause, you have to dig deeper and push further. By this, I don’t mean ideological extremism or what is called ‘purity spirals’. If anything, his contacts with Andrew Anglin were unwise to say the least. It was handing ammo to the enemy to shoot him with. What I mean is Connecting with the People. The problem with Spencer is he grew up affluent, pretty, and popular. Though not uber-rich, his family was rich enough. And his childhood and youth were pretty easy. Due to his privileged status, image, and personality, lots of doors could open up to him if he made half the effort. Much of his life was about FUN. As long as he kept his radical politics under wraps, he could be a liked guy. That is all very nice but the wrong attitude(and expectations) to have in the calling of ‘radical’ politics. It’s like one can play toy-soldiers far from battle but not in a real war. And one can play around as a professional wrestler, but it’s real contest of will and muscle in true wrestling or boxing. There is NO MERCY from the enemy in a real war. And Spencer entered a real war but failed to understand this... despite having written time and time again on the Carl-Schmitt-ian theory that Logic of Power than Rule of Law really governs how things work.
How did Spencer fall into this deer-in-the-headlights illusion? For those who had social and economic advantages in life, there is a tendency to believe that destiny is on your side. It leads to vanity, narcissism, over-confidence, and ultimately hubris, usually the deadliest of all sins when the prize or grail is within view.

While Spencer must be credited with heading off the Alt Right movement with his first Alternative Right website, the fact is its momentum soon stalled. While some of the writers were provocative, many were either too fringy(especially Jack Donovon, the ‘machomo’ theorist) or ‘cringy’(especially the second-rate Neo-Nazi Alex Kurtagic). The original Alt Right failed to attract a core staff of first-rate thinkers, theorists, critics, or opinionists. Thus, its quality fluctuated wildly from thoughtful to downright insane. Whatever one may say of THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, it is consistent in tone and quality(even if one disagrees with its general drift and core positions). The original Alternative Right website was like the boat in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST where no one has firm grip on the steering. It kept veering off in many directions. Also, the fiasco with Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki(and the bad blood that exists to this day) was the first clear sign that Spencer was capable of ‘betrayal’, as with the character in THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY.

Perhaps, ‘betrayal’ is too strong a word, but he pulled down the site that he’d effectively handed over to Liddell and Nowicki to edit-and-manage without consulting them properly. Why such impetuousness? The answer probably lies in Spencer’s character flaw developed in the formative stages of youth when he coasted through life and generally got what he wanted from loving parents, supportive community, easy connections, and physical likableness. His one liability, especially as he entered college and graduate school, was his un-PC politics, but his natural charm surely allowed him to weather the storm better than others without genetic advantages. The downside of such personality is egotism that may run out of control and sacrifices friendship and loyalty out of personal whim.
This is ironic since Spencer hasn’t been willing to compromise or sacrifice his principles or overarching vision. And yet, precisely because he’s enamored and committed to his Higher Vision, he has tended to grow impatient and indifferent to those around him when things don’t pan out as planned. The first Alternative Right site was supposed to create waves but generally failed to. Instead, it became the vessel of two Alt Right ‘nerds’ Nowicki, the beta-male saint at war with ‘whanking’, and goofy Liddell, the naughtier version of Mark Steyn: Liddell will Name-the-Jew.
This side of Spencer, a willful nature all too dismissive and inconsiderate of others, would set a template for things to come. He made unnecessary enemies of allies. Or, if not exactly ‘enemies’, he lost the respect and, more importantly, the trust of those who’d devoted their time and energy toward serving his project. At this point, Spencer shut down the original Alternative Right site(soon to resurface as a separate venture of Nowicki and Liddell in Blogspot) and started a new site called Radix Journal. In essence, there was no difference between the original Alternative Right site and Radix site except the change in name. In other words, it was as if re-branding could ignite what the original Alternative Right site had failed to. But Radix Journal met the same fate. It failed to generate buzz and didn’t become the focus of conversation in the political and ideological discourse. It was one of the many alternative or dissident political voices and sites on the internet. But far from the first.

Still, Spencer did contribute to a broader awakening that was happening independently of but not entirely disassociated from Spencer’s basic concept of an ‘alternative right’. On their own, many young and fresh voices began to create their own sites, make their own videos, and form their own ideas(and ‘memes’) on sites like 4chan. Though Spencer was far from being the only or the central figure in the new awakening — HBD, Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor, Paul Gottfried, John Derbyshire, Brett Stevens, Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, David Duke, Keith Preston, and many others had played their role — , he had played his part in getting some of the ideas across. It’s arguable and probable that Spencer hadn’t contributed much to the movement in terms of theory. His piece on Donald Trump, "Napoleon of the Current Year", possibly the single best article on the Trump phenomenon, suggests that Spencer could have been a more important figure as thinker, theorist, and pundit, but his main energies were expended on forming a movement and creating networks. If many Alt Right figures prefer to remain in the shadows, focus on theory than practice, or feel more comfortable with words than action, Spencer liked to be out there as the shaker of hands and organizer of men. Such personality types tend to be Natural Politicians, and this was both an advantage and disadvantage for Spencer. If Spencer simply wanted to make it as a political figure, he could have chosen to be more diplomatic and strategic. And this opportunistic side of Spencer is precisely what led to the fallouts between Spencer and others whose dedication to the cause was more earnest and straightforward.

And yet, there is another side of Spencer that is determined and resolute(on the Big Picture), and this has made him rigid at times in strategy, leading to huge miscalculation of the power dynamics. In a way, Spencer’s breakdown of Paul Nehlen’s implosion applies to himself as well. According to Spencer, one can choose the radical way with all its risks and dangers(but also the reward of pride of principle) OR the practical way of serving implicit Alt Right positions by playing it mainstream, a kind of Saul-Alinsky-tactic of the Right. Nehlen simply didn’t have the mind or manners to go the radical path and would have been better off shaking hands and kissing babies. Nehlen didn’t know what he was getting into and badly mixed All-Americanism with Alt-Right Awakening. Spencer’s insights on Nehlen were pretty much spot-on, but the same rules could apply to him as well. Spencer never seemed to ask himself whether he was in the Alt Right movement in a hardcore way to be its theorist & ‘prophet’ or in a middle-of-the-road way to be its manager & diplomat. Was he really in it for Fury or for Fun? If the former, why hasn’t he written a definitive book or tome to explain his position and vision? Why has he been so all over-the-map like a dilettante who does a bit of this, a bit of that, but almost nothing to completion? Or, if he wants to be the suave and smooth diplomatic figure of the Alt Right, why all the squabbles, controversies, hard talk, and hubris(bordering on megalomania of creating an Alt-Sphere as a galactic Darth-Vaderian empire)? It’s as if Spencer is trying to be Hitler and Speer at the same time. Or Mao and Zhou. Or Lenin and Molotov. He wants to come across as the rational, sociable, and approachable face of the Alt Right but then can’t resist personifying the Mad Man Theory. He goes Dr. Jekll and Mr. Hyde. For Jesus to have done what He did, He couldn’t play it like Paul. For Paul to have done what he did, he couldn’t have played it like Jesus. Spencer, like Nehlen, has never chosen a definitive role in the movement. The totally principled theorist, visionary, and/or prophet OR the savvy man of pragmatism attuned to the nature of power and playing the keys accordingly. And it may be this confusion on his part that has been responsible for his ‘betrayals’, i.e. Spencer didn’t mean to betray others, but it felt that way to those who lost faith in him because Spencer’s confusion stemming from a desire to do too much led to a kind of self-betrayal. A man who tries to do everything ends up doing nothing at all, just like a man who tries to save the world will end up saving nothing. In the end, one has to find one’s role or niche in the movement and stick to it. Even Jesus, supposedly the Son of God, couldn’t do everything. He needed the Disciples and especially Paul. Few men in history have been as Total as Muhammad, a man who managed to found a new great religion, inspire countless masses spirituality, and conquer huge areas via diplomacy, conversion, and war.... which is why a certain book considered him as the Most Influential Man that Ever Lived. http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/thetop100.html?id=61. Perhaps, Spencer's Commitment-Deficit-Syndrome owes to an easy childhood where, very possibly, he got whatever he wanted. He grew up feeling used to having things go his way. So, when things don’t work out as he’d planned or hoped, he either loses heart, gets confused, drops allies, and scrambles in new directions as if something else might be more ‘fun’. This lack of constancy and equilibrium seems to have attracted similarly confused personalities, like the half-mad Kyle Bristow who totally crashed and burned. And others in his inner circle seem to have lost heart or a clear sense of direction. Spencer’s general cockiness tends to attract others who are either equally cocky(like Gregory Conte) or toady-like. While a marginalized movement needs men of confidence and will, cockiness can easily turn into arrogance and over-inflated ego. As for toadies, they never know what to do on their own.

If Spencer wanted to play the role of intellectual and visionary, he should have worked on his tome or at least a manifesto, a testament to the world. Instead, there are only bits and fragments of articles here and there, speeches, and youtube debates. Those are all nice but not enough to constitute the Big Mind of the movement. Even if most people these days don’t read books and rely more on social media, the smaller ideas flow from big ideas. It’s like most people get their water from rivers, streams, and brooks BUT it all flows from the Great Source. The film MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON is about the adventure to find just that: The very source of the Nile. Does Spencer want to be a river to his people or not?


Karl Marx chose the lonely path of a scholar and prophet, but he did lay down the core principles of what would become the modern communist movement. He became the source of all future rivers and streams of the Radical Left. But something about Spencer prevents him from playing that role. He doesn’t have the right temperament. He’s too addicted to Fun, the action, the spotlight. There’s too much ‘batman’ and ‘007' in him, too much of the drama queen.
So then, if Spencer prefers the role of people-person, he should have been extra savvy and resourceful in building bridges among the sounder elements of the movement while burning bridges with those who are bound to cause the most trouble or cast the movement in a negative light. And here, Spencer and Daniel Friberg messed up big time. I don’t know what exactly happened between them and Greg Johnson(and John Morgan), but it just made no sense to divide the movement in such nasty manner. Even if Johnson is a jerk — I have no idea whom to trust on the matter — , there’s no doubt that his contributions to the movement have been considerable. Then, the differences could have been resolved among them in a more civil or dignified manner. Even if purges are eventually necessary, keep in mind Stalin’s purge happened AFTER the Bolsheviks came to power. And Hitler purged Rohm AFTER political victory. Clearly, Spencer and Friberg overestimated their power when they began to talk big and wage internecine warfare. Worse, such a move not only created bad blood between Spencer-Friberg Group and Greg Johnson & Counter-Currents but alienated many who remained loyal to Johnson. Also, for most of us who aren’t privy to who-did-what, the mudslinging at Johnson led to counter-mudslinging at Friberg. So, not only was Johnson dirtied but those involved with Arktos. Given rough times ahead, how sounder it would have been if Spencer had done a better job of building bridges. Then, he would have had much greater sympathy and support after the Charlottesville debacle. But because Spencer headed into the movement after having burned too many bridges with other members of the Alt Right — Nowicki & Liddell, Ramzpaul, Greg Johnson & Counter-Currents gang, and etc. — , many in the Alt Right were hesitant to lend him support, especially as their sites had also been attacked or deplatformed despite the fact that they hadn’t been consulted about the rally at Charlottesville. Even though the fiasco was the doing of the nasty Jewish mayor and corrupt city politics, Spencer had really put himself in a bad spot. At Charlottesville, he became associated with too many nutty figures like Andrew Anglin & Chris Cantwell or mediocrities like Baked Alaska. Indeed, why did Spencer approach Anglin at all? Whatever use Daily Stormer may have as a larp-nazi troll-farm, Anglin cannot be taken as a serious individual as thinker or leader. And there was Matt Heimbach, who turned out to be a total bust, which is especially upsetting since Heimbach had set out to do something of great importance, i.e. address issues pertaining to white working class and small-town America. Whether Charlottesville was sound or unsound as a plan, the fact is Spencer found himself mostly isolated afterwards because his egotism had stepped on or rubbed too many people the wrong way. And there are times when he seemed to be lost in the clouds. In the post-Charlottesville press conference, Spencer spouted off about how the media will continue to pay attention to him because what he stands for is so much more interesting than what Conservatism Inc. has to offer. Now, it is true that Alt Right has far more interesting things to say than the GOP and Establishment Conservatism do, but what made Spencer think that the Mass Media give a damn about meaning or truth? The ONLY reason why the Media had paid attention to the Alt Right was to build it up as the Evil Bogeyman with which to smear Donald Trump. The media’s interest in the Alt Right was simply that. But Spencer’s narcissism had led him to believe that the media were showering him with all the attention because they were really fascinated with his views and ideas. On the individual level, maybe some journalists were tantalized or provoked. But by and large, media policy comes from the top, and once the Alt Right was no longer useful to the Establishment as a political tool but instead threatening to emerge as a genuine ‘radical’ white national movement, the media decided to clamp down on Richard Spencer and Co., especially with the full cooperation of Law firms, Big finance, Internet Platforms, and the power of the State.
Spencer seemed even more deluded in the speech at Michigan St. University when he talked about the Power, how it is the real force that controls everything and tramples over principles. Now, if Spencer is cognizant of the fact that the Power trumps any set of principles, how could he have been so naively trusting of the Constitution and the Media to accord him the niceties of fair play and equal treatment?

Indeed, Spencer’s moral position fails because his ultimate vision is simply to be George Soros of the Right. As we all know, Soros is a globalist-imperialist, an empire-builder of the highest order. He creates chaos all over the world to create opportunities to install a new order to be manned and managed by minions educated and funded by his institutions. Soros has no respect for nations, cultures, borders, or sovereignty. He seeks to trample on everyone and everything to get things his way. And he isn’t alone but joined by other globalist Jewish-supremacist oligarchs who see the world as their oyster.

Now, the ONLY reason Spencer opposes such people is because he wants what they got. Ultimately, he wants to play god-emperor and have the Anglo-Roman-empire rule the world with new wars, colonizations, and occupations. Also, just like Jewish supremacists pay lip-service to ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, and ‘rule of law’ but actually resort to ANY POWER MOVE to push their supremacist agenda, Spencer’s vision of the future is no different. His Order will ban or severely curtain free speech and use the brute force of the law to make us conform to the Order in thought and action. So, Spencerism isn’t about combating Jewish globalist tyranny for freedom & sovereignty for all nations but about replacing Jewish hegemony with Anglo-hegemony... or, it’s about restoring Anglo-hegemony that had been usurped by Jewish hegemony. After all, Jews didn’t create the modern hegemonic world. Rather, they inherited or stole it from those who did. Among the six great empire builders in modern times — Spanish, Ottomans, Anglos, French, Russians, and Japanese — , only the Anglo/Americans triumphed over all others. Ottomans were finished with WWI. Spanish, once very great, had retreated to second-rater status. The French lost WWII and then their empire. Japanese empire was spectacular if short-lived but, at any rate, all gone by end of WWII. Russian empire came crashing down with the fall of the Soviet Union. Now, the British Empire met the same fate as that of the French empire, but the US-Canada-Australia had developed eventually as a super-Anglosphere empire, and that meant UK, even in shrunken state, had a certain prestige that France and Spain no longer had. When 20th century was declared as the American Century, it essentially meant the World Domination by Anglo-Americans. They, not the Jews, had built this order. But Jews took it over with their control of the media(that shaped view of reality), academia(that determine the narrative), finance(that could make or break businesses), entertainment(that created idols and icons, heroes and villains), vice industries(that addicted whites and others to drugs, gambling, and pornography), real estate, and law firms(that could wage lawfare and bankrupt people). So, in a way, it’s not so much that Spencer wants to create a new empire but wants to take it back from the Jews who had stolen it from its rightful owners, the Anglos, who’d done most to build the modern world with its trade routes, networks, and bases of power.
So, Soros and Spencer are essentially on the same page. The main difference is Spencer is, either candidly or foolishly, brazenly honest about what he wants whereas Soros(along with fellow Jewish globalists) is utterly dishonest about his grand vision. Soros is motivated by insatiable power-lust. He wants to be the dark Emperor of a Globalized World. But unlike Spencer who confesses his intoxication with Will to Power, Soros and his ilk wrap themselves with talk of ‘liberty’, ‘openness’, ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, and ‘justice’. In terms of integrity, Spencer wins hands down with honesty, but in terms of strategy, the Soroses of the World win because Power is most effective when camouflaged and weaponized in deceptive ways. The Corleones didn’t come out on top in THE GODFATHER by stating their intentions. Spencer, like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART 2, laid it all out.

It may feel good, but others know where he’s coming from and what he is about. So, Michael is able to easily outmaneuver Geary. Hyman Roth is a different fish altogether. A slippery eel, very smooth but slimy and ready to shock the enemy when least expected. Spencer’s candor and lack of deviousness are refreshing from an ideological perspective but not very savvy in the game of power. The problem is his position in the movement is confused. If he wants to be the ultimate visionary, he must speak candidly and lay it all out. He must be like John the Baptist who never minced words and paid the ultimate price: He lost his head but gained the respect of others who regarded him as a straight-talking Prophet. There is this side of Spencer, the neo-Nietzschean would-be-visionary of the Alt Right. But there is another side that wants to play the role of someone like Bill Buckley. He wants to rub shoulders with the right kind of people, be chummy with the media, be the go-to-guy for the Establishment on issues pertaining to Alt Right or White Nationalism. To play that sociable role, one has to be far more diplomatic, devious, and deceptive. This is why Bill Buckley couldn’t be as brazen as Joe Sobran, the real thinker at the National Review.

Be that as it may, Spencerism cannot be the basis for any meaningful movement because his ultimate vision is nihilism than moralism. He favors power over justice, and that means his vision is just Soros-ism for the white race. While it’s true that nothing is possible without power, power must serve something higher, and that is justice. Now, justice is a loose term, and there are many kinds of justice. Also, every kind of ‘justice’ means ‘injustice’ to others. There never was a perfect justice. The figures who came closest to conceiving of such were Buddha and Jesus. But Buddha’s justice calls for the eventual extinction of all life because life itself is the problem, i.e. life exists through destroying other life, and desire/attachment of the ego favors one’s pleasures & priorities that trample on the needs of other lives. As for Jesus, His practice of perfect justice led to Him getting whupped and killed real bad.

For the rest of us, we need a more practical, useful, and limited concept of justice. Without the concept of justice, there is just might-is-right, and in a way, people like Spencer have no right to complain because the current troubles befalling the white race has less to do with excessive justice than might-is-right. Sure, the globalists(especially Jewish ones who wield most power) mask their might-is-rightism with PC talk of equality and justice, but that’s just the usual rhetorical smokescreen. It’s really about Jewish Supremacism. Just ask the Palestinians if Jews really care about equality. Just ask the Ukrainians if Jews really care about redressing historical wrongs. Just ask the Russians(whose economy was raped by Jews in the 1990s) if Jews care about fairness. Jews are just 0.2% of the Russian population, but 20% of the richest Russians are Jews, but even THAT isn’t enough for World Jewry that now wages Total War on Russia. Jews bitch about ‘white privilege’ but only as misdirection from the real problem of Jewish power and privilege that rules the US despite the fact that Jews are only 2% of the population. The current system is not about ‘Social Justice’. That is just a front used by Jews to sustain their might-is-rightism. Deep down inside, even so-called ‘leftist’ Jews like Paul Krugman are really Ayn-Randians-at-heart. It’s just that they figure their supremacism is better served hiding in the shadows than being out in the open. When Obama, the pet monkey of Jews, bailed out Jewish banksters on Wall Street, Krugman and fellow ‘leftist’ Jews sure didn’t complain much.
Imagine a theater. Suppose it is owned and managed by Jews who take in all the profits and exploit the performers and workers. But when the spotlight comes on, does it shine on the owners and managers? No, the light goes on the performers on-stage who seem to have all the glory and power. But in fact, they are just tools of those with the real power: People who finance, produce, and manage the production and the building.

Jews are all about Might-is-Rightism. So, all this talk of Power by Spencer is old hat to them. If anything, they find Spencer stupid for spilling all the beans. Deep down inside, Jews agree with Spencer. Yes, it’s about the Power. And they got it. And they will keep it by any-means-necessary. The differences is that, whereas Spencer admits what he is all about, the Jews go for the same thing — THE POWER — but pretend they are nobly resisting SUPREMACISTS like Spencer in the name of defending poor helpless Negroes and other folks of color.

This matters because Spencer has NO moral justification to decry all the nasty things that have been done to him. Spencer’s world-view is POWER MATTERS, therefore THE SIDE WITH POWER MUST DO WHATEVER TO KEEP THE POWER. He says, if and when the Alt Right does come to power, they will ban free speech, lock up enemies, and act like Batman-as-Darth-Vader allied with white clone-army of 007's. Well, if that’s Spencer’s vision of how the world is and must be, what moral argument can he have against Jews doing to him what he would gladly do to others IF he had the Power? It’s like the opening scene of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID where the editing suggests the circular logic of Garrett’s life, i.e. when he turned against freedom and went after Billy and crew, he was effectively killing himself because the very power dynamics that hired him to kill Billy and crew will eventually bring him down as well. But Spencer seems to be blind to all this because of the ‘spoiled brat’ syndrome. He grew up with affluence and affection, and he seems to have this idea that you can have the cake and eat it too. It also looks ridiculous because it’s a near-comical sight to watch someone without Power rant on and on about Power. It’s like all those Randian nobodies fantasizing they are Howard Roark of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, which is useful as a dramatization of archetypal personalities but useless as guide to life.

Given Spencer’s stated world-view, he has no good moral or ethical defense against all the wrongs done to him because, by his own Logic of Power, the Jews did nothing wrong. If those with Power must wield it by-any-means-necessary to secure their power, then the Jewish elites have done the right thing in deplatforming Spencer and denying him myriad financial services. The Jews are right to use Lawfare against Spencer since, by his own account and preferred power-logic, the Ruling Power must do whatever necessary to secure their position. Such political-philosophical rigidity on Spencer’s part makes it difficult for people to feel any sympathy. After all, he’s just being forced to taste his own medicine. He wants to be Batman-Darth-Vader ruler of the universe and do as he wishes with The Power. Well, since Jews now have The Power, they will act like Emperor Palpatine and treat Spencer like a mouse trapped in a maze with no exit.
Indeed, when Spencer said Alt Right is like ‘Zionism for white people’, he was falling into the same trap as the one that ensnared Jared Taylor. Even though Spencer is more hostile to Jewish power than Taylor(who foolish offers a fig leaf from a position of weakness, which is useless) is, a side of him still longs to be recognized and approved by Jews. He understands that Jews rule the world, and he wants to be where the Power and Prestige are. He wants to be like the Jewish globalist hegemonists or wrest back the empire from the Jews(who’d usurped something really built by whites). If Jews have rejected Taylor, there is no reason they will be any nicer to Spencer. Taylor wishes for an alliance between Jews and whites on equal footing. But Jews don’t think this way. Jews are steeped in Covenant-thinking and the idea that their God is the only God and they are the Chosen. Even secular Jews have this habit of mind and personality. Jews cannot allow equal partners. They must dominate, they must rule. So, even though Taylor reaches out to Jews, it’s no use. If anything, Jews have targeted him more than David Duke(who still has presence on Twitter that is now supervised by ADL and SPLC). If anything, Jews hate Taylor more precisely because he comes across as so urbane and reasonable(compared to David Duke who can be cartoonishly goofy with his one-note bash-the-Jew message). Jews want whites to SERVE Jews. They don’t want to be equal partners. In order to make whites serve Jews, Jews paralyze whites with the venom of ‘white guilt’. Thus, having no pride of their own, whites must latch onto the Holy Three — Jews, Homos, and Negroes — to be redeemed. Furthermore, Taylor reaches out to Jews from a position of weakness. He has no support in media, academia, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, or the government. He is all alone with his small band of followers at American Renaissance. He can’t even use Paypal. If Taylor were powerful like Anglo elites of old, Jews might be willing to cut a deal(if only temporarily until they gain total power), but there is no need for all-powerful Jews to respond to Taylor’s overture. After all, Taylor has nothing to bring to the table whereas Jews got everything. A poor man cannot hope to deal with a rich man.

Anyway, if Jews loathe Taylor, imagine how they feel about Spencer. At least Taylor wants Jews to be equal partners. Prior to Charlottesville, Spencer put forth 20 Alt Right principles, among which one was JEWS MUST GO THEIR OWN WAY. So, in a New White Power Order, the rule would effectively be No Jews Allowed. And yet, Spencer still seems to think there can be an UNDERSTANDING between whites and Jews. He went on Israeli TV to explain that Alt Right is Zionism for whites. Now, Spencer isn’t entirely wrong. There are parallels between white nationalism and Jewish nationalism. But why try to convince Jews of anything, as if that’s going to do any good? If anything, the Alt Right, in the current situation, is far closer to the plight of Palestinians or the BDS movement. But Spencer, being so conceited with Nihilism of Power, would rather associate the Alt Right with Zionism and Jewish Power than with Palestinians and BDS. After all, Jews = Winners whereas Palestinians = Losers. But losers can’t be choosers. And in the current order, Alt Right are big losers and MUST ACCEPT the reality of their loser-status. It’s like a boxer doesn’t become champion by comparing himself with the Best right away. He works up the ranks by fighting the palookas and losers. He starts out as one of the lower-rung losers and then gradually claws his way up to higher ranks. In the current order, the Alt Right is much better off identifying with Palestinians and BDS movement. No amount of stated admiration for Jews, Israel, or Zionism will convince Jews to be any nicer to the Alt Right.

So, from a tactical viewpoint, the Alt Right is better off focusing on Justice than on Power. The powerless that goes on and on about how they’re going to have the power and rule over everyone is like a poor man yammering about what he’s going to do with his millions upon winning the lottery. It’s a pipe dream. Also, it’s crass and arrogant as well as delusional and ridiculous. But even apart from tactical considerations, the idea of justice is necessary because might-is-right is rule of thuggery and megalomania. Even if we could have an all-white society, without a powerful idea of justice, the end-result will be something like North Korea or Animal Farm. Granted, the cult of justice can be invoked and manipulated by the power-hungry. Communist tyranny began as a movement for justice. And Jews always hid behind the shield of justice to dupe goyim into falling for Jewish mendacity and agendas(mostly for Jewish supremacist power). But then, ANYTHING can misused and misapplied by humanity, especially if it's turned into a cult. Communism became more a cult of justice that act of justice. It led to vanity of justice. This is all the more reason why we must fight for true justice.

True justice can be universal, mutual, or pragmatic. Catholicism and Communism present universal visions of justice though, to be sure, in different ways. Catholicism says there is only one God and one path to Salvation: Through Jesus Christ who redeems souls and allows them into God’s domain, Heaven. To be saved, one must hear the word of God and accept Jesus. This is open to anyone, rich or poor, white or non-white. In contrast, classic communism says class dynamics will eventually lead societies to develop capitalism that will culminate in accelerated contradictions that will finally result in communist revolution. Even though communism spread around the world with missionary zeal, Marx didn’t think any people or nation could be ‘converted’ to communism. Instead, they needed to have the necessary material conditions that will lead to economic contradictions that can only be resolved by communism. So, by classic Marxist theory, what happened in relatively backward Russia and very backward Asia(and later even Africa) were not true communist revolutions. Still, Marx thought this Theory of History and Justice would eventually visit much of humanity as economic forces tend to go from primitive to barbarian to feudal to capitalist to socialist to communist.
At this point, it’s fair to say it makes no sense to conceive of a Universal World Order. The world is too big, and there is no authority that can reign over all peoples. Still, universal values don’t have to be executed or managed universally. For example, even if democracy is considered a universal political ideal, it doesn’t mean all the world has to be under a single democratic government. Instead, each nation can have its own government that is elected on the national level, e.g. Mexicans elect their own government, Turks elect their own, and so do Iranians and Taiwanese. Also, a universal value like ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill(meaning murder)’ doesn’t mean all of humanity has to live under one order. Each nation or community can enforce such justice on the local level. So, universal value doesn’t necessary mean universal power. Just because we reject Universal Power doesn’t mean we need to reject every facet of Universal Justice. ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’, ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’, and ‘Thou Shalt Not Rape’ are pretty good universal moral standards for all peoples(though I doubt if a bunch of Negroes could practice them well).

The relation between justice and power is a complicated one. Power shapes justice but is, in turn, shaped by justice. Power uses justice to its advantage but is also restrained by justice. It is the idea and authority of justice that allows saner and sounder relations among the various groups that make up society. Without justice, power can only rule by fear, as in the animal world, or by fooling people into believing the power is divine & infallible, as in Stalin’s USSR. But rule-by-fear and rule-by-fooling don’t last very long. One relies on servile cowards and the other relies on dupes and dummies. Ideally, the Power must not only rule and judge but be judged and restrained in turn. The idea that certain people should be Above the Law or Above Justice is bound to corrupt or destroy society. Totalitarian societies stagnate and rot from the inside. A demagogue with god-like powers can do what Hitler or Mao did. In the US, Jews are now Above the Law and Above Justice. They judge others but cannot be judged. They need not face the consequences of all their foul behavior because Jews are virtually worshiped and obeyed as a godlike race. This is why the concept of Justice is necessary. We need to bring Jews to justice. (Spencer's Theory of Power overlooks the fact that the most effective societies are ones that allow adaptation of power to change and progress. The Ottoman and Chinese East was more effective than the West in maintaining the Power status quo, but that also meant stasis and lack of progress in so many fields. In contrast, the power in the West ebbed and flowed among various elites or brought forth new systems, and this led to greater progress and advancement in everything from political theory to agriculture to weaponry to chemistry. And the parliamentary system was devised to ensure legal and peaceful transfer of power from one group to another. And contract laws and property rights made possible the rise of capitalism that led to great transformations in economic might. After all, would it have been better if the once-dominant railroads had prevented the rise of automobiles as a threat to trains? Would it have been right for IBM to prevent the rise of Microsoft in the name of maintaining its power? The advantage of the Western/American system was not in the rigidity of power but in its fluidity, flexibility, and change. The genius was in the system of transferring power from one group/sector/industry to another without violent wars of resistance vs change. Rather, political contracts and norms would allow the losing side to peacefully concede to the winning side that, in turn, would respect the rights of the lesser power. That system allowed far more dynamic change than autocratic system in Spain and Latin America where the traditional elites clung to power by suppressing change, even in science and technology, that might threaten the prevailing way of life.)

But instead of leading a moral crusade against Jewish supremacist power, Spencer’s position has been "We want what the Jews got", which is globalist hegemony. This is all the more ironic since it gives Jewish supremacists an opportunity to blame Spencer and Co. as the supremacist specter haunting mankind. Jews with supremacist power are condemning Spencer for supremacist ambition, thereby making themselves out to be the forces of justice defending mankind from neo-Nazi menace. This is why Alt Right should have moved forward as a Justice Movement for the national liberation of white folks from Jewish supremacist globalism. Framed in that way, the Alt Right would have had firmer moral footing in theory of justice. Instead, Spencer steered Alt Right into some futuristic-sci-fi-Batman-007-Star-Wars fantasy where Alt Right guys, as superior natural-aristocratic specimen, would rule the universe. Such delusional arrogance also had a way of corrupting and poisoning souls. Take Kyle Bristow. He could have been a good guy, a conscientious lawyer working on behalf of white national liberation from Jewish supremacism. Instead, with his head in the clouds just like Spencer, he made a lot of ludicrous and repulsive statements like he’s the prophet of doom or something. What was he on? Drugs? You’d think the Alt Right was led by guys not unlike the nutjobs in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.

Instead of sobriety, decency, and morality, the Alt Right got doped high on delusions of grandeur, vanity, and reckless egotism. It was like the Boxer Rebellion in China where Martial Arts experts thought their bodies would be shielded from bullets by magic. One way or another, Alt Right vaped on too much self-delusion. Instead of choosing the National Humanist path, it chose the Crypto-Nazi Peter-Pan path. Granted, strictly speaking, Spencer wasn’t directly responsible for much that happened. When he said Hail Trump at the post-election conference, I’m sure he didn’t expect several morons to stand up and give the Nazi salute. There’s nothing wrong with being a bit provocative and enfants-terribles playfulness. Also, strictly speaking, the fiasco at Charlottesville was the doing of the local authorities. Still, given Spencer’s past statements about the nature of power(based on Carl Schmitt), he was naive to trust that the Power would accord his movement the same rights as that of AIPAC and Antifa. As for Spencer’s interaction with Andrew Anglin, that was just plain dumb. Why associate a nascent movement with such utter trash? Now, Anglin and DAILY STORMER may be useful for trolling and mocking PC shibboleths, but it’s best to let them do their thing. They are too crazy and toxic to approach as allies. As for Heimbach and Trad Worker, it’s understandable why Spencer came to rely on them. They were the only ones willing to risk life and limb out in the open against Antifa thugs shielded and enabled by the Power. Still, there was bound to be a huge downside as fatboy Heimbach made no bones about his movement being Neo-Nazi.

Things would have been much better for the Alt Right if it had a humanist and nationalist basis. Instead, Spencer chose ubermenschism and imperialism. When Spencer said the movement needs something more than ethno-nationalism, he was right to the extent that the globalist threat forces all white folks to look beyond their ethnic kin. When all of Europe is threatened by the Afro-Islamic tide, Europeans must think and look beyond ‘saving my little nation’. Just like the combined unity of Christendom that stopped the Muslim tide at the gates of Vienna, every white/European ethnic group must think not only in terms of ‘my ethnic nation’ but ‘our racial sphere’. It’s like various Hellenic city-states had to put their differences aside to defend against the Persian invasion. Such a perspective is compatible with the more nationalist-oriented views of Greg Johnson who prefers to stress the sovereignty of each nation and culture. A people can, at the core, safeguard and preserve their own ethnic kin and nation while also cooperating with other whites to defend the wider Western world from non-white threats and challenges. Whatever divisions may exist among various ethnic whites, they should be able to make common cause against the non-white world. As things stand at the moment, there is no pan-European or pan-white consciousness. American whites are mainly allied to the Empire of Judea. Western Europeans also serve the Empire of Judea and are merging with Africa and Islamic world. Macron calls for Eurafrica. Merkel wants to darken Germany with Muslims and Africans. Anglo-Saxons want to go ‘black’ and turn into Junglo-Saxons. Also, as vassals of the Empire of Judea or EOJ, they are hostile to white Russia, thereby pushing Russia into alliance with Iran and China. Ideally, white North Americans, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and Russians should be working together. But the West has been set against Russia, with Eastern Europe caught in the middle — Eastern Europe is anti-Russia but anti-EU on immigration and demographic replacement. Eastern Europe joined EU to be part of a larger Europe but is discovering that EU is now about union of Europe with Africa and Muslim world as orchestrated by Soros and other Jewish oligarchs.
Asia suffers the same problem. Ideally, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and etc. should all work for the common good of Asia, but China is now allied with Russia while Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam remain servile to the US. Such divisions are most useful to Jews who don’t want racial unity among any people. Indeed, consider how Jews messed things up in the Middle East so that Arabs will fight Arabs and Muslims will fight Muslims. Now, all these divisions had existed for a long time — they were not created by Jews — , but Jewish globalism exacerbated them far beyond what would have been the usual run-of-the-mill tensions and differences. For example, the mess in Ukraine wouldn’t be half-as-bad IF Jews hadn’t interfered in local affairs to set one bunch of Slavs against another. Notice the various kinds of Jews, though divided on many issues, mostly stick together and don’t allow non-Jews to exploit the divisions. Indeed, even during the Cold War, the leftist Jews and rightist Jews felt closer to one another than with any non-Jew. Capitalist Jews covered up for Socialist Jews and vice versa, eventually merging together under Zionist globalism.

Anyway, if Spencer saw the need for wider racial consciousness than just a narrow ethno-nationalism among whites, it would have made good sense. After all, despite all the ethnic conflicts among Europeans, they must surely realize that they all share the same challenges when confronted with demographic imperialism(mostly from Africa and Muslim nations) in a globalized world. However, it is now clear that Spencer meant something far more, and this makes his position untenable both strategically and morally. Spencer isn’t just calling for white unity and sense of shared purpose world-wide but for white hegemony over the world. He’s calling for the white race to do what Soros is doing. On the strategic level, it is crazy because the world today isn’t what it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. Imagine France trying to colonize Vietnam, Algeria, or any other nation today. Imagine UK trying to take over India, or even nuclear-powered Pakistan. When Europeans spread out over the world prior to the 20th century, they had a huge technological advantage and, furthermore, there was a lack of nationalist consciousness among most non-white folks. So, what had been cannot happen again. Also, the idea that white Europeans can be inspired once again to go around shooting people left and right to gain imperial hegemony is really kooky STARSHIP TROOPERS stuff.
But it’s also strategically stupid because it makes the Alt Right sound like a supremacist movement that wants to conquer and rule the world. Who can sympathize with such movement? It also makes Spencer sound like a deluded Don-Quixote-like figure because of the huge discrepancy between his actual status and his dream. It’s like a mouse talking like an elephant. It’s like the story of the dog with bone looking at its own reflection x 1000. Spencer can’t even have a Paypal account but he dreams of ruling over the Third World like the Empire in STAR WARS over the planet Naboo.

But it’s also repulsive from a moral angle. The Age of Empire must not return. Granted, Western Imperialism did a lot of good for the world. It discovered and united all the globe. It forced stagnant, repressive, and backward civilizations/societies to open to new ideas, developments, and opportunities. The process was traumatic and violent but ‘necessary’ and inevitable to the extent that SOME people had to do it. The West did it. It’s like a forest fire is destructive but also clears the way for new growths. But eventually, a people don’t want to be ruled and pushed around by others. Also, now that the entire world is cognizant of the benefits of science, technology, world trade, and communication, there is no more need to FORCE other peoples to open up and learn from others. All the world have opened up and learn from others. If anything, nations like Iran have been prevented from trading with the wider world because of the nastiness of Jews. When all of humanity can benefit and learn from one another through peaceful means via modern communication and agreed-upon rules of trade, what need for more imperialism and empire-building? Why not have each nation defend its independence and sovereignty? That would seem like the sane and moral thing to do.
And, to the extent that globalism prevents such by imposing the hegemonic will of the Empire of Judea on much of the world, the Alt Right could have been an effective MORAL voice for the pragmatic and mutual Justice of National Rights. A Nationalist Theory of Justice is one that works best. Why not let Hungarians decide what is right for Hungary? Why not let Russia decide its own values? Who are Jews to insist that Hungary take in tons of migrant-invaders or that Russians worship Homomania(hatched as a replacement religion in the West by sinister Jewish globalist elites)? It is hubris for Jews to act like they own Universal Justice that applies to all of mankind... which is especially repulsive since what Jews force on other peoples/nations, they don’t force on Israel. Jews turn a blind eye to IDF shooting Palestinians in Gaza but screams ‘far right’ and ‘neo-Nazi’ about Hungary refusing to be inundated by tons of African and Muslim invaders. But with Spencer, such moral logic has no meaning because he’s all about reviving a STAR WARS version of Kipling’s White Man’s Burden policy. It is having one’s head up in the clouds. (Of course, even in a world of universal nationalism, some nations will hold greater sway than others. Russia will be more powerful than Armenia, China more than Burma, and the US more than Costa Rica. But with basic respect for the sovereignty of all nations, the future can be of peace. Contrary to Spencer's view, World Peace doesn't require an empire. If anything, US neo-imperialist financial or military meddling since the end of the Cold War has led to more instability and blowback. Russia, which gave up on empire with the fall of communism, has been a far more stabilizing force than the US on imperial footing.)

Now, I’m not knocking the need to dream. Most dreams don’t come true, but then, no dream ever came true without it having been dreamed in the first place. But there are good dreams and there are nightmares. And Spencer’s dream, if realized, would be a nightmare. Worse, it is already here in the form of hegemony by Empire of Judea, and it sure ain’t pretty. The world would be much nicer if all nations respected one another. But under the Imperial Hegemony of Judea, the US is used to militarily invade nations to serve Israel’s interests. Result is humanitarian horror. And this set off waves of Muslim and African invasions to the West. Of course, Jews want both the ‘invade’ and ‘invite’ aspects of the New(or Jew) World Order. Jews want the US, as lone superpower, to pound all nations hated by Israel. And Jews want to flood the West with Diversity so that Jews can play divide-and-rule over the many goy groups. Jewish Empire also uses financial gangsterism to threaten and destroy nations. It uses Homomania as the New World Religion. It imposes a mono-culture of Hollywood, Rap music, and Jewish-controlled pornography. And many nations are either helpless or loathe to do anything about it because they are so under the thumb of US power(that is controlled by Jews). Jews treat most of humanity like garbage because Jews see goyim as inferior. To the extent that Spencer and his cohorts have such a low opinion of non-white races, how would they be any better in treating the rest of mankind?

Now, as far as I’m concerned, it’s perfectly fine NOT to like other peoples or even to despise them. But at the very least, leave them alone in their own worlds, and let them have their sovereignty. It is not up to the US to be telling Georgians to have homo ‘pride’ parades or pressuring Iran to become more like some degenerate part of Los Angeles. Jewish hegemony is a nightmare for much of the world, and I fail to see how a world ruled by Darth Spencer would be any better. I don’t have a high opinion of Zimbabweans, but at least I don’t want to rule over them crazy ‘groids’. Just leave them be. If they want to trade with some nation or beg for aid, let them. But there is no sense in the West seeking domination over the Rest. China seems to have the right idea when it comes to places like Africa. Just regard it as business. Build them schools and roads in exchange for raw materials. End of story.

Spencer is right that one of the distinguishing features of the Modern West, especially among Anglos, was the spirit of adventure, the daring to go beyond what is deemed impossible. The will to try to run the mile under 4 minutes. The will to climb Everest. While other races had also been great conquerors — Zulus in Africa and Mongols in Asia — , there was an element of Discovery and Quest that went far beyond mere hunger for land, loot, and women. After all, the voyagers who first circumnavigated the Earth did it just to do it. Many Europeans went on ventures not for power or money but to accomplish what no one had done before, what others thought was impossible. Charles Lindbergh embodied this spirit, and indeed Americanism turned that spirit into a formula across a vast continent that seemed limitless in potential. We see that spirit in George Bailey in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. He’s a romantic bursting at the seams with imagination and energy. He wants to do wild things and build stuff. He’s been that way since he was a child. And in the novel THE CALL by John Hersey, an American farm boy wants to Evangelize China and bring all those hundreds of millions of heathens to Jesus. That kind of spirit, drive, and passion characterized much that was great about the West.




A man’s dreams and visions can be unreal, even foolish, but still noble and inspiring. All the men who lost their lives in the invention and development of avionics were maybe a tad too reckless, but without such men, we wouldn’t have flight. And the reason why communism got some sympathy despite its horrors was its dream of social justice. And as long as National Socialism remained nationalist and patriotic, it too had plenty of sympathizers among both Conservatives and Liberals. After all, Hitler had restored Germany from the economic and political brink. That was a good and noble kind of dream. But when Hitler turned to war and conquest to create his ‘Aryan’-supremacist empire, it was a nightmare, not a dream. The horrors that ensued couldn’t even be redeemed by nobility of vision because the vision itself was rotten to the core.
Now, I don’t think Spencer ever called for Nazi-like domination of the world... though some of his associates do sound more radical and even amoral. (I get the sense that Gregory Conte actually wishes that Nazis had won in Russia. He seems not to care what would have happened to Russians had that been so.) Spencer’s neo-imperialism is more along the Old British style. But times change, and a new Western Empire would be as foolish as Mussolini playing Roman Caesar. How did that turn out? Or, it’d be like the Russians trying to reconstitute the Soviet Empire. Not going to happen, and even if it were to happen, there would be just more bloodbath and bad blood. Not worth it.
Spencer may argue that globalism is now unstoppable and that the New Normal for All the World is invade-invite, i.e. every nation will be swamped under globalist financial, cultural, demographic, and military domination; there will be no sanctuary. In the New World Order of No-More-Borders and Constant-Invasion, the only game left is to form strong identities(like Jews) and seek dominance over others because, otherwise, they will gain dominance over you. Now, if indeed that were truly the ONLY option left, then Spencer’s argument might have some merit. But, the future is far from certain. Also, globalism may be on the wane in many parts of the world. There seems to be a rise of nationalism in parts of Europe as well.
Furthermore, Spencer’s pro-imperial argument isn’t merely defensive but outright offensive. He seems to believe that it is the white man’s destiny to conquer and rule. It’s just part of the white DNA, and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Whiteness is dynamic, and unless whites conquer other worlds, their energies will be invested in radical social experiments at home that will turn everything neurotic and crazy. Just like young boys have to burn their energies with sports, white energies must expand outwards(and even to the stars). Boys who aren’t allowed to play outdoors end up doing harm to themselves because their energies have no outlet. And perhaps, white energies are now doing so much self-harm because they haven’t been allowed to expand outwards. If whites in the 19th century conquered the American West, too many today expend their energies on tattoos, piercings, and bad drugs.
But then, the main reason for all the nuttery is maybe PC and Jewish domination. After all, there have also been many examples of sane and stable white communities that have long said NO to imperialism. Hungary and Poland seem to be relatively sane in nationalist mode. Also, in retrospect, expansive white energies did good only where the winning was easy and permanent. It was easy for whites to conquer mostly empty North America and Canada. But America’s ventures in Philippines, Korea, and Vietnam have been painful and traumatic. And the more recent neo-imperialist ventures in the Middle East and North Africa have been utterly disgraceful. Spencer opposed the Iraq War as a neocon affair, but would he have supported it as an Anglo-hegemonic venture? Either way, it would have caused too many deaths and heartbreaks. Worth it? No.

Where Spencer failed most was in his inability and unwillingness to connect with the people. A lot of this has to do with his vanity, narcissism, and obsession with aesthetics. He is attracted to the stage, the spotlight, and the glamour. He finds most ordinary and average people to be boring and humdrum. He has no rapport with the white working class or underclass. At most, he wishes them well but doesn’t want to be associated with them. His sensibility is too much Bruce-Wayne-Batman and James-Bond-007 to have a humanist feel for real peoples and cultures. His aestheticism hankers for celebrity and pizzazz. And that’s why his Alt Right fame and notoriety came to rest on ‘favorable’ coverage by the Big Media. (By ‘favorable’, I mean giving him a modicum of benefit-of-doubt and using him as the Face of the Alt Right.) His initial success with the college tour filled his head with the idea that it’s going to be FUN. He’s going to do the tango with the media network that loves-to-hate-him. He would be James-Bond-and-Villain-rolled-into-one. And he figured this would last forever. He would be the new edgy Bill Buckley on the up and up.
Now, there was surely an advantage to this approach. But there was one huge disadvantage: Spencer’s fortunes would come to rely TOTALLY on the whims of media. He’d invested so much on dillydallying and playing cat-and-mouse with the media that he neglected the more important business with connecting with the people. He fell into the Buckley Trap but didn’t even know how it worked. Buckley, as we know, depended totally on the media. Most conservatives didn’t get him. He talked in a snotty way and seemed too ‘intellectual’. He was charming and all but didn’t mean much to an average patriotic American. The Buckley Charm was a media thing. If he had a place in the media, he was still in the game. But if he were shut out of the media, he was nothing as he had no popular backing among the hoi polloi. Like Buckley, Spencer came to rely almost entirely on media access and attention. As long as the media put the spotlight on Spencer, he was a somebody. But the minute the spotlight was turned off and when even the bare minimum benefit-of-doubt vanished(whereupon Spencer was simply vilified as ‘Neo-Nazi’ and ‘white supremacist’), Spencer was suddenly Less-than-Zero, indeed lower than even Milo who could, at the very least, keep shilling for shekels by waving the Israeli flag.
Now, it’s understandable why Spencer didn’t want to work at building a base among the people. Most people are dull, unintelligent, ignorant, and pain in the ass. After all, even Jesus was often frustrated with simple minds who didn’t understand Him. And healing all those sick and wretched made Him want to throw up. And George Bailey in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE finds it a drudgery day in and day out to deal with regular people. It’s not glamorous. It’s not fun. But then, humanity is what it is. In the end, we need connection to reality. A doctor goes among the sick, not the healthy. Likewise, a leader must go among the needy and gain their trust than mug for publicity from the greedy and powerful.

But Spencer put all his eggs in the Big Media basket. Blinded by vanity and narcissism, he thought the media would keep treating him as the go-to-guy, the glamorous ‘bad boy’, the indisputable leader, and ‘interesting’ personality(contra those boring dullards of the GOP), but in fact, when the Big Media either had enough of him or deemed him too dangerous(especially after Charlottesville), there was a concerted effort across media, finance, law, and internet to silence him and shut him down. And the sad thing is Spencer doesn’t have much support, affection, or sympathy from the people or from his ideological peers. The nasty business with Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents crowd just led to feelings of Schadenfreude. Perhaps, that’s going too far, but the attitude of many seems to be, "Richard Spencer got his comeuppance."



Not only did Spencer fail to connect with white masses — necessary for a political movement as opposed to merely an ideological agenda — but he seemed to pick fights, often unnecessary and petty, with other people in the same political sphere. For example, he insulted Peter Sweden who, though limited and one-dimensional, does good work in informing the world about the troubles of Diversity. There are times when one must be forthright and critical of others in the movement, but it can be done without creating bad blood. As for guys like Peter Sweden, it’s just best to let them do their thing. But too many barbed attacks and insults didn’t endear Spencer to a lot of people who came to either dislike or distrust him. So, in this most crucial time of need, there aren’t many people to express support for Spencer or come to his aid. A scrooge of vanity than a Bailey of humanism, Spencer has isolated himself. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero connects with the Arabs who come to feel affection for him and trust him. They are even willing to die for him. Spencer never attracted that kind of affection because everything about him is about him. Arabs realize that Lawrence really does CARE for them. It makes all the difference. Lawrence says the Best of Them won’t come for money but for him. The Arabs respect and trust him that much. But how many would come for Spencer? This was never about Fun.



Remember Clarence's Law: "No man is a failure who has friends." Spencer has spectacularly failed at friendship by being a selfish player too often dismissive of the advice and feelings of others.