As for the original banner itself—loaded with all the mistakes and bad karma of the movement, and an easy target for our enemies—it is now more of hindrance than a help. It has entered Normiespace and the offices of Big Tech merely as a reason to avoid us and not listen to our invincible arguments or engage with our unbeatable ideas. It has become nothing more than a ticket to deplatforming. I therefore choose to toss it aside and to adhere to the true spiritual banner of the movement—the quest for truth, honour, morality, and life. For this purpose, I have chosen to rename this site Affirmative Right and to redefine what we do here with a set of principles designed to avoid the mistakes of the past (more on that later).
Will changing the label to 'affirmative' do the trick? What if Andrew Anglin and others take up that banner as well? After all, chameleon Anglin initially attacked the Alt Right but later labeled himself as such(and even trolled that he's with the GOP and Trump).
One problem with Colin Liddell and others like him(expatriates) is they are too far removed from ground zero of The Action to lodge legitimate complaints. Many Alt Right figures are in Hungary, Georgia, Ukraine, India, Japan, Philippines, or some other part of the world. Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch got to define the Alt Right because they are in the US. As such, they could organize where The Action is. If Liddell were in the US or EU(two areas most crucial to the fate of the white race), he could have led a counter-movement to define the Alt Right in his manner. But, like too many expatriates, all he can offer are words and criticism. Granted, many radical leaders throughout history spent many years in exile. Vladimir Lenin moved around Western Europe as he was regarded as public enemy #1 in Russia. Still, he eventually returned to lead the movement IN Russia.
Maybe Affirmative Right blog does some good work, but words alone cannot define a movement. If Liddell really wants to define the future of the alternative-affirmative movement, he has to do more than talk or write. He has to form an organization and lead people. I don't see him being up for the job. And Andy Nowicki is more writer-novelist-critic by temperament than a man of action.
In contrast, Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch did bring people together and did organize a movement. Now, I agree with many of Liddell's criticisms of them. When Spencer ran Alternative Right website with Alex Kurtagic as his main henchman, I posted many comments warning about the dangers of the Alt Right getting too cozy with Neo-Nazi types. And there is no doubt that Kurtagic has the outlook(and looks) of Heinrich Himmler.
Richard Spencer is a spent force. (He should be called Richard Spender.) With his looks and charm, he could have done much for the movement. And I'll give him credit where it's due. He could have had a plush job in Conservatism Inc. if he'd played along and went by the script like most whores in the GOP. He did not and instead staked out a rather courageous path for himself. Still, there is smart courage and dumb courage. Also, just because you're anti-stupid doesn't mean you're smart or wise. One form of stupidity can be against another form of stupidity. And Spencer is ultimately a stupid person whose ideology is composed of Darth-Vaderian Nietzscheanism and James-Bondian Tomfoolery. He loves to clench his fist and talk about power and struggle, and blah blah, but he's really a spoiled brat who thinks everyone should make everything 'fun' for him. When the Power effectively shut down his college tour, he sniffled that it wasn't panning out. Gee whiz, he thought it would be 'fun'. What did he expect from the repercussions of a radical movement that really threatens the Power? The Power is just gonna sit back and roll out the red carpet for Spencer to have 'fun' with? Is that how Jews treat Palestinians? It sure ain't fun for Palestinians there and here(whose BDS movement has effectively been criminalized by Jewish Power). How childish and naive can one get? Spencer is all talk and no understanding of the Power even as he yammers endlessly about power, power, power. He needs to study Zionist suppression of Palestinians than watch 007 movies to understand how power works. Or at least watch THE GODFATHER and NO WAY OUT. He's always been yakking about how it is the Power that really matters, and yet he is surprised that the ruling power in the West used dirty tricks to shut him down? The student of Power didn't see it coming? He sudden fame really got to him. His 15 min of fame owed completely to Hillary and Mass Media's attempt to tie Trump to the 'toxic' Alt Right, but Spencer began to see himself as a self-made man than as a media creation and tool. (And as if to prove Hillary and the media correct AFTER THE ELECTION, Spencer steered the Alt Right into a genuinely toxic direction.)
Also, his narcissism is so stupid(and now stale) that he's turning into a laughing stock. He goes on and on about how the media just couldn't get enough of Spencer because he's so good-looking, brilliant, and awesome. Oh, he's the Don Juan of the movement, the man they love to hate to love, and they can't keep their hands off him. Well? When the Power finally decides he's a menace, the Power shut him off, and that's been that. So, he wasn't so irresistible after all. He's more Don Quixote than Don Juan. (Never mind that the media also interviewed 'albino' Anglin and fat Matthew Heimbach a good number of times.)
But even worse is that Spencer's future vision is hardly better than that of Neocons and Zionist-supremacists. If Jews feel that they should rule the world, the only difference with Spencer is that he feels that his Faustian tribe should rule the world with new rounds of imperialist ventures. (At least old imperialism could be rationalized on the prevalence of different sets of values, curiosity about the world, sense of adventure & discovery, and pioneering spirit. But what's the point of imperialism at a time where every corner of the world has been explored and mapped? Also, a world where any nation can offer stiff resistance to invasive imperialism(as in Iraq and Syria)? Imagine the Brits trying to invade China or India today.
Instead of countering Jewish-Zionist globalist supremacism with the ideal of universal nationalism, Spencer's agenda is to rule the world with white supremacy. It is all the more ridiculous when Spencer can't even order a cup of coffee in a diner and keep a membership at a health club. When white people are on the verge of losing their homelands, Spencer-the-clown's silly little mind is filled with Kiplingian fantasies(of conquering the STARS too -- Let's rule over Ewoks and defeat the Klingons).
In any struggle, the weaker power must seek moral advantage over the stronger power that has the material advantage. If you allow the stronger power to have both moral and material advantage, your side is cooked. But how can there be any viable moral argument from the Spencerian Alt Right when its main message is "Ultimately, we want to conquer and rule the world with Faustian-Nietzschean-Bondian-Vaderian white supremacy?" Spencer is too stupid to lead anything. At best, he's a decent commentator on a host of Beltway topics.
On the matter of Andrew Anglin, 4Chan Trolls, The Right Stuff(TRS), and others like them, Liddell's complaints are somewhat misguided. The real problem was taking people like Anglin seriously, an error committed by Liddell's site as well(even if in condemnation than praise). There is NO POINT in taking Daily Stormer seriously or engaging with their 'ideas' and proposals like 'white sharia'. Also, it doesn't matter if Anglin is or isn't a Fed-asset AS LONG AS Alt Right or Aff-Right people keep him at arm's length.
There are two ways to fight the power. One way is the moral and serious way. But there is also the other way: The irreverent, pestering, and outrageous way of the jester. The trick is to keep the two sides separate. Jews used many ways to undermine White Gentile domination of society and culture. They made serious Holocaust movies & documentaries. They built museums and published many scholarly books. But the other way was also effective. Jewish nasties, comedians, pranksters, subversives, and etc. were masters in mocking Jesus, spreading porn, indulging in vulgarity, and shitting on every sacred cow in the West. Jews made both SCHINDLER'S LIST and CADDYSHACK. Jews host both Holocaust conferences and Porn conventions. The trick, however, is not to mix the two. We don't see the director of the Holocaust Museum having serious conversations with a Jewish porn-oligarch. Now, behind the scenes, it's very likely that Jews of all kinds see eye to eye. It turns out ADL had ties to Jewish mafia since the beginning. But at least for public consumption, Jews keep seriousness over here and clownishiness over there. I don't think the Holocaust Museum will be inviting Howard Stern any time soon.
So, as long as the Alt Right keeps the Nazi-larping trolls in their own sphere, it's not a problem. Even though much of the trolling and 'shit-posting' have been offensive, they've also been effective in spreading irreverence of sacred cows of sacred Jews, magic Negroes, holy homos, and globalism. They've also been effective at exposing hypocrisies of the Power. That is the key, the use of outrage antics and black humor to make people laugh at Jewish power and its bogus pieties.
The problem arose when Spencer decided to have a SERIOUS discussion with Andrew Anglin. Now, one can have a conversation with anyone -- Bill Buckley invited all manner of guests on FIRING LINE -- , but Anglin is NOT someone you can have a serious discussion with about the future of the white race. He's too much of a clown, idiot, and degenerate. His stuff has to be kept in the jokesphere. You can't mix oil and water. The Radical Left in the 60s found out the hard way when its serious wing joined with the clownish wing represented by the likes of Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and the Yippies whose priority was gaining notoriety as attention-whores. The Yippie shtick of running Pigasus(an actual pig) as political candidate was funny, but when these clowns were allowed to be part of the Leftist movement itself, everything began to turn into a shit-show, indeed something like the Gong Show. Soon, radical leftism spiraled out of control into a circus and poisoned the Democratic Party in the 1972 election against Richard Nixon.
Liddell is right that Enoch and Spencer were foolish to form a direct contact with Anglin and the Daily Stormer crew, but his site was, in a way, guilty of the same thing by taking Anglin and DS seriously even in opposition and condemnation. Whether pro- or con-, one should never take that stuff seriously. Anyone who's been to Daily Stormer knows the site is criticism-proof because it's too absurd. As Spencer often likes to say of things, "It is what it is." Debating DS is like taking Hustler Humor seriously. Of course, courting DS is even worse, but denouncing it also gives DS far more credit than it deserves.
Anyway, the point is even nasty Nazi-larping trolls have some value to the movement AS LONG AS the movement doesn't get near them. Trolls spread irreverence of sacred cows and premises underlying the Power. It's like Jews will use even Stormy Daniels against Trump. 'Serious' Jews will not invite her to their conferences and gatherings or take her seriously as a person, but they will let people like her vent their spleen against Trump and whomever Jews hate. So, we should regard Daily Stormer as Stormy Daniels of Counter-Power politics. A porn-bomb that can make a mockery of PC and the Power. Just be sure not to take the bomb in your own hand. Let Anglin and other clowns toss them. We can just watch and enjoy with plausible deniability since WE don't officially condone such things. The problem with Spencer and Enoch is they took the stormer-bomb in their own hands. It's like Jews don't condone what Kathy Griffin did with a decapitated rubber-Trump head and publicly even disavow it, but they don't mind OTHERS doing pulling such stunts. In opposition to Trump, Jews employ both the respectable gavel and the jokey poker.
Mike Enoch is the most interesting figure in all this. Whereas Daily Stormer is mostly retarded, The Right Stuff has presented something close to first-rate satire and insightful commentary. But because its satire is edgy and abrasive, it too would be problematic if it became an ACTIVE WING of the movement. As an independent voice cheering on the movement, it can do much good. But as a part of the movement, it can too easily be highlighted by the enemy as 'nazi' stuff. Again, oil and water doesn't mix in politics, especially for a movement with huge disadvantages in media and money. For such a nascent movement, good image is crucial, and TRS is counter-productive as a movement player. It's one thing for TRS guys to make Nazi jokes in their racy podcasts. But it was quite another thing for Mike Enoch to pull a Heil stunt at the NPI conference(after Trump's victory) when the whole world was watching. There was no way the Mass Media were going to cover that as 'larping' or 'joking'. Also, even if Enoch meant it as a prank, there were some real morons there who took it seriously and joined in the salute.
Still, DS and TRS aren't problematic AS LONG AS they stay in their own space and do their own thing. To be irreverent and outrageous against sacred cows, one needs more freedom and vulgarity than serious people in the movement. But serious people need plausible deniability from TRS and especially DS because some of their stuff are really over-the-top. That said, just like all religions were built on both iconography(affirmative erection of holy cows) and iconoclasm(mocking desecration of false gods), the Movement will need not just a serious & respectable arm but dirty fingers to pull down the pants of the Power and grab its nuts.
Finally, maybe what is more necessary than changing the adjective -- 'alternative' to 'affirmative' -- is changing the noun. Why stick with only the 'right'? This left vs right dichotomy has been useless since the end of the Cold War(and fall of communism) and the emergence of the Convergence between 'Fiscal Conservatism'(more money for the globalist rich) and 'Social Liberalism'(cultural decadence promoted by capitalists as the New Norm). Indeed, even regarding the Cold War as a right vs left conflict was problematic as communists nations tended to be more nationalist and culturally conservative than capitalist nations of the West. But because of the egalitarian economic ethos of the Soviet Empire(that seemed awesome in reach and power), people went along with the narrative of 'right-wing' capitalists vs 'left-wing' communists. And because the rich class feared economic leftism, it formed an alliance with social conservatives and nationalists. But in truth, the rich everywhere tend to mainly care about more riches and more self-indulgence. For this reason, they secretly despised social conservatism that said NO to excessive decadence. And they felt restrained by nationalism that said capitalists should prioritize doing what is good for the nation as a whole(like hiring native workers and paying them a decent wage with benefits); nationalism was less profitable than globalism. Because of the threat of worldwide communism, the capitalists went along with social conservatives and nationalists. After all, if American capitalists had treated the American working masses during the Cold War the way they treat working people today, many American proles may have demanded either fascism or communism. Why would the American working classes have tolerated and even supported the capitalists IF the latter had just to shipped jobs overseas, lowered wages, and brought over tons of foreigners to replace native workers? But with the end of the Cold War and the transformation of China from a Maoist to a Market economy, American capitalists had a golden opportunity to enrich themselves with Free Trade and to indulge themselves with fun decadence. The big losers were not only social conservatives and the working class but the True Left and Classic Left that had prioritized the needs of national workers and the importance of speaking Truth to Power. But the Democratic Party went with Free Trade under Clinton, and Big Business made a pact with PC because the 'new leftism'(a bogus variety) emphasized globo-homo-mania that, if anything, was great for the rich because, after all, homos are the most vain and narcissistic people on Earth who love catering to the powerful and privileged. Washington DC is 10% homo, and many of these 'gays' are in the Deep State cooking up new Wars for Israel, new Fruit-Crusades to turn the world pink, and new economic policies to make the super-rich in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood even richer. Calling someone like Rachel Maddow a 'leftist' is to defame true leftism and to give her ilk too much credit. They are not about equality or working people. They are about elitism, hierarchy, Jewish tribal supremacism, globo-homo power grab, and censorship of little people who dare to speak truth to power.
Indeed, we in the 'dissident right' are more leftist than those freaks. Calling such globalist tribal-oligarchs and their commissars a bunch of 'leftists' obfuscates the fact that they are really a bunch of supremacists who don't give a shit about the people. Because leftism has long been associated with much good(as well as bad, like discredited communism) -- struggles for workers, more freedom and liberty, equality under the law, and etc --, it only lends credence to our enemies by calling them the 'left'. Tucker Carlson calls Rachel Maddow a 'leftist', but in fact, his positions are now closer to the True Left and Classic Left than Maddow's. We need to remember that the leftism of the French Revolution forged a new politics where the national elites were compelled to identify first and foremost with the national masses. (Current globalism is neo-aristocracism whereby elites of the world mainly identify with one another than with their own national folks who are to be replaced by Diversity.) Nationalism is leftism as well as rightism. It is about Socialism of identity and interests between national elites and national masses. It is also about the tribalism of shared history, blood, and culture. Even though National Socialism turned evil upon lurching into imperialist mode with wars and genocide, its core nationalist and socialist policy was sound. Indeed, Zionism has been, from the beginning, a national-socialist ideology. It was a means to bring together Jewish rightism(reverence of blood, history, and culture) with Jewish leftism(the need for the elites to be mindful of the people as fellow brothers and sisters than as mere subjects). The reason why Jews hate left-rightism with such virulence among goyim is that they want to keep that great secret to themselves only. It's like Jews in Israel hate the idea of Iran having the Bomb because they so dearly want the Bomb for themselves. What Jews want most for themselves, they most vociferously deny to others. Jews love free speech but not for thee. Jews love Israelis owning guns but not for thee. Jews love nuclear weapons but not for thee. One thing for sure, just like National Socialism turned evil by going imperialist, Zionism too is a moral failure because it went from nationalism(defense of Jewish homeland) to imperialism(use white goyim to wage endless Wars for Israel).
THE GODFATHER(directed by Francis Ford Coppola and based on Mario Puzo’s novel) is an instructive movie on the nature of power, i.e. that the dynamics of rivalry isn’t only about intelligence and ability but personality and temperament. After all, smart people can be lacking in will and audacity — risk-taking is an essential element of power. Or, they could be bold and confident to the point of recklessness — consider what happened to Hitler when he attacked the USSR. There are many fine things about THE GODFATHER, and one is about the Machiavellianism of Personality as guide to Power. As the story, in parts I and II, goes from end of World War II to the Cuban Revolution — the prequel section of part II deals with young Vito Corleone’s rise in the 1920s — , there wasn’t enough time to go into nitty-gritty details of strategy and negotiations. Instead, there was a broad narrative of how the Corleones, the top mafia family in the New York area, got embroiled in a war with the other families over the issue of Narcotics. THE GODFATHER PART 2 is somewhat more detailed, but we don’t learn much beyond how Hyman Roth attempts to lure Michael Corleone into Cuba(a sinking ship) & have him assassinated and how Michael Corleone makes counter-moves in anticipation of Roth’s agenda. If THE GODFATHER movies had been a TV series(like BOARDWALK EMPIRE), they might have delved into the minutiae of sharp minds maneuvering in the ruthless game of power. But even at 6 hrs and 15 minutes, there is only enough time to portray the Corleones and their inner circle in emotional and dramatic terms. What comes across most memorably are the PERSONALITIES of the characters. And from the movie — and from countless examples from real life — , we know that personality matters. While no one gets far without brains, how far one is willing to go depends on will, drive, and nerves, all of which are shaped by personality. We see this with dogs and cats. Even among dogs or cats of same intelligence, dog personality or ‘canality’ or cat personality or ‘felinality’ goes a long way in shaping dog or cat behavior. Some dogs are more aggressive and bold. Some are more timid and cautious. Some cats are fierce and aggressive. Some are mild and gentle. In the end, Hitler was undone by his personality and temperament. And what drove Mao to the madness of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution owed much to his manic personality. If Hitler had died in the late 30s and if someone like Hermann Goering had taken over, there would have been far less likelihood of war, let alone World War II. Ultimately, it was Hitler’s egotism & megalomania, burning will, and hubris that drove him to the reckless decision of attacking Soviet Union, whereupon the stakes became win-all or lose-all. Ideology holds meaning and logic independent of personality, but in the end, it is personalities, not ideology, that govern the world. Therefore, ideology is molded according to whims of personalities with power. So, despite the ideology of National Socialism, its fate could have been very different if led by someone with a personality starkly different from that of Hitler. And consider the contrast between Mao and Deng in Chinese history. Both came to prominence as men committed to communist ideology, but whereas Mao was megalomaniacal and visionary, Deng was pragmatic and conciliatory. Can people control their own personality? Yes, to an extent. On their paths to power, both Hitler and Mao could be compromising and yielding. They had to be as they were at a political disadvantage. But upon gaining absolute power, their sheer egotism made it nearly impossible for either to restrain one's prophetic vision of history and one's role in it. In contrast, Stalin, despite his own megalomania, was steered by a more anxious personality. Even as a gambler, he played patiently, slowly increasing his number of chips and waiting to scavenge off the reckless moves of others.
What can be learned about the figures on the Alt Right and Dissident Right based on their respective personalities? And which GODFATHER figures do they resemble most? Finally, a question worth asking but that can only be answered by the actual practices of the figures of the Alt Right and Dissident Right is, “Can people transcend the limits of their personality flaws and choose the wiser path?” Granted, one could argue that the problem is less a matter of personality-flaws than personality-balances. In other words, every personality trait has value in the right dosage and at the right time. It’s like salt is an essential ingredient in most cooking, so the problem isn’t salt per se but insufficient or excessive salt. The personality trait of boldness is necessary in power. In sports or any competition, one can’t get anywhere without making moves that carry the element of risk. Every move on the chessboard is both an advantage and disadvantage. Every throw by the quarterback can mean a touchdown or an interception. Excessive conservatism is cautious to a fault. Caution is generally good, but too much means fear of adventure, the necessary bridge to victory. The key element in the rise of the West over the East had to do with cultural personality(which could be genetic as well). Asians had comparable intelligence and basic elements of high civilization but lacked the Western spark and spirit. Now, one could argue that Western Adventurousness led to imperialism, genocides of non-whites, slave trade, and myriad other ‘crimes’, but it also unified the world and transformed all of humanity with new paradigms and possibilities. It was tragic but also triumphant.
Now, which GODFATHER characters do Alt Right and Dissident Right figures resemble most? Let’s begin with the MSM’s favorite ‘Face of the Alt Right’ Richard Spencer.
1. Richard Spencer = Carlo Rizzi
In some ways, one might say this comparison is most unfair. Unlike Carlo, Spencer does have a mind. He is capable of cool analysis like Tom Hagen. He wants to lead than follow. He has the vision thing, and his admirers might ague he has something of Michael Corleone. Also, Spencer’s unmistakable Waspiness may warrant comparisons with Senator Geary than with an Italian-American boy like Carlo. Then, why Carlo? Because Spencer’s fatal flaws are very much like Carlo’s. Vain, narcissistic, petty, resentful, egotistical, spoiled, and bratty. It appears Carlo grew up adored and favored among family and friends because of his good looks. That’s why Connie, the daughter of the top Mafia don, married him. He thought he could get far with his cookie-cutter looks and charm, but when the Corleone’s didn’t place him in a position of importance, he grew bitter and took his frustrations out on Connie. Also, he’s incapable of personal loyalty, a trait shared by Spencer who's been unable to keep the trust of his closest allies and wife. Spencer has the 100x the mind of Carlo and the potential to be an importance person, but his shallow personality has led him to series of humiliations and setbacks. All said and done, Spencer expected to coast on his looks and persona. He thought the Media were swooning all over him because he’s so provocative with ideas and the girls were putting out to him because he’s so handsome. The latter may be true, but the media were only using him. Even so, he had a golden opportunity as the world, if only for a moment, descended on him as the Face of the Alt Right. But then, he blew it all away with reckless gestures and stupid alliances. When a man of intelligence has the personality of a fool, personality wins. For example, Spencer’s recent spat with Nicholas Fuentes makes no sense. Fuentes is an up-and-coming 20 yr old. Spencer is twice the age with double the experience. He should be playing the role of captain of an exciting movement, but he’s wasting his time squabbling with captains of smaller ships who just wanna do their own thing. Spencer pontificates about the vanguard but is too busy turning his head at those behind or beside him to fix his gaze toward the finish line.
2. Nick Fuentes = Moe Greene
Nick Fuentes’ fame or notoriety owes to his ridiculously young age. As a freshman in college, he was quickly spotted/scouted as a bundle of energy, a new face with quick wit and fiery passion. He is exactly the kind of person that Conservatism Inc and Neocons want on their side. The problem is people with real intelligence and passion don’t want to be told what to think and do. It’s no wonder that Establishment Politics usually ends up with those with brains but lacking in passion or those with passion but lacking in brains. Those with brains are likely to know what is really happening but generally lack the spine to stick up for their own beliefs and convictions. So, most brains just go along and become ‘paycheck conservatives’. Well, it’s a living. As for those with passion but no brains — the average SJW type — , they are happy to be barking dogs of the System. It seems the ONLY people with real brains and real passion in the System are Jews because the status quo allows Jews to be passionately Jewish and work for Jewish interests. As white goyim aren't allowed passion for their own identity, they must mute white consciousness if they seek admittance into the System. White goyim in the West are essentially like Palestinians in West Bank. Their only chance of entry is by accommodating themselves as collaborators to the Jewish Supremacist System. Because Fuentes has a genuine independent streak and refused to play ball with Neocon Inc., he was expelled by Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, and he chose the path of Indie-Conservatism. For awhile, he was associated with the Alt Right, but again, his independent personality recoiled from what he found to be morally ugly(the flirtation with Neo-Nazi elements) or strategically foolish(the optics debate on political aesthetics). Fast mind and fiery heart have served Fuentes well in terms of integrity. He missed a golden opportunity in career in politics by daring to mention the JQ during his stint at Daily Wire, but this is different from Spencer’s dropping the ball. Fuentes lost out because of personal honesty, whereas Spencer went from failure to failure by making awful alliances with morons and clowns like Andrew Anglin, Matt Heimbach, Chris Cantwell, and etc. As Ramzpaul said, the Alt Right’s advantage was in being an alternative to both Neocon GOP and old Neo-Nazi garbage.
So far, the positive qualities of Fuentes have been mentioned. What are his negative sides, and why is he like Moe Greene? Fuentes is often immature and bratty, on occasion even obnoxious. He is hot-tempered and goes off the rails when he feels slighted, often disproportionately. His mudslinging with James Allsup made both look stupid, but Fuentes came off worse because his nastiness was so vicious, unrelenting, and unhinged. Nick the Knife relishes a fight, and he just doesn’t know when to stop. It’s not enough to slice or stick the guy. Fuentes has to push the blade all the way in, twist it, and then rub salt on the wound. There is almost a sadistic glee in his personal attacks on people that take on aspects of torture porn. Also, because of excessive pride, Fuentes is too easily dismissive of views and ideas that doesn’t jibe with his worldview and morality, and this is especially true when it comes to Catholic vs Pagan debate. His self-righteous sadistic side just can’t resist putting on the robe of the grand inquisitor and insulting neo-pagans and stretching them on the rack. Like Moe Greene, he can’t check himself when he gets into a fight. It quickly becomes personal and toxic, and it’s kill-or-be-killed. Also, because Fuentes is too quick to judge, he has a tendency to willfully misread others' statements and intentions. When it came to Spencer vs Fuentes I, Spencer had the moral advantage because Fuentes willfully misinterpreted what Spencer meant by pedophiles and child porn. But in Fuentes vs Spencer II, Spencer is clearly in the wrong because he dug up the hatchet and flailed away at Fuentes(and just about everyone else in what seemed like a demented rant to reclaim the Alt Right as a Spencentric Movement). Perhaps, Fuentes is drawn to Catholicism because he intuitively surmises that his hot ego, if unregulated by faith in God, can easily fly off the handle like that of fellow Latin Mussolini. It’s like a willful dog needs an especially powerful leash to restrain it from running wild and crazy. But for Fuentes, his Catholic leash has become more than a check on his emotions. It has become a check on his intellect and imagination, even to the point of dismissing evolution and entertaining the retarded notion of geocentrism. It has also become an easy whip of moral indignation. In this, Fuentes has something in common with the young Pat Buchanan who, as a young conservative, was an odd-man-out in Columbia Journalism school filled with Liberals(as recounted in his delightful autobiography RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING). Buchanan always had brains and passion, but his overt Catholicism limited his imagination and scope as a thinker, culture critic, and politician. It’s interesting that Fuentes is most like Buchanan but most admires Donald Trump who, being free of religious dogma, has been able to forge a new style of politics. In the end, the problem isn’t religiosity per se. It is dogmatism and excessive piety as crutch of righteousness. Some of Fuentes’ religious rambling is as counter-factual and unthinking as the PC derangement of the SJW-NPC types.
3. Jim Goad = Sonny Corleone
To be fair to Jim Goad, he insists he’s not part of the Alt Right or even Dissident Right. Goad sees himself as a maverick thinker, maybe in the tradition of Gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson. His columns read like Mike Royko writing for Hustler. Like Fred Reed, he is as likely to piss off the Right as the Left. But given that the current dogma is PC, a tool of proggy globalism, Goad’s worldview is currently more aligned with the Right. Same is true of Youtube personality Styxhexenhammer666 who, under normal circumstances, would not be considered as part of the Right. But because of PC-domination in industry and institutions, even a larping ‘satanist’ like Styx often finds himself making common cause with the Right against the Zio-Globo-Homo-‘left’ that spearheads efforts to shut down Free Speech and Free Spend. If one knows Jim Goad only by his columns, one will have noticed the smarts(of books and streets), toughness, and wit. Goad is often a gifted writer with turns of phrases that are as humorous as ham-fisted. If Curly(of the Three Stooges) were a polemicist than a clown, he might have written like Jim Goad. Funny, inspired, crazy, and exaperating. Goad is also an equal opportunity offender, which is what makes him most like Mike Royko, albeit in a bare-knuckle and breaking-the-balls way. Also, just because he hates your enemies doesn’t mean you likes you any better. Goad attacks both SJW’s and religious types for delusional thinking and holier-than-thou piety. He sees all kinds of religiosity and dogma as a crutch for weak minds and infantile souls. His view of life is essentially the school of Mean Streets existentialism. Everyone must accept his or her own journey in life, take the blows, give as well as they get, lick their wounds, and crawl back home to bed. Goad says his views changed a lot over the years, and some of his pieces are very confessional. Goad doesn’t confess to priests but to the world. One might find parallels between Goad(as his own god) and the Harvey Keitel character in BAD LIEUTENANT, albeit with a much bigger pud as Goad often likes to point out. There is a reason why Goad has a cult-following. In a world with so much born-again hokum on the ‘right’ and save-the-world hysteria on the ‘left’, some people find Goad’s hard-boiled ‘Mike Hammer’ style of writing refreshing and even liberating. You can’t get any more honest than writing a confessional piece about how you got your penis sucked by a black teenager in your youth.
But there is a disturbing aspect to Jim Goad’s character, and one wonders if Goad’s toughness is genuine or an exaggerated defensive mechanism concealing a fragile soul. People who always act tough are often trying to hide something wounded and vulnerable that they can’t or don’t want to deal with. Goad has spoken of his abusive father, but his own behavior and persona have often been abusive to the point of pathology. It’s fair game for Jim Goad to make fun of other people’s looks when such is relevant. If some fat green-haired feminist passes herself as hot stuff, mocking her looks is justified because they’re part of her shtick. Or one can’t fault Goad for making Matt Forney’s obesity because Forney has positioned himself as sexual guru or hot stuff with women. But when Roger Ebert was lying in bed in a pitiable state dying of cancer, it took a truly demented mentality to mock Ebert's appearance. It’s especially sickening when one considers Jim Goad’s first wife died of cancer, and he himself had brain tumor removed. It would have been fair game to attack Ebert’s politics or opinions, but his physical state had NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, and Goad’s nastiness just seemed vicious and cruel. But Goad is so often hotheaded, angry, thuggish, and blowing steam from every orifice that he seems unaware of how monstrous he can be. And it is in this respect that Goad is like Sonny Corleone whose rage often gets the best of him. Granted, Goad is smarter than Sonny, but this makes Goad’s dementia even more infuriating as one would think a man who has been through so much should know better. Rage may feel good and even win over fans who like a good fight, but it can just as easily lead men astray... which is what happened with Goad in his encounter with the Irony Bros.
4. Irony Bros = Assassins
Irony Bros seem to have Alt Right or Dissident Right sympathies, but their main shtick is to mock anyone in the movement who takes himself too seriously. Beardson is reportedly an atheist whereas Shawn is a Christian, but there is hardly any difference in their irreverent approach to their targets, which could be just about anyone. Beardson gained notoriety by baiting Matt Forney, but it seems they've become ‘friends’ since. So, everything the Irony Bros does has to be taken with a grain of salt. They are driven by trollogy, not ideology, even if they may have ideological leanings in the rightward direction, not least because the enemy of free speech and freedom in general now comes from the globo-homo ‘left’.
One could argue that Irony Bros are bad for the movement. Spencer surmises that they might be working for the Fed(LOL). Some might say they are toxic in their nihilism and nastiness. All very true, but one can’t expect too much from trolls. Irony Bros are essentially jesters and pranksters, like the Yippies in the 1960s. For that very reason, they can be an auto-subversive element on the Right. But then, a movement led by people who can’t sometimes laugh at themselves has become a bit stiff and stodgy. Furthermore, while Irony Bros sometimes do ‘punch to the right’, they can be merciless in trolling the ‘left’. The trick is not to fall into the trap of taking anything by them too seriously, which is precisely what Jim Goad did in the now infamous Luke Ford Saturday Night Massacre Livestream. Ironically, even though Matt Forney and Jim Goad want to tear off each other’s balls, they have one thing in common in having been trolled by Beardson Beardly. Irony Bros are essentially like hired-killers in THE GODFATHER. They just enjoy the ritual bloodbath of massacring sacred cows and big egos. So, just like the hired goons in THE GODFATHER will mow down anyone for the right price, Irony Bros will spray bullets onto any target for good times. Naturally, one cannot have a honest or ‘good faith’ argument with such personalities, but Goad fell for the trap, exposing himself to ridicule and death by thousand cuts. Irony Bros mow down Jim Goad:
5. Matt Forney = Philip Tattaglia
Some people say Matt Forney is a talented writer, but I never bothered to read his books or articles. I did skim over his attack on Ann Sterzinger, and it just made everyone look foolish. The general impression from his dealings with other people suggests an insecurity that hides behind exaggerated manhood, conviction, or animus. More than anything, he seems eager to be accepted by his 'superiors'. So, for a while, he was the sidekick of Roosh. Never mind he made a rather ridiculous figure for Manosphere and advice on picking up women. Then, when Richard Spencer’s wing of the Alt Right foolishly attacked Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Forney piled on, especially by calling out on Johnson’s reputed homosexuality, as if playing lapdog to Spencer & Co. might score some points with the Big Boys. Of course, Spencer felt nothing but scorn for such an eager-beaver. Now, this isn’t to say that Forney’s revulsion for Johnson wasn’t genuine, but his frothing-at-the-mouth during the ugly incident came across as 'desperate to be with the in-crowd'. It’s like what an unpopular fat kid does to up his chances of admittance into a fraternity. At the very least, someone like Goad has the spine to go his own way and stand on his own two feet. In contrast, Forney is a stray dog in search of a master who may put a collar around it for keeps. And it is this side of Forney that makes him like Philip Tattaglia. Tattaglia is a big time gangster but a pimp. He lacks big ideas and has to latch onto Barzini and Sollozzo. As Vito Corleone said of Tattaglia, he couldn’t have outfought Santino(Sonny) on his own. Indeed, Goad vs Forney was like a wolf mauling a bulldog, that was until Forney was saved by Aurini the dane or Irony Bros weasels. That said, it seems Forney in recent yrs has grown more independent in will and ego. His Terror House Magazine may be a start of something important if it attracts writers of talent and insight. Maybe Forney finally learned the lesson of his former hero Jim Goad: If you're naturally a strange and eccentric kid, you have to forge your own path and not give a damn what others think.
6. Mike Enoch = Sollozo the ‘Turk’
Mike Enoch of The Daily Shoah has been one of the most abrasive and hard-hitting members of the Alt Right. His approach is no-holds-barred and cuts to the bone. He strikes fast and hard, and members of the MSM that tried to hoodwink him got owned. Also, because he’s not a dreamy-eyed visionary like Spencer, he focuses on real power and real problems. His head isn’t up in the clouds with fantasies of conquering stars and being Darth Vader of the galaxies. He stares closely at those with real power in the West, and of course, it’s the Jews. When it comes to dissecting real power and cutting open the cancerous tumor, Enoch is like a surgeon with a butcher’s knife. He is utterly brutal but has a keen surgical eye in spotting the heart-of-the-matter amidst the bloodletting. Because of Enoch’s slaughterhouse Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre approach to political analysis, he isn’t for everyone, which is precisely why his show is called The Daily Shoah. And it is for this brutal honesty that Enoch is like Sollozzo the Turk. Whatever one may say of Sollozzo, he is the most honest gangster in NY. The Corleones and other families put on airs of respectability and take care to appear semi-legitimate. Even the Five Families that are drawn to the narcotics trade want it keep it ‘controlled’. Sollozzo, in contrast, has fewer inhibitions about what gangsterism is really about. Also, he enjoys doing his own killings. He feels no shame in being a hoodlum. He wears corruption on his sleeve. In a similar vein, Enoch is a brutally honest Alt Right thug. Nick Fuentes might say Enoch has troublesome optics. Undoubtedly, Mike Enoch has been one of the most uninhibited of Alt Right figures. He doesn’t shroud his racial politics with talk of Faustian-Nietzschean something-or-other or Christian sanctimony. As far as he’s concerned, Jews run just about everything, and Jews shit on whites. So, whites must shit back on Jews. Jews are a bunch of crooks and gangsters, and they must be exposed as such, and whites must fight like gangsters to expose and shame the Jews. Enoch’s bear-wrestling style of Alt Right politics certainly has its advantages. It is more honest than most.
But he shares the ugly aspects of Sollozzo as well. Sollozzo is so hellbent on getting what he wants that he oversteps the bounds of gangsterism. Being an honest crook is one thing, but there is a thing called honor even among thieves. Sollozzo is such a total gangster that he will break every rule in the book to get things his way. No system and no movement can operate on sheer brutality alone. Sollozzo is so dogged and driven that after his first hit on Vito Corleone, he goes for a second attempt at the hospital. And given his nature, no one trusts him. Either you side with him or you kill him(because he will kill you otherwise). In the end, it didn’t turn out so good for Sollozzo. Michael read him correctly and figured that either Sollozzo is killed or he will keep coming after the Corleones one way or another. In a similar manner, Enoch is nothing if not dogged in his pursuit of the enemy, namely the Jews. But because he’s so aggressive and brutal in his animus, he’s often been mistaken for madman lunatic. In his role with TDS(The Daily Shoah), it’s most likely that he was ‘larping’ or pulling pranks, but what works in roughhouse satire doesn’t translate well in the streets. Howard Stern is amusing as a shock-jock radio personality, but his shtick would be way out of line in politics. If Enoch had limited himself to being a shock-jock of the Alt Right, his boorish crudity could have been appreciated for what it is. But when he pulled ‘Nazi’ shit in public events meant to convey a larger political message, he was just being ugly and demented. He failed to remind himself that satire and politics work differently. Now, is it possible that Mike Enoch is a genuine Neo-Nazi? I don’t believe it as he seems too smart and knowledgeable. Granted, a smart person could be psycho, in which case he might really be for Neo-Nazi nuttery. But Enoch doesn’t seem insane. So, my take is that he was ‘larping’ with Nazi salutes and pulling other such stunts in public events to show what a ‘badass’ he is, a real Alt Right gangster who fights hard and takes no prisoners. But just like Sollozzo with his moves, Enoch overestimated the momentum of the Alt Right and his role in it. In the end, he just made it more difficult for more sober and saner members of the Alt Right to reach out to Middle America.
7. Jean-Francois Gariepy = Peter Clemenza
It’s generally understood that J.F. Gariepy’s The Public Space is the best Youtube forum on Alt Right and Dissident Right matters. The Gariepy approach is to be edgy and controversial without giving undue offense by violating Youtube’s Terms of Service on ‘hate speech’. This isn’t easy because ‘hate speech’ is an Orwellian term invoked by the Power to shut down whatever speech it doesn’t like. Consider how Jared Taylor has been banned from Twitter and some of his American Renaissance videos have effectively been censored on Youtube: It’s been placed in ‘limited state’, which is more Orwellian BS. How has Gariepy been able to succeed where many others have failed. He comes across as jovial & friendly and will engage anyone from right to the left with a professionalism that is generally lacking in the Amateur Hour style of Youtube commentary. In this, he is sort of like Clemenza, the seemingly easygoing gangster who is liked by the members of the Corleone family. But deep down inside, Clemenza is a killer just like the rest of them, and when push comes to shove, he delivers. And there’s no mistaking that Gariepy, for all his civility and warmth, has hardcore convictions when it comes to identity and survival of the West. He is a warrior at the core with a gun or knife inside his sleeve. But just like Clemenza, he cannot be the leader of the movement, the spearhead. He functions as a reliable operator who keeps ideas and spirits flowing through the Alt-Right-sphere.
8. Stefan Molyneux = Tom Hagen
Like Jim Goad, Stefan Molyneux has insisted he is not part of the Alt Right or even the Dissident Right. Molyneux sees himself as a libertarian who happens to be conscious of racial diversity or HBS(human-biodiversity). The difference is that if the Alt Right tends to put Race at the center of ideology, Molyneux favors individualism and freedom above all. To preserve the culture of liberty and trust in the modern world, Molyneux believes it would be disastrous to allow massive inflows of lower-IQ people from Africa, Muslim World, and Latin America. So, if Alt Right defends race for race’s sake, Molyneux defends racial preservation of the West as the necessary condition for maintaining the hallmarks of modern Western Civilization: Rule of Law, Free Markets, Property Rights, Individual Liberty, and etc. But no matter how much Molyneux protests against being pigeonholed as a ‘rightist’ or race-ist, the fact is a person is as much defined by his enemies, haters, and detractors as by himself and his admirers. Molyneux has a lot of enemies and haters, and most of them are on the Proggy side. As far they're concerned, no amount of self-justification on Molyneux's part can absolve his thought-crimes of 'white supremacism'. And yet, because Molyneux prefers ideas and values more than identity rooted in race or tribe, he tries to maintain his cool and explain his positions as evaluations based on evidence and reason than on blood-and-guts passion. His approach is ‘business’ than ‘personal’, and this makes him rather like Tom Hagen. Though an emotional person like any of us, Molyneux’s persona on Youtube is as a popular philosopher who logically puts forth arguments stamped with rationalist pedigree. Molyneux is like a lawyer of philosophy, and it is why many on the ‘left’ are infuriated because he won't just come out of the 'racist' closet so that they could all pile on him as a 'nazi'. But, he has exasperated some on the Alt Right as well because they see Molyneux as espousing Alt Right ideas without giving due credit and without taking sides where it really counts. They see him as essentially a Man of the Right who refuses to get ‘personal’ in the culture war because of his conceit of neutrality grounded in empathy with all things. He’s not a wartime consiglieri.
9. Kevin Michael Grace = Jack Woltz
Jack Woltz is a Jewish Hollywood mogul and pervert whereas Kevin Michael Grace is a Catholic Reactionary, so they don’t have much in common in terms of culture or values. But both are devilishly opinionated and dig in their heels on things that really matter to them. Even though KMG isn’t part of the Alt Right, he is more than your ordinary Catholic Reactionary. He has bohemian taste in the arts & culture, is conversant on matters of HBD(human bio-diversity), and addresses the JQ(in ways that most Catholics might feel uncomfortable), though, to be sure, he is a also a staunch supporter of Zionism(at least within Israeli borders). KMG used to have a show with Kevin Steel, but the chemistry wasn’t there as Steel was too much like the bland Andy Richter in the early Conan O’Brien show.
KMG’s chemistry with Luke Ford is much better as Ford gives ample space to KMG’s opinionizing while offering his own perspectives, often in counter to KMG’s own. It works like oil and vinegar. To the best of my knowledge, KMG has had almost no direct relation with members of the Alt Right, the exceptions being a few Alt Right figures who joined Luke Ford’s Youtube Livestream. KMG agrees with Greg Johnson and Luke Ford that Richard Spencer was most responsible for running the Alt Right wagon into the ditch. KMG’s strength is curiosity + experience + knowledge + opinion. Some people know a lot but lack passion. Some people are full of passion but lack depth and knowledge. KMG makes for interesting personality because he knows a lot and has heart-in-the-game. Sometimes, his opinionated views may come across as intolerant, bilious, & contemptuous, and his inability to suppress his real feelings has resulted in nasty(and hilarious) spats with Jim Goad the hardline atheist and David Ebert the moral relativist.
10. Voxday = Hyman Roth
Hyman Roth is nothing if not intelligent, and Vox Day claims to be high-IQ himself. (He does lack Roth’s modesty even if false.) Also, like Hyman Roth, Vox Day goes for the Big Picture. With background in science-fiction, his thought-processes are more analytical and systematic than that of Richard Spencer the Nihilo-Romanticist. Spencer’s idea of Sci-Fi is STAR WARS, and he gets all excited like Captain Kirk on STAR TREK. Vox Day barely reveals his emotions even when upset with certain individuals or ideas. He has an air of Zen about him, sometimes talking like a robot or Dr. Spock. Instead of expressing rage, he drolly tears apart his opponents like a child removing wings and legs of an insect. In the exasperating debate with Andrew Anglin, he kept his cool while Anglin's emotions were all over the map. Vox calmly kept his head above water while Anglin thrashed wildly to keep himself from drowning. It was like the swimming match in BREAKING AWAY between the college jock and townie played by Dennis Quaid. One almost got the impression that Vox was taking pity on the Daily Stormer hick and lending him a hand underwater to keep him afloat. Hyman Roth also almost never shows his emotions, though his rage flared briefly when provoked by Michael Corleone. Despite his been-there-done-that demeanor, Roth is a ferocious character who, upon developing a grudge, just can’t let it go until he gets his vengeance. He is calm waves above but violent undercurrents below. Michael Corleone is his Moby Dick to harpoon and destroy. Despite his diplomacy with Michael Corleone, he can't let go of the fact that Moe Greene, almost like a son to him(and fellow Tribesman), was killed by the Corleones. So, Roth is sworn to the destruction of Michael Corleone no matter the time and cost.
This obsessive side of Roth can be seen in Vox Day, especially in his near-maniacal agenda to destroy Jordan Peterson. Most people are take-it-or-leave-it on the subject of Peterson, but Vox Day reacted to Peterson as though the Canadian superstar violated some fundamental principle of the universe. Thus, Peterson isn’t just a bad guy or charlatan but akin to an evil scientist or grand sorcerer of sci-fi or fantasy novels who must be utterly defeated to restore balance to the world. Vox Day’s war on Peterson isn’t merely over ideas or issues of character. Peterson obviously triggered Vox Day in a way that most people can’t fathom. Vox Day took it 'personally'(even though the two men never met) because Vox has his own grand theory of the world. As Peterson’s worldview is so at odds with Vox's own, it’s like a gangster turf war among Big Think philosophers. Now, why would Vox Day be so upset with Peterson in particular when, surely, there are so many other thinkers Vox Day disagrees with? It’s because Jordan Peterson has been promoted by the media as a 'man of the right' who stands up to Political Correctness. Being Anti-PC is the proud battle flag of the Alt Right; therefore, as Vox Day sees it, only genuine Alt Rightists and Dissident Rightists should have the right to carry the banner. But there is Jordan Peterson propped up by the powers-that-be as a courageous member of the 'Intellectual Dark Web' when, from Vox Day’s perspective, the man is nothing but just another Establishmentarian shill. Most people can ignore or get over the cult of Jordan Peterson and move onto something else, but Vox Day can’t let it go. He feels he must carry on with the anti-Peterson vendetta until Peterson’s reputation is utterly exposed and destroyed(at least in Alt Right circles in which Vox Day has not insignificant influence).
11. Jared Taylor = Senator Patrick Geary
This is an unfair comparison in more ways than one. Unlike Geary, who is a rank hypocrite and sleazebag, Jared Taylor has been a man of dignity and principle. Unlike Richard Spencer who acts debonair(modeled on 007?) in interviews but does airhead things in most other occasions, Taylor has been genuinely respectable at all times, and even many of his enemies admit that he is a gentleman in the best sense of the word. Then, why is he like Geary? Oddly enough, it is the primacy of respectability itself in the lives of both men. Even though Geary's respectability is bogus whereas Taylor's is genuine, both men are concerned above all with maintaining the image of respectability. Geary is a sexual pervert, which makes him an easy target for blackmail. But his career relies on respectability, and so, he will do ANYTHING to put forth a clean image of himself. Jared Taylor espouses views that are most un-respectable in today's elite circles of media and academia, but he is ever mindful to come across as respectable. But, no matter how civil and refined he acts, the powers-that-be will paint him as a 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazi'. Does this mean that Taylor should drop his manners and act like Andrew Anglin since ADL and SPLC will always put them in the same hole? Of course not. If you're not a white supremacist or Neo-Nazi, there is no reason to act like one just because the media paint a Hitler mustache on you no matter what. Still, Taylor's commitment to respectability has made him delusional in hoping that American Renaissance(his outfit) will ever make inroads into higher respectable circles because of the good manners of the attendees at its conferences. Style is important, but the truth is ADL and SPLC(and the vast Jewish Network) will always characterize the substance of Jared Taylor's ideas as 'white supremacist'. And it doesn't matter how pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist Taylor insists he is. Given that Holocaustianity and Jew-Worship are the biggest 'religions' in the West, Taylor thinks he can score points by praising Jews, but in fact, most Jews hate him because his mission of 'white advocacy' implies emancipation of white consciousness from serving the Other. To Jews, they themselves are the main constituents of this Other. Only with continuous injection of 'white guilt' drug into the Western bloodstream can Jews paralyze white pride and agency, thereby making whites seek moral restitution by serving the 'holy' Other. On a darker note, we see in both Geary and Taylor a rather servile attitude to the Ultimate Power. Geary, despite his cocky Waspiness, all-too-easily becomes a toady of the Corleones upon realizing the kind of power they wield. He used to look down on Eye-talians as greasy gangsters, but once fallen into their trap he grovels at their feet like an indentured servant. Likewise, Taylor is so impressed with Jewish Power that he clings to the hope that all-powerful Jews may one day appoint him as their most loyal Wasp servant. In some ways, Taylor is more pathetic than Geary on this point because whereas Geary is handsomely rewarded for sucking up to the Corleones, Taylor has gotten NOTHING from carrying water for the Jews and defending Israel. (Taylor supports Zionist treatment of Palestinians, but American Jews treat Taylor like Israelis treat Palestinians. What bittersweet irony.) Indeed, ADL that monitors Twitter got Tayor banned, and all the Jew-run media gleefully piled on the de-platformed Taylor and gloated like laughing hyenas. It's all well and good to be a gentleman, but this is war, and one must be willing to get down-and-dirty against the powers-that-be. In battle, even officers must be ready to get mud and blood on their uniforms. Taylor is too finely tailored for the coming battle, which is really a Race War waged by Jews against whites.
12. Matt Heimbach = Luca Brasi
Unlike Luca Brasi who seems rather dimwitted and tongue-tied in THE GODFATHER, Matt Heimbach is no dummy and gifted as a speaker. Of course, that hasn't prevented him from acting like a moron all too often. As the 'cowboy' says in MULHOLLAND DR., one's attitude goes a long way to decide how one's life will be, but then, one's attitude is largely shaped by one's personality. Heimbach is a monster-man like Brasi. Actually, if he lost some weight, he might look like a normal, even rather pleasant-looking, guy. But as fatso and bubblebutt, he looks grotesque, more Malt-Right than Alt-Right. The fact that he seems unable to shed a few pounds suggests a pitiable lack of self-control. He's like Cookie Monster. Also, despite his large body, he has a cherubic face, which he toughens with a beard, which only makes him look even more ridiculous in combo with nerdy glasses. So, there is Monster-Matt, someone who looks like a professional wrestler as couchpotato as baby-faced Paul Bunyan with specs of a computer nerd. But what makes him especially like Brasi is the compulsion to associate himself with betters and the one-dimensionality of what he has to offer. Like Brasi the killer, Heimbach and his crew were only useful as street-fighters, the Fist of the Alt Right. Also, Heimbach was so eager to associate himself with someone like Spencer who is better-looking, better-educated, and better-mannered(at least in public). Brasi in THE GODFATHER is a self-loathing creature whose fanatical loyalty to Vito Corleone is founded on gratitude for having been offered friendship by a superior man. Even though Heimbach proudly defined himself as a Man of the White Working Class, the fact was the kind of people he dealt with tended to be crude and vulgar. Also, Heimbach got too close with Neo-Nazi stuff to ever gain respectability(or credibility among anti-Nazi Alt Right types). So, Heimbach's sole ticket to 'better optics' was to align himself with 'high-class' Spencer and serve as his Luca Brasi. But if Vito Corleone used Brasi in covert operations, Heimbach's overt actions for Spencer only served to tarnish the image of the 'superior' man. At any rate, Heimbach now sleeps with the fishes because he can't recover from his Jerry-Springer-ish romp with his father-in-law Matt Parrot's wife. For a man who's berated the Jews for subverting Western Morality, it wasn't exactly the best move. Ironically, what Heimbach now has in common with Richard 'superior man' Spencer is Wife Problems. For all their public declarations for the White Family, they totally in affairs of personal and/or pubic life.
13. Ramzpaul = Johnny Fontane
As with most pairings on this blogpost, there is unfairness in comparing Ramzpaul with Fontane. Fontane is a corrupt and craven character who begs Don Corleone for favors to land a movie role. I can't imagine Ramzpaul stooping so low to get anything his way. He is classicly Waspy in sense of right-and-wrong, unlike the more clannish-minded folks of other tribes(non-whites and ethnic-whites, especially Jews and Italians). He's also shown considerable courage in sticking to his convictions despite media hostility. If he's gained in racial consciousness in recent yrs, it was with a certain reluctance in reaction to the changing political climate where non-whites are urged by Jews(especially) to blame everything on Whitey or White Privilege. Though individualist-libertarian by nature, he believes that whites have no choice but to be racially conscious because (1) they are headed toward minority status even in nations of their making and (2) PC dogma vilifies whites for all problems. Now, why is he like Fontane? He is naturally entertaining and might have made it in comedy if he'd chosen another career path. He certainly enjoys the limelight and knows how to amuse his audience unlike most on the Alt Right who, as personalities, range from earnest to hotheaded. Another way he is like Fontane is a certain defeatism. His jokey personality, being most at home with cheerful lightheartedness, often succumbs to gloom-and-doom when pondering future prospects of the White Race. After all, no amount of joking can save a condemned man from the hangman. He admits he came close to quitting his Youtube stream several times and had to be slapped back into form by Tina the Finnish Godmother. Ramzpaul doesn't have the vision and audacity of Spencer, and he has admitted he isn't the leader type. He's more a commentator and satirist. But overall, his view of the Alt Right has been saner than that of Spencer & Co. who decided to wage all sorts of internecine wars(mainly against Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, which served NO purpose) and charge into radical acceleration mode in what was still a rickety and incomplete vehicle over bumpy roads. On a road strewn with so many obstacles and traps, Ramzpaul called for cautious and sober driving. Spencer decided to down the bottle and put the metal to the pedal... with rather predictable results.
14. Kevin MacDonald = Don Tommasino
Like Don Tommasino, Kevin MacDonald has been there from the beginning. A former radical socialist in the 1960s, he soon came to realize that Jewish Idealism is often wedded to a deeper Jewish Tribalism. If Wasps took the New Idealism at face value, Jews used it to maneuver themselves into power as the New Elites to not-so-covertly push their tribal supremacism uber alles. After much thought, MacDonald theorized that recent Jewish behavior is nothing new and, if anything, fits into a wider and deeper pattern of history, culture, and possibly genetics. Because of his experience, he is weary and wounded warrior and has few illusions as to what the Power is really capable of. In this, he is different from the young crop of Alt Right crusaders who, in their gushy enthusiasm and naivete, hurled themselves into the fire like Siegfried... only to get scorched. Due to his age, MacDonald is in no position to lead the movement, and besides, he's more a scholar type than activist type. But like Don Tommasino, he has earned respect in the Alt Right community for key contributions and for having his paid his dues in the most suppressed movement in America.
15. Andrew Anglin = Fredo Corleone
Andrew Anglin isn't really part of Alt Right or any Right. He's essentially been a class-clown and troll all his life. Some say Daily Stormer is a Fed Operation run by Jewish Weez to make the Right look bad. While I don't subscribe to the notion of Anglin as agent, no good can come from taking him seriously. If Daily Stormer has any use, it's in the boundaries of free speech and mocking sacred cows of PC. Granted, its way of 'satire' is often so crude and ugly that it ends up soiling the Right as well muddying the Left. That said, if the Alt Right had left Anglin to do his own thing, it would have been better for both sides. But, the Unite the Right Rally at Charlottesville invited the Anglin-Stormer crowd. Spencer had long public policy discussions with Anglin, as if Anglin could be taken seriously as an expert on anything. And Red Ice interviewed him as a person of importance. All bad moves. Class clowns are best handled like Adam Sandler. Laugh when they do funny stuff but do NOT invite to weddings and funerals. Now, unlike Fredo, Anglin isn't exactly low-IQ. But when it comes to immaturity, he(and Weez) beats Fredo by a mile. There is something slightly endearing about Anglin and Weez when seen as bad-goy clowns and stooges but only revulsion when taken seriously. There's a reason why Michael Corleone limited Fredo to frivolous Mickey Mouse tasks. Fredo could not be trusted with serious responsibilities. You don't take Curly of the Three Stooges and put him in a War Movie or Serious Drama.
Some on the Alt Right do raise alarm about Brown Violence, but 'Latino' crime isn't their main worry. They believe that, even if all browns are good people, the demographic transformation will profoundly alter the national character of America. Also, even if most browns are rather nice and make okay neighbors, they supply votes for the globalist elites who, ensconced in power, wage more wars abroad, promote cultural decadence as the New Normal, and push economic policies that concentrate more power at the top. The effect of immigration in CA has been a one-party dictatorship with the biggest socio-economic inequalities and PC lunacy, especially when it comes to issues of 'gender'.
After all, Alt Right doesn't believe Asians are criminals or terrorists but opposes Asian immigration too because, again, Too Many Asians alter the national character of America. Also, given that Asians tend to be servile to the Existing Power and obsessed with status, they are likely to become the managerial class for globalism, like Francis Fukuyama, Amy Chua, Nikki Haley, John Yoo, Sarah Jeong, etc. The result will be Jewish globalists lording over Asian upper-middle class as commissars over the white masses.
Trump's alarmist rhetoric about Mexican criminals and Muslim terrorists actually appealed more to Normie Conservatives. But then, Trump didn't start this rhetoric. Hollywood has been making lots of movies featuring Muslims as terrorists. The SICARIO sequel begins with Muslims crossing the US-Mexican border and blowing up US shopping malls. In the 90s, the movie villains were usually South African 'racists' or Muslim Terrorists. And who can forget RULES OF ENGAGEMENT that is downright genocidal in its message toward Muslims over there. KILL THEM ALL. Even before 9/11, many white working class kids grew up watching Hollywood movies with evil Muslim villains. So, when they entered the military, they were more than happy to go over there and kill them 'savages'. While some in the Alt Right like to pass around the Muslim Terrorist and Mexican Gang meme, this is much more the feature of Alt Light and God-and-Country Conservatism. The anti-Muslim stuff is actually a way to gain sympathy from Jews(and homos), i.e. Jews and homos(and even feminists) should side with the Right because Liberals don't care about Muslims who want to wipe Israel off the map, enslave women, and throw homos from roofs. Alt Right cares far less about this line of argument because it cares far less about forging alliance with Jews, homos, and feminists. Alt Right's position on Israel is 'none of our business'. Some in the Alt Right cheer for Palestinians just to 'return the favor'. Also, Alt Right believes that Jewish power and influence in US and EU are so baleful that alliance is near-impossible. And Alt Right thinks feminism is terrible and rejects the homo agenda. It is the Alt Light and 'cuck' Right that go for the "Liberals are the true anti-Semites, Homophobes, and misogynists because they don't condemn Muslims" polemic.
Also, even though Alt Rightists are aware of Muslim Terrorism(esp in Europe), most trace the problem between the West and Muslim World to Western invasion of Middle East & North AFrica(that angered and radicalized Muslims) and immigration policy controlled by Jews and globalists(that let in millions of Muslims into the West). So, while the Alt Light and Normie Cons tend to blame Muslims, Alt Right is more likely to blame the People behind the Invade/Invite Strategy that turned the Middle East and North Africa upside down and then 'welcomed' all the refugees and other riff-raff(pretending to be 'refugees') into the West. While Alt Right has its share of bozos and morons, its overall understanding of foreign policy tends to be more sophisticated than that of the Alt Light and Normie Conservatives who are stuck in 'Liberals are the real racist' mentality. Alt Right's view of foreign affairs is probably closer to that of the Saker or Paul Craig Roberts even though neither is part of Alt Right.
In Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, we do see some Alt Right influence on their views of foreign policy... though, to be sure, one could trace their change of views to Paleo-Conservatism as well(of Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried) or Libertarianism(of Ron Paul). Both Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter waved the red, white, and blue during the Iraq War. Coulter's warmongering fever was so out-of-control and hyperbolic -- turn them 'muzzies' into Christians -- that National Review let her go. It was the hope during the Bush II years that, if the American 'Right' does something spectacular in the Middle East and remakes the whole region into an oasis in which Israel will especially be safe, the American Jewish power will move over to the GOP. Never let a crisis go to waste, and 9/11 offered an opportunity for GOP Wasps(fast losing power) to make a move to recruit Jewish Power by doing the bidding of Neocons as middlemen power-brokers between GOP wasps and the larger Jewish Community. The idea seemed so tantalizing that even NYT and Liberal Zionist Media came to support the Iraq War based on WMD hoax. (The massive protests against the war probably had more to do with the trepidation that it might indeed be a great success and lend credibility to the GOP-Neocon Right.) But the whole thing blew up spectacularly, and Bush II ended his presidency as one of the worst presidents ever. The economy also collapsed. Still, the fact is the GOP and people like Coulter had tried so very hard to do whatever to win over the Jews. But most Jews went for Obama. Worse, feeling that the GOP as the white party was dead forever, Jewish Liberals(and even Neocons) began to show their true face and spew anti-white vitriol not unlike Tim Wise. The OBAMA CONQUEST Newsweek cover said it all. While 'cuck'-servatives remained timid and servile, figures like Ann Coulter just about had enough. Even though she has always known that most Jews were on the 'left', she had no idea how much the great majority of the Jewish community really hated, hated, and hated the white goy majority. The anti-white rhetoric became ever more strident and boastful with sadistic glee at the prospect of White America's demise. Jews, who'd been demanding that whites respect Jewish identity and support Israel, were gloating not only about the fall of White America but, incredibly, even the Islamo-Africanization of Europe, the ancient homeland of Europeans.
Though neither Coulter or Carlson is Alt Right, their main concern was demography, not crime or terrorism. Sure, because it's deemed 'racist' to defend the preservation of White America, people like Coulter and Carlson will tend to mention issues pertaining to social/economic costs of immigration, but their main worry is End of White America. They can't and won't say it(though Coulter flirts with outright racial consciousness), but it is where their views intersect with the Alt Right. Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson say it has nothing to do with color of the skin and only with values -- the problem is not the race of the newcomers but the values they bring with them -- , but Alt Right disagrees. Alt Right and Jared Taylor(not quite Alt Right) have an emotional or near-spiritual attachment to White/Western Civilization. Alt Right tends to see Jews as the Other, whereas Taylor wishes for Jews to be partners, but for them, Western Civilization isn't merely about moral values and monetary value but about genetics and aesthetics: Western culture is an expression of European blood in both spirit and form. So, Western music is an expression of the white soul, and Western art depict the unique beauty of the white race. It's not just about what's in the head but what's in the heart, face, body. This is why Faith Goldy opposes Asian immigration in Canada. Most Asians are not criminals. Many study and work hard and contribute to the Canadian economy. And because most Asians(especially from East Asia) tend to be bland and servile, they readily soak up the latest PC fashions in 'Western Values'. They assimilate all-too-well to current fads and fashions of the West. But, they are still racially different, and too many of them will permanently alter the European character of Canada.
Now, some white people don't care about such things. They either see all peoples as just individuals/economic units OR believe that whites are so uniquely guilty of historical 'sins' that their nations deserved to be taken over by non-whites. (As for white elites, they figure their vaunted positions are secure and that newcomers will mainly serve them. Their main identity is 'elite' or 'privilege', not white. And, their idea of fighting 'white privilege' is not surrendering their own privilege but beating up on un-privileged whites as 'racist' for not being properly welcoming of mass-immigration to replace the white population and loyally serve the 'progressive' white elites.) Anyway, while one can argue with Alt Right ideas, one cannot argue with Alt Right passions. Ideas exist in the mind, passion exists in the heart. It's like reason is a mind-thing, whereas religion is a faith-thing. Even though Alt Right is essentially a secular movement, it has 'faith' and soulful passion for European identity. It's the same with Zionists, even secular ones. They can argue and debate about ideas and values, but the notion of Israel as a Jewish state is 'sacred' to them, a historical covenant. It's a matter of the heart. It is non-negotiable. It is like a mother to them. Not for debate, not for sale, not for compromise. Israel MUST be a Jewish State to them.
Now, in some ways, the debacle at Charlottesville wasn't really unique. There was extreme violence in Berkeley(or was it UCLA?) when Milo was scheduled to speak. The violence was comparable to what happened in Charlottesville. And it took heavy police presence to allow Ben Shapiro -- an ardent Zionist enemy of Alt Right -- to speak at one of his college events. Even Charles Murray was attacked by a college mob. If Charlottesville got more attention, it was because the Alt Right guys were bolder and cockier. Gentlemen like Charles Murray seemed confused and flustered like Mr. MaGoo. Milo's speech was scrapped. Ann Coulter also canceled her speech soon thereafter. And many college professors self-censor themselves out of fear of the NPC mob. Steven Salaita was fired from U of I for expressing rage about Israel's attack on Gaza. Norman Finkelstein's career at Depaul was derailed by Dershowitz and gang. And recently, a Palestinian-American female teacher was fired because she wouldn't sign an anti-BDS pledge. (It almost seems as though what Jews did to Palestinians was dress rehearsal for what they are doing to white people. But white cucks go out of their way to suck up to Jewish Supremacist Power. White Nakba is happening all over, but these white cucks suck up to Jewish Power that does to whites in Texas what Israel does to Palestinians in the West Bank. The cucks must really be well-paid, or maybe they are so dumb blind as born-again Evangelicals that they regard Jews as holy Chosenites no matter how many times Jews shit on them. They are like dogs that serve the master after being kicked over and over. Consider how the Jewish media raked John McCain over the coals in 2008, but he spent his remaining years doing nothing but serving Jews, Jews, Jews.)
Now, a worthless idiot like George Hawley, the so-called scholar of the Alt Right, will say all sorts of nasty things about 'white supremacism' and 'racism' but will not say ANYTHING about Jewish power and its abuses or how homo supremacist activists have destroyed lives and careers all across America. So, what happened to Alt Right guys at Charlottesville was part of a pattern, except that the hammer came down much harder because Alt Right didn't back down as it burst on the scene. So, the only way to deal with the movement was to smash it like God destroyed the Tower of Babel. Especially because Populist Trump was seen as the bold unapologetic candidate who rode to victory on the Alt Right magic carpet, the Power decided to use Charlottesville as an opportunity to wipe the Alt Right off the political map. So, the Constitutional Rights of free assembly and free speech were denied by the powers-that-be in full collusion with the corrupt media.
That said, the Unite the Right was a moral disaster as well. Spencer, filled with vanity as edge-lord 007 enfant-terrible hero, allied with some really loathsome characters. Many of us didn't know then, but we know now. Chris Cantwell the Cantaloupe-Head is a deranged 14/88 clown. And Fat Matt Heimbach turned out to be not only a neo-nazi idiot but a perfect Jerry-Springer-show guest: "I fuc*ed my father-in-law's wife." The fact that Spencer allied with such idiots meant his brand of Alt Right, which got the most media attention, was scraping the bottom of the barrel than patiently building a new political and intellectual base. Ramzpaul saw the writing on the wall earlier at Hail-Gate(or Heil-Gate) when Spencer foolishly emboldened some of his minions to give the Hitler Salute. It's likely that Spencer didn't foresee the reaction, but it was an embarrassing moment for not only people like Ramzpaul and Jared Taylor but for Donald Trump and Steven Bannon. Being edgy is one thing, Nazi crap is another. The whole point of the Alt Right was to find a new path away from both Neoconservatism and KKK craziness, but Spencer the edge-lord, eager for bad boy notoriety, just couldn't help himself. Not long after 'Heil-Gate', he was speaking seriously with Andrew Anglin. And it now seems his group was operating more in the manner of ANIMAL HOUSE or STRIPES than TAPS. (The misguided boys in TAPS fail, but they did put up a serious resistance.)
That said, despite the unsavory character of some of the scheduled speakers at the Unite the Right rally, the fact is the fiasco was almost entirely due to the Jewish mayor and black police chief who shut down the event and pushed the UTR attendees into a gang of Antifa goons who were let alone to tear the city apart. So, if Spencer and others had really been smart, they would have done everything to shape the narrative. With cheap video technology, they could have made their own documentary on the subject. But all that opportunity was lost. As the story of Jesus shows, even defeat can be spun into victory. It all depends on who does the storytelling. Kubrick was half-wrong about SCHINDLER'S LIST when he said Holocaust was about failure whereas Spielberg's movie is about success. True, the Holocaust was a tragic failure for Jews who were killed, but the Holocaust Narrative was a success that 'sacralized' Jewish victims while burdening Germans(and other Northern European racial cousins of Germans) with the Burden of Guilt forever. In the end, the story of the event matters more than the event itself. But for the most part, Spencer and others did little to shape the post-Charlottesville narrative. ONLY NOW, Spencer the fool is trying to run with the Charlottesville-as-moral-victory narrative. After Charlottesville, most Alt Right people were not deplatformed. It was Daily Stormer and few other sites. Spencer and his cohorts had many months to come up with their own narrative and hammer it home over and over. But they dropped the ball and focused on other matters.
This is all too bad because if the Alt Right had remained more in the mode of Ramzpaul and Jared Taylor, it could have done so much more. After all, Ramzpaul(who has one foot in edgy politics and the other in Normie culture) and Ann Coulter/Tucker Carlson came to more-or-less same conclusion on the JQ though Coulter and Carlson can't spell it out. Coulter feels betrayed not only by the Jewish community but by Neocons whom she had loyally served for so many yrs. She feels abused, like a sex slave. She feels that her kind did everything to wave the Israeli flag, vilify the enemies of Israel, and love Jews. Like John McCain, she growled at whatever Jews hated. But in recent yrs, she has stopped barking at Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, and etc. Despite all that Coulter & co. had done over the years for Zionism and Jewish Prestige, what did Jewish Power finally give to America? Obama, Homomania, and endless push for Diversity to replace whites. Worse, it wasn't just New York Times and CNN but Neocons and National Review as well. Even Neo-'conservatives' blasted Trump and called for white replacement. Coulter came to see Neocons as weasels and came to see most of GOP as spineless 'paycheck conservatives' who only do the bidding of oligarchs: Paul Ryan and etc. And that is why she was so invested in Trump, the only candidate who denounced foreign wars, the need for walls, and immigration reform. And he was the only GOP candidate who openly supported European nationalists and bemoaned Merkel's decision to open the gates.
So, there was a chance of greater convergence between some in the Conservatism Inc. and the Alt Right. But Spencer, too full of himself, decided to play politics like Mission Impossible. If he really wanted to be bold, he should have written a book on political philosophy than hold quasi-Nazi tiki-torch marches and make common cause with a psychopath like Cantwell and moron like Heimbach. As for guys like Mike Enoch, they have value as 'shitlords' targeting PC shibboleths on podcasts; they have no value as leaders. It's like Howard Stern and Steve Dahl can make it as shockjocks but can't be taken seriously as anything else. But somehow, Enoch took leadership position. Nazi larping can be ironic in a podcast, not in the streets when crowds gather in earnest to make a political statement. Give a nazi salute in that context, and it's a political expression, not a joke or prank.
As for people in Silicon Valley or other super-rich cities, they may not live in Gated Communities, but it's safe to say that much of the area is like an Extensive Gated Community or Gated City(or Golden Gated City). The houses are not gated like rich homes in South Africa or Venezuela, but there are social and class barriers demarcating the super rich from the very rich from the rich from the middle and the rest. It's like there is no gate around Hyde Park community in Chicago, but it is among the safest because most professors and students are white or Asian and also because there is super-heavy police presence to suppress black crime. Also, home prices make it impossible for most blacks to live within the community. Still, because there are no actual walls or gates to protect the rich from the hordes, it's true enough that many affluent people may feel that all-is-well in America. Since they are 'good' and 'intelligent' people who've made it, everyone else who didn't make it must be lazy or stupid. And yet, there is a contradiction in their attitude because, while they dismiss the problems of the white working class and underclass as products of their own failing, they employ PC rhetoric to gush about all those poor immigrants who must be given a chance. But if white losers have no one to blame but themselves, then aren't non-white losers around the world also responsible for their own problems? Aren't the brown losers in Mexico and Guatemala merely the 'Latino' counterparts of white losers in the US? Apparently not according to elite PC attitudes. While white working class and middle class(continually sinking) that voted for Trump are reviled and ridiculed as 'populist losers', the endless hordes of browns who want to break into America are romanticized as 'dreamers'. Rich whites look down on whites who have less but idealize browns who have less. Instead of trying to boost the livelihoods of whites who have less, they focus on 'saving' the browns who want to start anew in America. Now, many rich whites didn't feel this way in the past, so maybe it has something to do with who controls the media/academia. Or, maybe it's just the sense among the rich that the poor immigrants are motivated to work harder(more compliant, less complaint) than working class whites who are now either too demanding or even downright degenerate. (The utter vulgarization of the white middle class and working class culture cheapened their moral capital. Tom Joad vs Jim Goad. One is a noble character, a champion of the meek and down-and-out, the other is a real-life punk personality who's wallowed in depravity all his life. When the image of the working-class becomes Jerry-Springered and Jim-Goaded, it loses moral capital. Jim Goad is an interesting writer and a courageous enemy against PC, but what is he FOR? Freedom to do what? To act and talk like utter shit. Not that the elite image has been so great either, what with their mindless worship of anything homo and tranny. And given the vulgarization of Jewish Culture -- Harvey Weinstein and Amy Schumer -- , American Image has become sick and demented from top to bottom. And one of the problems of Trump is that he makes an odd hero of the people given his rather sordid life story of never-ending self-indulgence.)
But then, there was also a contradiction within the Alt Right of Richard Spencer(who pretty much came to own the label after 'Heil-Gate'). He grabbed it as MY TOY! Given the class split between white elites and white middle class/working class, the most natural priority for the Alt Right would have been to reach out to whites who feel stranded without leadership. This would have called for patient grass-roots activism. But Spencer, a spoiled boy of privilege, has a knee-jerk revulsion of the hoi polloi. His idea of white power is all about white elitism. He is fixated on personal power. His supremacism is more of the Anglo-Imperialist brand of Rudyard Kipling -- White Man's Destiny and Burden -- than that of Nazis, but his head is so up in the clouds with dreams of power and glory that he is bored by real problems of the white masses who feel left out. They didn't read Nietzsche and don't understand the true philosophy of 007. Indeed, Spencer's real problem with the current elites is not their hyper-elitism or super-privilege per se but that they are not his kind of people. Similarly, his problem with globalist neo-imperialism is not that it is globalist or imperialist but that it is controlled by Jews. His dream is not to end imperialism in favor of nationalism but to practice an even grander imperialism ruled by Anglos as the Faustian Race or something. Because Spencer's mindset and outlook are so narcissistic and stuck-up, he's been incapable of shaping the Alt Right into a movement that could actually mean something to masses of whites who feel like a body without a head. So, the burden of Alt Right grassroots fell to someone like Matt Heimbach the dummy whose idea of mass politics is swilling endless cases of beer, wearing a Nazi helmet, and bumbling around with his bubble-butt.
If the problem of Paleo-Conservatism was it was filled with too many old people, the problem of Alt Right has been its youth. Youth is full of energy and optimism, but it's also rash and impulsive. So, just like 60s Yippies and Black Panthers wasted their political capital on stupid shit, so did the members of the Alt Right. In a way, the failures of both the New Left and New Right were similar in kind. The New Left, liberated from the 'stalinism' of the Old Left, turned to sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. It burned out. (The members of the Left that did gain power tended to be humorless in their long march through the institutions. But did they really win? By the time they were in positions of power, communism/socialism had failed, Democratic Party had gone over to the ultra-rich oligarchs, and military-industrial-complex was stronger than ever. So, all they could do was compromise with the ultra-capitalists and settle for Homomania. It was just 'subversive' enough for radical vanity and sufficiently useful to the Rich Class that had no more use for politics of class struggle.) The new movement of the Alt Right, liberated from the organizational strictures of Conservatism Inc or grim humorlessness of White Nationalism 1.0, rushed into action like kids into summer break on the last day of school. It had energy but no organization, discipline, or hierarchy. Just like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bill Ayers, and rest of them were not exactly Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin, the leaders of the Alt Right weren't exactly the Founding Fathers or even the National Socialists(who were pathological but had remarkable strategic sense). And Spencer, a spoiled rich kid who was showered with affection and all-the-toys from childhood, had this magical Harry-Potter mentality that wishes would turn into reality with the power of his Faustian will.
