If Whiteness has no Validity or Meaning, then Whites cannot lay claim to anything, and there is No Common White Property — The Political Art of White Dispossession by Jewish Supremacism, especially by pushing ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs

What secures the survival and well-being of a people? What keeps them healthy in body and spirit? What provides them with a sense of meaning and purpose, even destiny? What fills them with a sense of distinctness, a special quality that makes them rise above mere genericity, rise above the occasion?

A people must have a sense of their evolutionary origins and understand what makes them different from other races. If of a spiritual bent, a people must be bound by the conviction that God created different peoples, and each group is unique in its own way. A people must have a sense of history. Just like every individual has his own unique biography and every family has its own story, every people need to keep with their own history with its origins, myths, tales, and heroes & villains. Just like it's tragic for an amnesiac or an Alzheimer patient robbed of memory, a people without historical memory and a deep sense of roots & mythic bonds are truly lost, like a confounded hiker or navigator without a compass, no sense of where he came from and no sense of where he's going and why.
For security-sake, it's essential that a people lay claim to certain territories as rightfully theirs. A people without a country are like a man without a home: Doomed to wander as nomads. There's a difference between a traveler and a nomad. A traveler has a home to return to in the end, like Odysseus. In contrast, a nomad is a chronic wanderer. Steve Martin's character in PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES has a home and a family waiting for him. John Candy's character is always on the road, condemned to drift from place to place.
Furthermore, as one lives forever, a people must produce new generations, and this requires the union of man and woman. To preserve the unique features of form and beauty of a people, most of the sexual unions must be among the men and women of the group. Excessive miscegenation leads to something like the mulatto-mestizos of Latin America, confused populations with weak sense of who or what they are.
In addition, to ensure the synthesis of identity, history, and territory, there must be proper authority, a concentration of power, that works to lead, represent, defend, and preserve the people and culture. Without these supports, a people's long-term survival comes into question. It's like there's no guarantee that a chair with four wobbly legs will remain standing. If a horse with one broken leg is useless, imagine one with four broken legs. What happens to a building when its columns or support beams are broken? The whole thing may well crumble to the ground. Indeed, bigger the structure, stronger its support system must be. Bigger they are, firmer they must stand... or else harder they fall.

Now, it's possible for a people/culture to survive without all the supports. Jews certainly did for nearly two thousand years without a homeland to call their own, and Kurds continue as a people & culture despite being dispersed among several non-Kurd-majority nations like Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and etc. In the case of the Jews, their magic formula was the Covenant, which went beyond mere identity, territory, and history. The Covenant created a spiritual bond between Jewish Blood and Heavenly Spirit. It meant that wherever Jews may be, whatever straits they were in, and however downtrodden they may be, they are the Chosen People favored by the one and only true God. The fact that Jews survived over the millennia despite so many setbacks(and even loss of territory) is a testament to the power of bonding blood with spirit. At any rate, Jews are an exception in history.
Furthermore, while there's much to learn from the Jewish Example, one should never heed Jewish advice as the essence of Jewishness is to maximize its own tribal power, wealth, influence, and control at the expense of goyim. If something works great for Jews, Jews will recommend the very opposite for the goyim. But then, Jews are being smart in their deviousness. If gold is buried in spot A, of course it makes sense for Jews to tell others it's buried in spot B... or C or D or E. It's like the Vikings who settled in Iceland wanted it for themselves. So, they gave it the forbidding name of 'Iceland' to keep others away while naming a far less hospitable land mass 'Greenland'. Likewise, Jews want to hoard their own 'Iceland' for themselves while recommending the metaphorical 'Greenland' for goyim. Iceland is really green whereas Greenland is frozen.

For most peoples, the failure to secure one of the pillars of peoplehood is like being a Paralympian than an Olympian. It's like competing with a missing arm or leg or with a broken spine. Such peoples must hobble through history and are always at a disadvantage vis-a-vis others with sturdier, sounder, and more complete support systems. An engine running on all six cylinders has more kick than one running on three. A plane with four working propellers is preferable to one with only two working. Jews are like someone using both arms and both legs urging others to tie one hand behind the back and jump around on one foot. Some Jews go even further and urge upon goyim to cut off all limbs. Jews would have goyim, especially white goyim, turn into Boxing Helena.

Still, a people with one or two cylinders working are better off than a people with all the cylinders out of order. The rule of history is that a people with essential support systems, no matter how poor and backward, are better positioned to survive into the future than a people who, no matter how well-fed and affluent, have been robbed of theirs. Indeed, compare the Palestinians and Anglo-Canadians. The latter enjoy much better living standards than the tragic Arabs living under Zionist occupation and tyranny. But, whereas Palestinians doggedly cling to their pride of identity and sense of history(and totally believe in the rightness of their cause and see Jews for what they are) despite their loss of territory, Anglo-whites in Canada have no pride of identity, no sense of history, and no claim of territory. Indeed, for Anglo-whites nothing is conceivably more evil than the idea of white authority/power in service of white interests. Even as a defeated people, Palestinians know what they are and do what they must to survive. Despite their affluence and privileges, Anglo-whites of Canada have zero defense systems against the Great Replacement(or White Nakba) and, if anything, believe the evil of whiteness must be erased by Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity, or D.I.E.
So, whereas Palestinians struggle to remain Palestinians with each passing year, Anglo-whites lose out ever more in Canada(and it's the same in all of Anglosphere and Germanosphere as Northern European whites are now totally mind-controlled by Jews). Of course, Jews sought to mind-trick the Palestinians as well. Zionists argued there's no such thing as the Palestinian people, Palestinian culture, or Palestinian history. Jews said it's all just a 'social construct'(but for some reason, we are to believe Zionism is so natural and real that it has the right to destroy the natives of Palestine to make room for Euro-Israel dominated by Ashkenazim). If Palestinians didn't take the vile Jewish bait, whites not only took it but swallowed the whole thing as good medicine... only to have the hook stuck inside their intestines which are now fatally wounded and bleeding.

Jews rule the world and seek to undermine and invalidate any concept of White Property or White Possession. White Dispossession is the name of the game. This is why Jews attack the very notion of whiteness. If whiteness is a valid category, then whites would have reasons to defend their identity, heritage, history, territory, wealth, authority, and power. But if whiteness is invalid, just some ‘racist’ construct or at best a figment of the imagination, then whites have no unique, special, and/or commanding claim to anything. Minus such conviction, whites don't deserve to own anything as a people, not least because even their peoplehood lacks legitimacy.
Of course, whites as individuals can own stuff, even lots of stuff(like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett), but there is nothing that whites as a race, culture, or people can have, defend, and preserve as their own. The politically correct mantra of Diversity really means that anything white can be claimed and taken by nonwhites? (It's like Asian-Indians as individuals could gain wealth under British Imperialism, but they, as a people, could not claim India as a national entity independent of Rule Britannia).
It's akin to conditions of slavery, at least on the legal and psychological level(even if whites aren't literally slaves). Consider blacks in the American South when slavery still existed. Not all blacks had to pick cotton from sunup to sundown. Some black slaves could learn a craft and earn money(even save enough to purchase their own freedom). But no matter how much they earned(and even upon gaining freedom), it was virtually forbidden for them to think that they deserved or owned anything as a collective, as a people. For blacks, wealth and freedom were just individual matters. Some blacks could do pretty well as individuals and some could be legally free, but they couldn't be empowered as an united people.

Today, Jews have done the same to whites who are but soul-slaves of the Zionic Tribe. Jeff Bezos and Tim Cook are among the richest whites in the world, but their wealth is purely an individual matter. They can spend it on themselves and their close ones but never ever for white interests. But then, as people aren't mere individuals but part of a larger community, what can rich whites do to show they aren't just in it for themselves? There are three choices: (1) Libertarianism, a soulless ideology about 'muh freedom' that only further atomizes the white race and separates rich whites from those with less (2) The Approved Tribalism or Idolatry of Jews, blacks, and homos — even though Identity is generally denied to most groups, especially whites and Palestinians, it is not only tolerated but celebrated among Jews, blacks, and homos as the three magical groups (3) Mania for Diversity and Inclusion, which means rich whites should care about nonwhites around the world and welcome them into the West, not least to snub and replace 'racist' whites.

Is it any wonder that Jews(who are only 2% of the US population), blacks(who are 13% of the population), and homos(who are only 2.5% of the population) have more authority than whites? All Jews can coordinate together for Jewish Power. Blackness has been made sacred, i.e. blacks, just by being black, are deemed holy. Globo-Homo is now celebrated, and an entire month is reserved for Limp-Wristianity or Queertianity as replacement for Christianity. And even though the identities of Mestizos, Asians, Arabs, and etc. aren't especially regarded in the West, they have prestige as 'immigrants' bearing the wonderful gift of Diversity, further pushing whites to the back of the bus. (Of course, no one asks why people from Latin America must come to the US for a better life when their own countries are plenty diverse. Why has Diversity failed to do its magic for Latin America? Does Diversity become magic only when whites in the West are on the verge of losing their majority status? Odd how that works.)

Anyway, War-on-Whiteness(or WOW) and the ensuing White Dispossession allow Jews to lay claim to and gain possession of just about anything that once belonged to the white world. Nothing white is deemed sacred or priceless. Jews look upon the white world as a Jewish pawnbroker looks upon property. They are all trinkets for his taking. Everything white has a price tag and can be bought or sold or just taken by Jews or nonwhites.
Of course, Syrians aren't so lucky either. Jewish-controlled US foreign policy led to the military occupation of entire swaths of Syrian territory. The way Jews see it, Syria doesn't belong to Syrians, and Jews can use their goy military puppets to invade and occupy any piece of Syrian territory at whim. Currently, Syrians don't even have access to their own oil due to Jewish-guided US occupation. And of course, Palestinians in West Bank are silenced by the Jew-run media while yet another piece of their territory is swallowed up by Jewish invader-settlers. Jews look upon all the goy world as their oyster or goyster.

Since whiteness is an evil notion, the idea of White Territory is intolerable. Whites have no territory to call their own. All of the West must be on the auction block. It is to be sold and bought. Worse, any bunch of nonwhites can trample into white lands because Jewish-controlled globalism(the current ideology of the West) says Europeans don't even own the identity or meaning of European-ness. Anyone can become 'European' because globalism defines 'European-ness' as the celebration of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity.
So, while white individuals can own lots of private property, there isn’t a single square inch in the world to designate as White Territory. Jewish supremacists who rule the West insist that whiteness is an evil that must be eradicated, and therefore, nothing can be claimed in the name of whiteness. White people must live merely as generic people or deracinated individuals in service to Jewish Identity, globo-homo-afro idolatry, and globalist ideology. Of course, Viktor Orban disagrees and says Hungary is sacred birth-and-burial ground for Hungarians. Jews cannot tolerate this. Not because Hungary itself is an important and consequential nation in the literal sense — a middle-income country with population of mere ten million, it isn't — but because its European-and-Christian-centered nationalism, in rejecting the entire paradigm of the Jew World Order, may inspire whites around the world to think outside the Jewish Box and say NO to Jewish Supremacism in the name of White Liberation. To Jewish Supremacists, the Hungarian example is akin to Palestinians saying Palestine is their homeland on the basis of pride of identity, resilience of history, and claim of territory. Well, at least Jews also have historical roots in the Holy Land, but it is outrageous how they lay claim to all the West that rightfully and racially belongs to whites.

For Jewish supremacists, the idea that white women belong to white men to have white kids with in order to preserve the white race is also evil. As whiteness is just a figment of ‘racist’ fantasy, white women are mere commodity for other races. They are whores for Jewish merchants and ho’s for black men. Jews say there is no deep and meaningful bond between white men and white women because whiteness is just garbage cooked up by ‘racists’. This is what Jews push. Jews want white wombs to be colonized by black men.
But it's rather odd if one thinks about it. On the one hand, Jews and blacks impugn whiteness as just worthless garbage, but they seem obsessed with white beauty that is the product of tens of thousands of evolution whereby white men mated with white women. If Jews and blacks see nothing special about whiteness, why do THEY lay claim to beauty that is unique to whites? Of course, the black threat is especially damaging to whites because of the Jungle Fever factor. Even with anti-whiteness in full force in media and academia, most white women won't sexually venture outside whiteness as they don't feel much attraction to most nonwhite men. But it's different with white women and Negroes because black men are better at sports, can holler & sing louder, and have bigger dongs. Indeed, even when the West was 'racist' and enforced taboos against miscegenation in the past, some white women went with black men because of the sheer pull of jungle fever. In our times when Jews control ideology(propaganda) & idolatry(marketing) and outright promote Jungle Fever and encourage millions of black Africans to move to the West, ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs is an existential threat to the white race. It effectively turns white women into 'mudsharks' and reduces white men into wussy cucks, resulting in the erasure of European uniqueness in form and beauty as the white race will be mulatto-ized and claimed by blackness that, contra whiteness, is much celebrated and even sacralized in the Jew World Order.
The way Jews see it, Jewish Supremacism depends on white submission, and there is no better way to effect permanent white obeisance than by breaking the sacred bond between white men and white women with Jungle Fever. Today, cuckenized white men celebrate the very fact that white women reject them and go with blacks. Jews brainwashed white males into believing that black sexual imperialism and white sexual defeat are synonymous with 'anti-racism' when, in fact, it's premised on black men being superior men to white men. Of course, it could be just a case of White Male Cope. Since they are losing white women to black men and can't do anything about it, they pretend they are letting it happen of their own accord out of racial magnanimity or commitment to combating 'racism'. So, even though white women are being taken away from white men, white men pretend they are giving their women away out of free will. It's like the landlord in THE GODFATHER PART 2 who complies with Vito Corleoene's request out of fear but pretends it's out of the goodness of his heart.

In the Jew World Order, there can be no such thing as White History, yet another essential pillar or support system lost for the white race. Indeed, Jews insist White History never existed because whiteness was always a fantasy of ignorance + supremacism and nothing else. Kids nowadays are told Greeks and Romans weren’t white. Iceland and Sweden were always 'multicultural', meaning multi-racial. Blacks always roamed around Britain and France. So, why not fill up all new movies about European lore and history with blacks and nonwhites? And even if some parts of Europe were indeed all-white, how terrible indeed and in need of being remedied with the wonders of Diversity. It's as if such whites lived inside a cave without the sun and must be brought out into the light. Shame on such history for its lack of diversity. As diversity is so wondrous, all Europeans must fantasize that their ancestors and heroes were black even if such weren't the case.

As for the politics of white authority or white power, NO WAY insist the Jews. Whiteness is ‘racist’, therefore any power or authority centered on serving white identity and interests is totally anathema to all that is good. So, while white individuals can make lots of money and work for powerful institutions, they must never think white or serve white interests. They must serve lofty ideals such as ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’, and ‘equity’…. though for some reason, they must also serve Jews and blacks and homos as the Holy Three even though we’ve been told tribalism is wrong.

This is why whites are so powerless. Even though whites are still numerous in the West, have lots of wealth, desired for their looks, and are well-represented in elite institutions, whites are powerless as a race because even the most successful white individuals can never ever serve or defend whiteness but must serve ‘woke’ ideology or the idolatry of the holy three: Jews, blacks, and homos. If Bill Gates were to donate a measly $100 to Jared Taylor's American Renaissance, the full force of Jewish Supremacism and its white cuck-collaborators, what with their total grip on elite power, will pounce on him at once and destroy his reputation, connections, and wealth. Also, the courts will dig up anything to bring him down as so-called 'justice' is just a gangsterist lawfare arm of the Jews.

Whites today are like all those horses. Horses are big powerful beasts, but whatever their number, they are powerless as horses because they’ve been trained to serve humans. No matter how powerfully they run and do their horsey things, it’s never for horse-sake but for human-sake. Whites are now essentially saddled horses of Jewish cowboys.

The REAL Pandemic : "HATE CRIMES" On The Rise! - Nick Fuentes

Ron Paul style Libertarianism is Useless against Globalist Gangster Fascism of the Deep State & Big Industry, both of which worship the Gods controlled by Jewish Power — Only Solution against Globo-Homo Gangster Fascism is the National-Humanist Neo-Fascism of the Patriots

When Fascism Comes, It Will be Wearing a Mask - Ron Paul http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/january/25/when-fascism-comes-it-will-be-wearing-a-mask/

The problem is not fascism as all power is fascist. The question is WHO controls it.

US is under Jewish Supremacist gangster fascism. THAT is the problem.

A true liberal democracy never existed and is impossible. Every system is dominated by one group and its arm of the deep state. And there’s always bound to be a close working relation between big government and big business. Japan Inc. developed that way. So did Germany in the 19th century. So, if state + industry means fascism, even democracies have been fascist. Israeli state and Israeli industry support one another. If that is the definition of fascism, Israel is fascist.

The real problem is that the use of power in the US is centered on Jewish Supremacist interests.

We see this in the apotheosis of the tranny. Now, did most women want this? Did they want to take a backseat to a bunch of freako men pretending to be ‘women’? No. It was Jews who wanted it. Why? Jews seek to suppress any notion of majority identity and pride. Among womenfolk, real women are more than 99% whereas tranny faux-women count for less than 1%. And yet, women now must make way for trannies as champions of female sports.
Why? Jews see tranny power/privilege as analogous to Jewish power/privilege. In both cases, it’s the minority-elite dictating and dominating over the vast majority. When the great majority of goyim let themselves fall under Jewish Power, stuff like globo-homo and transmania were almost inevitable as furtherance of Jewish Power Strategy. Jews see it as cultural rhyming: Jewish minority elite power rhymes with tranny minority elite power.

Against Jewish gangster-fascism, we need a fascism of our own. The problem in America is not the threat of fascism but lack of our fascism against their fascism.

Ron Paul is a nice guy and all. He means well, but libertarianism is useless as a power strategy because it atomizes people into individuals who only care about ‘muh freedom’. To fight the concentrated unity of Jewish supremacism, goyim must unite into ‘ouh power’.
Why did Western frontier towns need sheriffs and deputies? Whereas the outlaws led by Lee Marvin were united in their nastiness, the townsfolk were divided as individuals and too disorganized to come together as a fighting force against the bullies and baddies. It’s like Frank Miller and three men can subdue an entire town in HIGH NOON because the folks don’t think and act as one; each person thinks only of ‘muh life’. It’s like a small pride of lions can kill lots of wildebeest because the latter never unite as a fighting force but only flee with ‘muh life’ in mind. If wildebeest acted as one, there’s no way lions could kill them.

The weakness of libertarianism is evident in the post by the libertarian John Matze(CEO of Parler):

https://parler.com/

The pooter-boy posted a comment:

"Many upsetting things have occurred over the last year. The natural reaction is to cast blame, or to jump to pre-mature conclusions.
We should, in the spirit of Parley, place aside our differences, place aside our biases of one another, and have a respectful conversation in order to improve our society. We shall check our baggage at the door, and start fresh with one another.
I believe everyone in the tech community, political, and others should put their differences aside to move forward together."

What a wuss. Big Tech companies under direction of nasty Jews colluded to shut his company down, and Big Media, also run by Jews, praise the censchwarzship and smear his reputation(and encourage antifa types to make threats to his family), but pooter-boy Matze sheepishly pleads for civility and discourse.
A man so incapable of righteous anger is worthless, but that is the essence of libertarianism, and it affects so many even on the Dissident Right. The sheer dweebiness is sickening. While mere anger doesn’t get one anywhere, neither do mere ideas or facts. It is rage, anger, or passion that fuels whatever ideas one believes in or facts one espouses. Andrew Torba of Gab has the passion along with the idealism. In contrast, Matze is a wuss, a dweeb, a pooter-boy.

Even funnier is his notion that ‘in the spirit of Parley, place aside our differences…’

What? The whole spirit of a site like Parler is to air the differences and have honest discussions and let the chips fall where they may. If the spirit of Parler is to hold hands and sing kumbaya, Matze should serve as waterboy on the Oprah Show. This is why libertarianism is useless. It is weak. And many dissident right types are weak at heart because they began as libertarians who never appreciated the power of unity via fascism.

All power is fascist. So, we need to stop denouncing bad power as ‘fascist’. Rather, we should identify the bad power correctly as THEIR FASCISM while working to construct OUR FASCISM based on our identity and the real truth.

It is war. When the enemy is united and attacking as a force, the last thing you want to do is to tell the men on your side, “Fight as individual soldiers and never unite into a fighting force as that would be ‘fascist’.” Well, that's libertarian thinking. Ron Paul is a nice guy and means well, but his ideals are utterly useless in the real world. An atomized people will lose to a united people, indeed even when the former outnumbers the latter by a huge margin. Always. Consider. If there are 1,000 goyim and just 10 Jews BUT if goyim only act as individuals whereas Jews fight as a group of ten, Jews will win every encounter. There is no power without unity, and that is one of the essences of fascism. Jews act fascist but smear others as 'fascist'. It is a power strategy to keep the advantage of fascism for themselves while discouraging it among others. We need to call out on Jewish fascism and build our own counter-fascism. If you're honest, you'll know it's the only way.

FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR SARA CARTER AMPLIFIES DEFAMATION OF YOURS TRULY, PROVING FOX IS TRASH

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

Of late, Nick Fuentes has been in the news due to the controversy stirred up by his allies, associates, and fans who constitute what is often referred to as the 'Groyper Army'. At events hosted by Conservatism Inc. such as TPUSA, members of the Groyper 'movement'(if it could be called that) have shown up in force to lob questions ranging from 'inconvenient' to taboo. Most of these questions are related to Con Inc.'s Israel-First-Position, virtual surrender to Globo-Homomania, betrayal of Christian values & tradition, and avid support for Mass Immigration(as long as it is Legal even though most immigrants are not only non-white but overwhelmingly lean toward Democrats as either the anti-white or pro-immigrant party). All those questions add up to the Bigger Question of what exactly is so-called American Conservatism conserving when its main loyalty happens to be to a foreign nation(and to a powerful minority that happens to be the main instigator of anti-white propaganda), its modus operandi is pitiful surrender to every social/cultural fashions pushed by decadent Global Capital, and its position is to welcome the very demographic trends that are not only decimating Republican districts across America but degrading the values that conservative white Americans have stood for.
At the very least, the Palestinians have always resisted Zionism and didn't welcome Nakba that wiped Palestine off the map. Palestinians lost, but like the American Indians, they at least have the pride of having put up a fight — and to this day, Palestinians continue to resist the invasion into West Bank by Zionist Caravans whose ultimate agenda is to take all of West Bank(and then expand into neighboring Arab territories). In contrast, the white race has become a total disgrace. There are now two main camps. The white globalists who see whiteness as the ultimate stain on humanity and seek redemption by browning white nations demographically and browning white people genetically. Some in Con Inc. claim to be 'nationalist', but it is what is called 'civic nationalism' which almost makes no sense since most modern democracies have more-or-less similar-sounding values.

For example, all modern societies are agreed that tolerance is a good thing, but the bigger question should be Tolerance By Whom? After all, in an overwhelmingly Muslim society, tolerance is toward non-Muslims, and in a Jewish state like Israel, tolerance is toward non-Jews. So, even if both domains were to agree that Tolerance is good, each nevertheless holds steadfast to the necessity that their society must be mostly Muslim or Jewish. Tolerance doesn't mean that all things are equal in society. It means that the most powerful and dominant group should be tolerant to those fewer in numbers and lesser in power. Thus, a Western Nation can protect and preserve its need to remain a white nation while, at the same time, showing tolerance to non-white minorities. Likewise, straight people who make up the overwhelming majority can tolerate homos and other sexual deviants.
But at some point in Western History, the concept of Tolerance turned insidious. Instead of the principle of the powerful/dominant group tolerating the less numerous/powerful groups, it turned into a case of the minority group being regarded as just as essential to society or even more so than the people who've always composed the overwhelming majority. It turned cancerous. Consider the human immune system. The human body tolerates a lot of germs and toxins because we can't live in a perfect world. We've all learn to live and even interact with bacteria, virus, and etc. (Indeed, there are some bacteria that are beneficial to us.) But there is a limit to this. Even if we've learned to co-exist with germs and alien elements, they are not the same as our essential selves. Our skin has lots of germs, but the germs are not our skin. Our guts have even more germs, but the germs are not the intestines. It's like there are Christians in Muslim Iran, but they are not the essential core elements of the nation. They can be(and should be) tolerated and treated kindly, but if Iran were to dispense with Islam as the defining faith, then non-Muslims would have equal claim to the nation, and that could lead to a wholesale transformation of society.
From its founding to its creation to its core development, there is no question that America was an extension of European(especially Anglo-Germanic) Civilization in terms of people, culture, and ideas. America developed that way, but due to the fact that the land was taken from native Reds and that many black Africans were imported for slave labor, White America had to learn to tolerate the presence of non-whites and to treat them better. This was tolerance in the proper meaning of the word. But over time, this meaning began to lose out, especially because of the arrival of Jews who, with superior wits and stronger will, became the new elites and because of the ascent of blacks in sports and violence. Usually, the majority has power over the minority in almost all respects. But Jews, though only 2% of the population, managed to gain economic and intellectual dominance over the white majority population. As the ruling elites, mere tolerance was no longer sufficient for Jews. Jews were no longer content with being a tolerated and well-treated minority, as they are in places like Russia and Hungary. They became accustomed to power & domination and demanded Obedience from the white majority population. In effect, Jews went from a minority in need of protection to a minority in want of supremacy. Jews in the US are today more like British overlords in Old Bombay or Old Hong Kong than ghetto Jews in shtetls of the Russian Empire. Tolerance is no longer enough for them, and if anything, they will NOT TOLERATE any voice that dares to dissent from what they themselves prescribe(and indeed decree) to the goy population whom they regard as a subject people.
As for blacks, they were no longer content with tolerance(and even guarantee of equal rights) once they began to dominate whites in sports and sex. A primitive-souled people, blacks judge worth mainly by who-can-whump-whose-butt and who-can-hump-whose-ass. As they became the lords of NFL, NBA, and boxing, blacks came to look down on the white majority population as either a bunch of 'faggoty-ass-white-boys' to intimidate & beat up OR skanky white bitchass ho's whose wombs must be colonized by black seed. As such, blacks, like Jews, no longer care for tolerance or even parity with whites. They are convinced that THEY, as the superior race, have the right to rule over all others. In that, both have something in common with Richard Spencer who think he(or his kind) is entitled to rule.

In our world, the meaning of Tolerance has been turned on its head. Instead of the dominant majority tolerating(and even protecting) weaker minorities, we have a case of dominant Jewish minority(with their homo allies) showing zero tolerance toward non-Jews(especially whites) who won't kowtow before Globo-Homo-Shlomo power. It went from "We must tolerate 'gays' for what they are" to "You will be destroyed if you express negative views about sodomy, refuse to bake a 'gay wedding cake', or speak truth to Jewish Supremacist Power(JSP)." But then, we live in a world where neo-imperialism is the most powerful force — not least because the Empire of Judea controls the US as the 'lone superpower', the battleship among nations — , and that means the majority power of every subject nation(and that includes the US as Americans are now subject peoples of Jewish supremacist globalists) must take a backseat to the demands of World Jewry and its proxy globo-homo agents. This is why Jews seek to suppress or destroy nationalism in all nations EXCEPT in Israel, though, to be sure, Jews will exploit one kind of nationalism(even ultra-nationalism) if it happens to be opposed to what they deem to be the bigger enemy, e.g. the Jewish Supremacist Power's support of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists against Russia, the nation Jews hate most at the moment, not because Russia is ruled by evil tyrants but because it said NO to globo-homo that is the proxy force and quasi-spiritual crusade of World Jewry.

Anyway, what is the true significance of Nick Fuentes? By 'significance', I mean something larger than Fuentes himself who, like anyone else, has pros and cons. Fuentes is too inexperienced and 'green' to qualify as the leader of anything, though, to be sure, in the age of the internet, old rules no longer apply, for good or ill. Without the internet, there's no way someone so young and 'heretical' as Fuentes could have gained so much popularity(and notoriety). For him to have amounted to something in the movement, he would have had to pay his dues and gradually work up the hierarchy. In the pre-internet age, someone so young could not have risen to prominence so fast... unless, like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk, big money were behind him to build him up as a Teen Idol of Conservatism Inc. Teen Idols of the early 60s were mostly Italian-American pop stars groomed by the industry to make the rebellious and raucous culture of Rock N Roll more palatable to Middle America. Ben Shapiro is like Paul Anka, and Charlie Kirk is like Fabian. But then comes Nick Fuentes with the irreverent, rebellious, and cantankerous demeanor of the often abrasive Bob Dylan. And yet, he has some of the spirited and happy high-energy of the Beatles. Most likely, Fuentes hasn't gone about carefully crafting a persona for himself like Richard Spencer who, very possibly, practiced in front of a mirror as a preppy Neo-Kiplingite mix of Darth Vader, 007, Tom Buchanan, and Batman. In contrast, Fuentes seems almost utterly lacking in self-consciousness, which can be refreshing but also prone to infantile tantrums. His combination of feisty antics and laughing mockery certainly makes for a pretty entertaining show, fun and amusing in the way Camille Paglia when she first exploded on the scene. Also, his allergy to degeneracy and drugs has prevented him from going over the deep end like Milo with sexual matters and Spencer & co. with alcohol and/or drugs. And his comic side seems to have had an easing effect on his considerable ego, also abated by what seems to be sincere faith in Catholicism. In contrast, certain neo-paganists like Spencer tend to fall into the foolish habit of self-worship as if they're Zarathustra 201 because they read some Nietzsche and watched BATMAN movies too many times.

For a person his age, Fuentes seem to be very well-read and erudite about political and historical matters(though he falls way short in the realm of art & culture as he thinks current cinema is the best of all cinema because of 'muh special effects', considers JOKER to some kind of masterpiece, and prefers the dreadful Kanye West to just about any other musical act), especially when we consider that so many young people today, even those in Ivy League schools, tend not to be serious readers. Though Fuentes has read some books by deep thinkers, his aspiration isn't intellectual or philosophical, let alone prophetic. Rather, he's like a young Pat Buchanan who, from a young age, relished politics as a bloodsport. His forte is political analysis but with a candidness generally missing in establishment media, official narrative, and the 'conop', or controlled opposition, of Conservatism Inc. And it is here that we can glean the significance of Nick Fuentes and what he stands for. Whatever may become of Fuentes, who faces serious drawbacks as holds key advantages, he stands for something in the Moment, something rare all across the political spectrum. Among people in mainstream academia and media, there are surely many people who know as much and much more than Fuentes. And privately, they probably see the truth of much of what he is saying, but the fact is they will lose their positions and status if they were to go off the reservation. As in the old Soviet Union, it doesn't matter how many bright, intelligent, and knowledgeable people there may be. Many people in the upper echelons of Soviet institutions knew the truth beyond official dogma, but they kept mum and mouthed the same platitudes because their position and privileges meant more to them; there was also the real fear of something far worse than ostracism: Possible exile and, in some cases, execution. Much the same can be said of the current West. There are no gulags, but people with so much in terms of wealth, connections, privilege, and status can lose them all IF they were to mouth 'inconvenient' truths. And this is what the mavens of the establishment find so frustrating about People-like-Nick-Fuentes or PLN. It's not that PLN knows more than they do. If anything, due to their connections, they know lots of things that most of us don't know. But they can only say so much because if they don't go by the playbook of JSP(Jewish Supremacist Power), they will be subtly or not-so-subtly disfavored and even destroyed.
Also, most people who are on par with Fuentes in terms of wit, intelligence, and energy tend to favor social success and status-climbing uber alles. Privately, they may well know that the MSM is full of shit and that elite institutions are marked by hypocrisy & corruption, but they do not want to jeopardize their chances of making it, especially as opportunities are dwindling for straight whites, especially those even slightly suspected of being 'conservative'. Thus, with most such people, courage and conviction take the backseat to the willingness to be co-opted. "If you can't beat them, join them." For this reason, Fuentes is a rare breed indeed. He truly went against the grain of most people like himself.
And then, there are individuals with plenty of courage and boldness. They share with Fuentes the willingness to put their names and faces online and speak their minds. Such courage is all very good except for the fact that such personality types tend to be reckless, shameless, outlandish(& outrageous), and/or crazy. The most famous example, of course, is none other than Alex Jones. Some say Jones is just 'conop'(controlled opposition), but whatever he is, he's really been out there, shouting his 'truths' and berating people for being sheeple. His boldness has been refreshing, but he's also a very kooky character who's gone out to discredit himself with ridiculous rumors and hysterical exaggerations. There are also many mini-alex-jones or wanna-be-alex-jones all over Youtube and the internet. You can credit them with courage and conviction, but they often say crazy things or tend to act retarded, like Owen Benjamin of the Man-didn't-land-on-the-Moon school. Who can forget Paul Nehlen, the once 'normie' candidate who just went crazy when he came upon the JQ. Patrick Little went off the cliff even more dramatically. They couldn't be faulted for courage, but something in the air has tended to destine "Courage + JQ = Nuttery". Fuentes sanely disavowed Nehlen-gone-nuts and smelled a skunk in Patrick Little from day one. And there is Richard Spencer. Spencer isn't a dabbler of crazy conspiracy theories and nutball narratives, but his shameless ego works like alcohol on his brains. Though there are layers within him that are capable of sound analysis, careful reasoning, and intelligent insight, his core/essence is raving egomania, vapid vanity, preening narcissism, and selfishness, all of which inflated his (lack of a)soul with pathetic delusions of grandeur. His lament seems to be, "Why doesn't the world love, admire, and worship me like I love, admire, and worship myself?" Because you're a fool, Richie Rich. To be sure, the first real blowup between Spencer and Fuentes resulted from the latter misconstruing, willfully or not, Spencer's remark about pornography and pedophiles — Spencer was NOT advocating legalization of child porn — , but Spencer has shown, time and time again, a self-destructive tendency toward deranged reactions as if it's a cosmic betrayal if his coterie doesn't see eye-to-eye on things. The fact that Fuentes spotted this character flaw before most of Spencer's associates and strategically distanced himself from Spencer and his circle now seems to be to his credit.

Anyway, in a sense, Fuentes is a rare breed. Generally, sane, sober, and intelligent individuals tend to be cowards, indeed craven ones at that, who will sacrifice integrity and honor for their slice of the System's Pie. At the other end, bold, courageous, and daring individuals tend to be reckless, shameless, and even not quite right in the head. (Then, there are sane and smart dissident members who do possess courage and integrity but aren't politically interested in the bloodsports of everyday politics. They prefer ideas, analysis, and deep criticism over politics as spectator sports. This is why men like John Derbyshire, though long involved in political analysis, have hardly been at the center of attention, though Derbyshire got some unwanted notoriety when he wrote an article that pointed out that young whites[and Asians] have far more to fear from blacks than the other way around. Unlike most such people, Fuentes relishes being part of the public debate and has shown up at even at events where he's been partially or wholly banned. This combination of sanity & smarts, courage & integrity, and passion for politics-as-spectacle is truly rare in our political culture, especially on the American Right as its members face many more taboos than those on the so-called 'left'. Whereas globalism disdains communism and far-left rhetoric, it doesn't feel threatened by the(at least after the end of the Cold War), whereas it still considers any emergence of nationalism, especially among whites, as the biggest problem. Awakening of white identity could mean white elites and white masses must be one people, thus implying white elites must prioritize representing and leading their white masses than serving the globo-homo Jewish-Zionist masters.) Fuentes has been nimble in navigating through the narrow pathway between the Scylla of craven careerism(where success depends on being a cuck-servant of JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power) and Charybdis of reckless courage(that has sent so many bolder members of society off the cliff). Now, this isn't to suggest that Fuentes possesses the brilliance of Odysseus who couldn't have it back home if not for his wits, and he surely has plenty of time to implode into craven careerism or explode with crackpot courage, but since 2016, it's difficult to think of another personality who was associated with the Alt Right, justly or not, who found that difficult but plausible balance between mainstream appeal and 'shitlord' edginess. This 'navigational' ability is exactly what was missing with Richard Spencer, but then, perhaps the Real Spencer would have emerged sooner or later because, at his core, he is a deranged egotist, whereas Fuentes seems to be a genuine Catholic Conservative with racial-historical consciousness(which makes him closest to Patrick J. Buchanan). Spencer sincerely believes he is some awesome Pop Nietzschean hero, the rightful master of the universe, whereas Fuentes seems to truly believe in God and higher powers/values that are beyond the reach of any single individual. Now, Spencer's nuttery would have been more palatable(with even a dash of awesomeness) if his sense of destiny was fueled by some genuine mad passion, the kind that makes for heroes and prophets in times of crisis. But one can't help feeling that his megalomania is little more than the manifestation of his bratty upbringing where his spoiled self was the center of mommy and daddy's affection and showered with all the toys. It's this sense of entitlement that makes him so insufferable. He says the untermensch of the world should look up at his face and see the master, the one to kneel and bow down to.

Now, it's true that white people, especially the Anglos, did gain awesome power in the last several centuries and dominance over much of the world. Indeed, many non-whites and Jews did look up to a face not unlike his as the countenance of the ruling race. But the crucial difference is that Anglo-whites didn't gain such power and prestige by bratty 'entitlementality'. They didn't go around hissing and ranting about how awesome they are. No, they were serious and sober people with work ethic and conviction who made great sacrifices to, often with their own lives, to create a new order at home and abroad. Nothing was handed to them on a silver platter. If Anglos of the past had Spencer's attitude of entitlement — "I should own the world as my oyster... just because..." — , they wouldn't have achieved much of anything. They believed in industry, dedication, sobriety, and teamwork. There was a time when I rather respected Spencer because I believed he did give up much to follow his vision. After all, given his looks and smarts, he could have gone far in Conservatism Inc. if he'd just played along. He could have been another Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, or even more. But he pursued a far more difficult path that required courage and conviction, and it seemed Spencer had something that most of his peers did not. But year after year, it became more apparent that Spencer lacked focus, consistency, commitment, honor — the way he shut down Alternative Right site without notifying Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki was disgraceful — , and worst of all, a sense of judgment, choosing to work with second-raters like Alex Kurtagic. Instead of staking his reputation on one thing and seeing it through completion, he would go from this project to that to another, just leaving a lot of debris and flotsam along the way(and leaving his associates and partners more than a little betrayed). Spencer seems, at once, manically ambitious and pathologically lazy, and the two characteristics fed into each other. If Spencer were a gold-miner, he would be dreaming only of the mother lode and throwing fits if none were found. When reality doesn't measure up to his entitled sense of expectation, Spencer is totally lost and goes off on another of his wild sheep chases. If he had a sense of pacing and stamina, he could have gradually built up the Alt Right as an intellectual and ideological movement with balance of caution and daring, but his projects never amounted to anything. His golden opportunity — potential mother lode of political fortune — was when the Hillary Camp decided to smear Donald Trump with the 'Alt Right' label, a truly stupid move as most Americans had never heard of the 'alternative right'. It was then that the media needed a 'bad boy' spokesman for the Alt Right, and they settled on Spencer. If Spencer had fully appreciated this as good fortune, a chance of a lifetime that comes but once, he would have appreciated it and handled it with care to grow a movement. But being an egomaniac, he convinced himself that the media were all over him because he is so brilliant, awesome, and irresistible. He began to think that he would be a media darling no matter what he did, and that's when he began to throw away the golden nugget that fell into his hands. It's difficult to think of another person in the last 25 yrs who used his political fortune so unwisely and tragically.

One hopes Fuentes will not make the same mistake, and in his favor, despite his own kind of egotism, he has a sense of humor about himself(as well as a sense of limitations), which Spencer has been sorely lacking. Indeed, it's likely that Spencer still doesn't get that no one that matters takes him seriously. Everyone sees him as a sad joke. Spencer could have used his bohemian streak effectively(as we are living in the age of the hipster), but the loutish side(or core) of him won out. Due to the rather straight-and-square qualities of Fuentes — even his fandom for Kanye West is conformity to cultural norms of his generation — , he is culturally far less interesting than Spencer and the more imaginative figures on the Alt Right, but bohemianism is less suited for politics that generally favors the habits of consistency and steadiness. No wonder Sam Peckinpah made it in cinema, not in politics.

Considering the significance of Nick Fuentes as a rarity who represents both All-American Flavors and a Taste for Dissent, he might be useful as a metaphor or a meme. So, what is Fuentes as a metaphor? What kind of American, Conservative, or Youth does he stand for? It is a political consciousness of defiance, independence, and individuality(and of course contradictions). Oddly enough, even though Fuentes isn't an arch-individualist of the libertarian school, the kind that the likes of Charlie Kirk claim to be, he has a strong individual sense of self that won't be cowed by the Libertarian Machine of Conservatism Inc. that, despite claims of individual freedom and conscience, demands that EVERYONE get behind the globo-homo program, welcome mass-immigration-invasion(along with Great Replacement and 'Erasism' or erasure of white identity), mindlessly support Israel, and support state-sponsored suppression of the BDS movement. Something is strange here. Conservative-communitarian Nick Fuentes is far more likely to speak his mind and offer up genuine dissent whereas all those so-called freedom-and-liberty loving 'libertarian-conservatives' are deathly afraid of the Power & Big Money and always looking over their shoulders at what their sponsors and patrons might think.

If American politics has taught us anything, especially since the end of the Cold War and the ascendancy of Jews as the new ruling elites, it is that we simply cannot rely on 'leaders', 'experts', and 'managers' to decide truth and falsehood for us. We must all be more engaged, not least because the US is the lone superpower whether we like it or not. Even if we choose to be apathetic and not care about other nations, the fact is our taxes are being used to commit horrible crimes around the world. The psychopathic Deep State and the neo-imperialist US military destroy other nations, peoples,and cultures. Indeed, what the Deep State is now doing to America was honed to perfection abroad in so many coups, acts of subversion, terrorism, misinformation campaigns, and invasions. While the CIA, Pentagon, and the military-industrial complex were carrying out such crimes all over the world, most Americans were disengaged and apathetic, which was all to the advantage of the Deep State as so much of its actions did little but serve the interests of Jewish supremacists, war profiteers, and homosexual psychos. And in exploiting and exploding entire parts of the world, the Deep State learned countless tricks, all of which are now being used against Americans. Therefore, all the Americans who used to say, "Just leave me alone" or "I don't care about other people around the world" were utterly misguided. While Americans are not obliged to fix the world's problems, they should at least be aware of the crimes committed by its own government and deep state apparatus in other parts of the world since they are funded by US tax-payers and further their aims via the US military as lethal-invasive force. All those Americans who said, "I don't care about the Palestinians" are now waking up to find out that what Americans had blindly enabled Jews to do to the Palestinians, it is now being done by JSP(Jewish Supremacist Power) against white Americans and white Europeans in what could only be called the White Nakba. What goes around comes around. Americans unthinkingly supported the Zionist destruction of Palestinians(or chose to ignore it as 'not my business'), but it only emboldened Jews to stage an encore on a much grander scale against all of the white world. Due to their higher IQ and ambitious nature, Jews were destined to be powerful in the US, but the current state of Jewish Supremacist domination is, to a large extent, the result of so many whites having chosen to be asleep at the wheel while Jews were plotting to take over the US and use it as their private aircraft carrier and super-gangster-bank to dominate all the world. Obnoxious Jews would never have grown so powerful IF more white people had been engaged in politics(or what-is-being-done-with-your-tax-dollars-and-by-whom-and-why) and stood up to the cancerous growth of JSP(Jewish Supremacist Power), but the opportunity was lost, and American Politics has degenerated into a dog-and-pony show of both parties fetching and rolling over for Jewish Supremacist Power.

In a nation as big as the US, one would like to think there would be more young people like Fuentes, but they are relatively rare. This is especially odd considering that Americans like to take pride in themselves as free-thinkers, dissenters, rebels, mavericks, and rugged individualists. Then, why is there such conformity and consensus of thought among both Democrats and Republicans? Reality seems to suggest that the American Self-Image is mostly a myth. While it may be true that Americans are more direct in manners and forthright in emotions, they are no freer in thought and ideas than any other people. Reality says Americans are sheeple like the rest of humanity, and it's rare to find a wolf who dares to howl out the truth(or for the truth). Of course, it's true that there are many more people like Fuentes who've chosen to remain anonymous and/or silent due to fear of ostracism or to natural timidity, but it seems like MOST people, 'left' or 'right', are content to go along with the consensus, if only for the fact that most people have 'social' personalities that are, above all, sensitive to public perception of them. Thus, they fear to rock the boat and risk being shunned. We can see such tendencies beginning with children. This is why brazen dissenters and truth-tellers tend to be rather asocial, if not anti-social, i.e. they are impervious to peer pressure and un-peeved by public opinion. While those who speak their minds often tend to spout lies, nonsense, or craziness, the will to speak freely regardless of risk is a surer way to the truth than speaking to earn pokemon points of political correctness(be it 'right' or 'left') is.

A free-thinker or free-speaker may be wrong(even terribly so), but the main thrust of his expression is to honestly convey what is truly in his heart and mind. In contrast, while a correct-thinker could speak the truth(if indeed the Official Narrative happens to be true), his main impetus is to seek approval. Thus, even when a free-thinker is speaking falsely, he is motivated by a will for truth, whereas even when a correct-thinker is speaking truthfully, he is incentivized by want of acceptance. If A is true while B is false, the free-thinker who says B is nevertheless sincere in his conviction that what he says is true, whereas the correct-thinker who says A is, above all, less concerned with truth than with confirmation from superiors and peers. This is why all organizations favor correct-thinkers over free-thinkers. Whether on the Right or the Left, the truth-speakers are more difficult to handle or tame.
By Fuentes' own account, he was once approached by Conservatism Inc. but was kicked out the minute he displayed distressing signs of non-conformity, especially where Israel was concerned. And it seems Spencer and others on the Alt Right wanted to shape Fuentes into a good soldier for the movement, but again, Fuentes was too free-spirited to be a mere 'Tom Hagen' type(in THE GODFATHER). Because Fuentes has a strong personality, he tends to stand his own ground and brush away any strings others have tried to tie to his limbs. But the downside of a strong personality, as evinced in Camille Paglia, is the stubborn pride that refuses to admit wrong. That said, Fuentes was quick to disavow Nehlen gone nuts and changed his mind on Donald Trump following the State of the Union speech when the Orange Man said he is for Massive Legal Immigration. So, despite problems of pride, Fuentes hasn't been so rigid and has been flexible enough to modulate his views on key players and current events.
Also, his 'optics' seems to be a genuine outflow of his core convictions. After all, the matter of 'optics' is a double-edged sword. Good 'optics' is admirable as sincere outer manifestation of one's core values and manners, but it is disingenuous and contemptible as a veil over an agenda that is crazy or extreme. Saul Alinsky stood for the second kind of 'optics' as he advised social radicals to dress up as normal middle class folks. In the end, whatever 'optics' tokens Richard Spencer may have had was lost when it became clear that he is a nihilist than a moralist at the core. With someone like Spencer, 'optics' can only be a cover over a stinkpot.

We need more PLN(or People-like-Nick-Fuentes) because the contradictions of the current Power Structure and current Official Narrative are too great. When things get too crazy, we need more free-thinkers than correct-thinkers. It's like the boy was most indispensable in the story "Emperor Has No Clothes" because mass delusion had taken hold of everyone from top to bottom. Someone had to say the obvious, i.e. that the lord was made a fool. The fact of the matter is the US and the West are currently ruled by JSP or Jewish-Supremacist-Power. This is so obvious, but almost no one who matters in media, academia, or government dares say anything. Fuentes' critics may argue that he talks 'obsessively' about Jews, but it's really a counter-obsession to the Real Obsession from top to bottom in US media and politics that does little but sing paeans and hosannas to Jews and Israel. Not only are most of media and much of academia dominated by Jews but we are bombarded day in and day out about how wonderful Jews are, how Israel is our 'closest' and 'greatest' ally, how Jews are the most tragic eternal Holy Holocaust people, how all of humanity must apologize to Jews for Shoah(and whatever else Jews gripe about), and how 'antisemitic' it is to notice negative aspects of Jewish power and influence. According to the Power, the US Congress making an ass of itself by giving Netanyahu 6 million standing ovations is not being obsessed with Jews; US politicians making pilgrimages to Israel and pledging to support Zionists uber alles is not being obsessed with Jews; members of both parties appearing at AIPAC conferences and hailing Israel to high heaven is not being obsessed with Israel; favoring Jews for special pardons by governors and presidents is not being obsessed with Jews. Oh no, it's only normal and natural for us to think of Jews all the time AS LONG AS we have happy-feely and worshipful attitudes about Jews. But if you dare to question the gushing worship of all-things-Jewish and ask some inconvenient questions about the JQ, then YOU are deemed to be 'obsessed' with Jews and/or Israel.

Arguably, Fuentes' main contribution to the Real Conservative Movement has been (1) the willingness to address the JQ in a forthright and satirical(necessary due to increasing censorship) manner and (2) keep away from the derangement syndrome that all-too-often has befallen on those who became woke to the truth of Jewish Power. Fuentes sensibly understands, "Just because Jewish supremacism is bad doesn't mean that Nazism was good." Shooting the rat doesn't mean you must shoot your foot. Talking honestly about Jews shouldn't turn you 14/88, but this tendency has been problematic in the Alt Right. Perhaps, it's because the human mind abhors a vacuum; it craves certainty. So, when young ones realize that the Jewish-controlled worldview is seriously wrong, they feel disoriented & confused and reach for strong medicine that sets the world straight, and this is when some of them go 14/88 because it offers a simple and compelling explanation of the All-Evil-Jew. Too many people simply cannot handle complexity and ambiguity. It's like, if an organism is forced out of one shelter and feels exposed to a hostile world, it will scramble for the nearest shelter. Too many goyim who were liberated from the Official Narrative suddenly feel homeless or rudderless and seek out a simple/powerful explanation as to why the world is as it is. Why is it that Fuentes has been immune to this danger? Part of the reason seems to be self-confidence that he can figure things out for himself than having to rely on some radical Grand Theory to explain the Jews. Thus, he could be critical of Jewish Power without the 14/88 baggage that is really for the Tards. Granted, some have accused Fuentes of being a 'Holocaust Denier', especially on account of his sardonic answer to the question about Cookie Monster baking 6 million cookies, but his irony-laden playful response suggested savvy that, mongoose-like, knew how to cavort with current climate of political correctness. Though it came close to being 'dangerous' and even offensive, the real implication was that we aren't supposed to question any aspect of the Shoah Narrative and just swallow the official narrative whole hog. Instead of just denouncing the caller as a 'neo-nazi' or earnestly going the 'denier' route, Fuentes tiptoed around both, something Ramzpaul is also very good at.

Anyway, Nick Fuentes is a useful metaphor or role-meme for all the young people out there(and not just conservatives) who want to speak their minds freely and without fear. Unless one is retarded, autistic, or specious, there is no way any honest person cannot be aware of the stupefying contradictions that define American Life. Just how is it that Jews, the most powerful people in America(and by extension the world) still act like they are members of a victim group? How is that Jews, the most privileged people, berate white endlessly for 'white privilege'? How is it that Jews who pushed Wars for Israel that destroyed millions of Muslim lives in the Middle East and North Africa posture as defenders of helpless Muslims against 'Islamophobic' bigots in the US? Was it rednecks who made all those Hollywood movies with Muslims as little else but terrorists? How is it that Jews who've done so much to lock up tons of blacks(to bring down urban crime) and used gentrification to push blacks out of cities pretend to be the most compassionate friends of blacks while accusing whites and policemen for all the problems faced by blacks, especially when most blacks are killed by other blacks? How is it that Israel that stole nuclear material from the US and has 300 nukes is showered with money and praise while Iran, a nation that has no nukes, is sanctioned endlessly? How is it that Israel and Zionists who(in cahoots with Saudi Arabia) lent support to ISIS and Alqaeda terrorists in Syria get to accuse Syria and Iran as sponsors of terrorism? Just how did homosexuality and tranny business become the holiest things in the US? Just how did a 'secular' movement of the 'gay agenda' turn into a quasi-spiritual one that seeks to place globo-homo symbols in all churches? And of course, anyone who knows anything knows it was the Jews who funded globo-homo madness as their proxy. And considering that blacks are the most aggressive, dangerous, and thuggish group in America that commits the most crime against non-whites of all colors, how is it that blacks are forever portrayed as pure-as-snow victims? And exactly why do we need a 'new cold war' with Russia, a nation with 1/20th of the economy of the US? And if race is just a myth and social construct, how come so much of media, entertainment, and sports are rife with all sorts of blatant racial stereotypes DESPITE the fact that all such outlets are controlled by Jews who claim to be 'liberal'?

The rational, curious, and inquiring minds want to know. The whole purpose of education is to inspire curiosity, sharpen our critical skills, train us to be analytical, teach us to be skeptical & reject matters of blind faith, and to ask tough questions. And at least in the context of current politics, that is precisely what the PLN(or People-like-Nick-Fuentes) stands for. Whatever his faults and shortcomings, Fuentes has been out there asking the tough questions about the real nature of power and privilege in America. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his basic values or tenets, he's been tirelessly asking tough questions and demanding answers day in and day out. It used to be the case that Liberals were once known for criticality, free inquiry, skepticism, and harboring contrarian views, but that was then, this is now. Jews, the most dominant faction among Liberals, now got the power, and they no longer believe it's salient for people to be curious, critical, and inquiring. Why, such people might confront the truth about Jewish History and demand answers about Jewish Power. Therefore, over the years, Jewish Liberals went from defending free speech and encouraging controversy to pushing indoctrination, blind faith, consensus, and conformism. How many times have we heard Jews say, "The debate is over, we won, you lost, shut up, and kneel!"?

Though Fuentes isn't alone in asking the tough questions and commenting on the true nature of power with scales removed from one's eyes, he's arguably been most successful in conveying his message and building himself into an online personality. And he seems to be emboldening many others of his generation with the notion that "It's Okay to Ask Honest Questions." After all, what is the point of living in a democracy and enjoying liberty & rights IF one must always remain herd-like within the reservation of permitted narrative? In a way, all of us are like in a TRUMAN SHOW(with Jim Carrey and directed by Peter Weir). In the movie, Truman has been brought up to believe that he's a happy citizen in the freest society in the world. He can do anything he wants... or so he's been led to believe. But it turns out that the 'free world' comes with all sorts of controls, contrivances, and manipulations. And when Truman begins to doubt the world around him and decides to go off the reservation, he is blocked at every turn by a series of 'accidents' or 'incidents' that he realizes can't be coincidental. In so many ways, our so-called democracy is like that. We are told we are free and that free speech is a right protected by the Constitution, but whenever anyone mutters anything that is 'triggering', he is threatened, silenced, defamed, and/or deplatformed. But when Jews say far more controversial or offensive things about non-Jews, especially whites, it's perfectly okay or even admirable as far the Power is concerned. We are told about the importance of American freedoms and the bad ole days of Joe McCarthy, but if you're a Palestinian-American who supports BDS, a movement for justice for Palestinians, you will be fired and/or blacklisted in half the states by none other than the government. We are told that US is about colorblind justice, but Jews, blacks, and homos seem to be above the law as so many of them are virtually allowed to do as they please. So many white-collar Jewish crooks got off the hook, and so many black street thugs get away with so much. We are told American universities are places for free thought and open discussion, but if you put those principles into practice and try to have an honest discussion about race, Jews, blacks, and/or homos, the school administrators and police will sit back and let antifa thugs and brainwashed PC students use violence and hysteria to shut you down. US democracy was never perfect and always full of hypocrisy, but it is now worse than ever because the new elites are Jews who, unlike the old Wasp elites, sorely lack the capacity for self-awareness and the virtue of self-criticism. Whether it's a Jewish 'liberal' or Jewish 'conservative', it all boils down to "Is it good for the Jews?" With such Jews controlling both political parties, nearly all media and academia, and so much of finance, American democracy has degenerated into something like an 'octocracy'. With Jewish monopoly domination over so many institutions and industries, so much of the so-called 'opposing factions' are essentially the various tentacles of the same octopus. GOP and Democratic Party are merely two tentacles of the Zioctopus. This is why Jews don't care if states turn 'blue' or 'red'. Whether GOP wins or Democrats win, the priority of both is to serve the Jewish Master.

Against this, PLN(or People-like-Nick-Fuentes) have decided to speak the plain truth. They may not always be right, but they really begin from the premise that, "I want to see reality as it really is, and I want to speak the truth as I really feel it." Even with the hideous Jews at Youtube trying to alter the Terms of Service to restrict free-and-honest speech about the Power — Jews at Youtube seem to follow the control manual out of TRUMAN SHOW — , Fuentes and others like him have managed to do all they can to speak truth to power, candidly and without going over the edge like Spencer, Nehlen, and the rest. Who knows what tomorrow will bring, but for now, Fuentes and Groypers represent a good beginning and deserve credit for being one of the few sane and honest voices out there in a political climate and culture so controlled by the fixers and riggers of the official 'left' and 'right'.

What is a Conservative Movie? Notes on Conservatism and Nostalgia in the Arts and Cinema.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/08/the-leopard/

The discussion of THE LEOPARD(link above) reminds me of National Review's list of BEST CONSERVATIVE MOVIES: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls000074133/ http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.moviedetail/movie_id/19 https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2009/02/23/best-conservative-movies/ https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/feb/20/1

What a philistine list by hack ideologues with no sense of culture. Works like THE LEOPARD weren't listed. Instead, there was PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS, THE PATRIOT, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, and BICYCLE THIEVES.

PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS and PATRIOT, which I haven't seen, are surely crap. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE and BICYCLE THIEVES are great works and one can find conservative elements in them, but it's disingenuous to call them 'conservative' because IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has too much that could be called 'liberal' and the script of BICYCLE THIEVES was by a Marxist-Humanist. One can say the family values element is conservative(but back then, the left wasn't anti-family like it became under increased Jewish, family, and homo influence), but its social critique is essentially leftist.
As for LIVES OF OTHERS, its anti-communism isn't necessarily pro-conservative. If anything, it is an example of Liberal Anti-Communism as the real message of the movie is that inferior hoi polloi like you and I should risk everything, even our lives, for the well-being and privilege of cosmopolitan artists who are surely our superiors.

The National Review list was petty, predictable, partisan, and jingoistic. It lacked imagination, movie knowledge, and bigness of heart. Hardly different from 100 best list you'd find in Premiere magazine if published by GOP hacks.
A genuine list should not favor films simply because conservatives tend to like it. Nor should a movie be chosen because it was made by a conservative, a rare breed in cinema. Movies that could just as easily be labeled liberal should be excluded, like WONDERFUL LIFE. (Indeed, the most ridiculous aspect of the National Review list is the tortured logic that deigns certain works as 'conservative' because of their social policy implications in the Current Year, e.g. if the movie has a high-spirited individual go-getter, maybe it's about libertarianism and lower taxes. There is an air of exaggeration and even desperation in National Review's list because there are so few card-carrying conservatives, let alone Republicans, working in the movie industry here or elsewhere. So, National Review twists logic to argue that certain apolitical or even liberal movies are really 'conservative'. As for films with genuine conservative pedigree, National Review has no interest because, being a hack journal of establishment conservatism, it dares not go near a work that might displease its donor base and philistine readership. Notice there is no mention of Andrei Tarkovsky, the greatest rightist film artist of the 20th century. Too Russian for the NR crowd, it seems. And of course, no mention of THE BIRTH OF A NATION by D.W. Griffith, the father of cinema, because NR is afraid of being called 'racist'. Maybe Dinesh D'Souza can argue that THE BIRTH OF A NATION is really a communist movie.) We must keep in mind that a leftist can make a conservative film just as Jew or atheist can make a Christian film. Some of the greatest Westerns have been made by Europeans who knew little about the real West. Each film need to be judged on its own merit. One must also dispense with the notion that a movie is deserving simply because it's conservative. Too many movies on the NR list aren't all that good but overrated for their presumed(or imagined) ideological content. For a list that bills itself as the BEST Conservative Movies, the works have to be conservative and excellent.
Also keep in mind that because some of the sentiments in the movie are conservative or sympathetic to the conservative viewpoint, it doesn't follow that the movie was conceived or intended to be conservative. Indeed, this applies to THE LEOPARD as well. Luchino Visconti was not proposing the restoration of Sicilian aristocracy. He made it as an elegy to the beauty and majesty that were lost with progress and development; for every gain, there is a loss.

We need a clearer meaning of 'conservative', especially when we are dealing with something as multi-faceted as the Arts. Firstly, it mustn't be confused with reaction or fascism. Both reaction and fascism are activist whereas a certain gentlemanly or dignified passivity is at the core of conservatism. Reactionaries single-mindedly seek to turn back to clock, to reclaim what was lost. They see the past as a golden age. They seek to destroy or suppress innovations whether they be economic, political, technological, or whatever.
Fascism is trickier for it incorporates elements of both right and left. It combines reverence for the past with excitement about the future. It fuses the virility of primitive nature worshiping paganism with transcendental aspirations of higher civilization.
While reaction, conservatism, and fascism can be said to belong on the right of the social or political spectrum, they are not synonymous. This gets even trickier in our age because what passes for conservatism is free market capitalism, the most dynamic and transformative force in the world. Marxists can dream up utopias all they want. In truth, all truly lasting revolutionary economic, social, scientific, and political innovations and changes have arisen from capitalist forces. Even social-democratic nations have economies mainly fueled by capitalism.
So, how odd that today's 'conservative' espouses the most dynamic and uprooting force the world has ever known? A modern conservative basically conserves the most powerful engine of socio-economic change. Take China and India. Since they've adopted global capitalism and free markets, their societies have been changing and growing at breakneck speed. Ideologically, they can be said to have gone 'conservative' in having abandoned their socialist or communist ways. But, capitalism is changing those nations like nothing ever before.

More meaningfully, one can define conservatism thus: The outlook that stands for reverence for the past, preservation of cultural heritage, longing for what may be lost, and etc. A conservative is different from a reactionary in that the former ultimately accepts change even while mourning what will be lost. Reactionaries doggedly cling to the past or struggle to restore it. A conservative understands that change is either necessary or inevitable even as he is threatened by it.

Now, what sets a conservative apart from a liberal(despite the conservative's acceptance of change) is that the former is less willing to simply dump or forget traditions or established conventions as the world changes. His feelings are more invested with the past or the status quo; it's not just a matter of his own power or privilege; he may actually be a poor person but sentimentally attached to the 'old ways'; in this sense, a poor Evangelical in America or poor Italian Catholic woman who feels a sense of loss from change(even though it may economically benefit him or her) can be said to be conservative; he or she doesn't define meaning of life simply on basis of materialism but on cultural norms of what constitutes virtue, sacredness, nobleness, etc. Even if a liberal says "I'll give you $1,000 a month in welfare if you support 'gay marriage'", a poor Evangelical or Catholic will refuse. For many people, a vision of society is as or more important than economic status or power.

Another way to define conservatism would be a search or longing for some core values(in the absence of such), a desire to set down firm roots, to possess a moral compass in life. In this sense, 'Amores Perros' can be said to have conservative themes — though it's certainly not blatantly so and is questioning of globo-capitalism(that prior to 'woke capitalism' was associated with the 'right') — in its rejection of moral relativism and a world defined solely by radicalism or materialism. This isn't to say liberals are immoral or amoral vis-a-vis conservatives. The difference is liberals are less interested in the idea of Core Values. They often take core values as stuffy and rigid or 'essentialist'; they favor fluidity of truth(albeit with rigidity of self-righteousness of the Current Year) in moving away from what society has traditionally deemed as core values, though they tirelessly establish new faddish orthodoxies via political correctness. This venturesomeness can be daring and useful, but it can go off the rails and lead to a world where there is no strong core meaning to guide the individual or unite a increasingly alienated people. Therefore, there lingers a longing for firm values, which is what conservatism(the real kind) offers.

Also, conservatism, though antithetical to relativism, gains special meaning within a relativistic context. In a way, a nostalgic communist in the Russia of the early 1990s could be said to be conservative in the sense that he sought to preserve what had been built up and passed down during 70s yrs of communism. At one time, Christianity was a peripheral and defiant(and even radical) faith; then it became the official dogma and thus 'conservative'. So, conservatism isn't merely about ideology. It can also be a state of mind, a sense of not wanting to let go of what has defined a community and individuals within it. A man can be of leftist ideology yet of conservative personality/mentality/temperament or of rightist ideology yet of liberal personality/mentality/temperament. The mother in GOODBYE LENIN is a diehard communist but also an emotional conservative who clings to what has become familiar to her.

We are largely defined by the ideology we grew up under, yet our personalities and inclinations define how we deal with handed-down spoon-fed values. Newt Gingrich is ideologically conservative but has a somewhat radical personality. Even when conservatives adopt something radical-crazy like 'gay marriage', they try to give it a trad-moralist spin. i.e. "It's conservative cuz 'gays' are adopting family values."
There were Democrats like Richard Daley who were ideologically liberal but had the personality of a conservative family man and head of Irish clan. A conservative is less likely to look down on the past and feel smugly superior; of course, he may feel smugly righteous with established norms(like Archie Bunker). Some conservatives feel it's their duty to counter the rapid pace of change demanded by liberals. As such, they aren't so much anti-liberal as anti-accelerationist. At their best, Liberalism is the accelerator pedal, Conservatism is the brake pedal. There are times when history must be slowed down to make change more cautious and palatable. When Liberalism and Conservatism work together, history works well. Obviously, a car doesn't move forward with its brakes. But then, a car without brakes will soon crash and burn. Today, when Liberalism puts pedal to the metal and Conservatism just cheers it on, we have the currently crazy West of degeneracy and Great Replacement. Of course, most of today's so-called Liberals are white dupes of Jewish supremacist globo-homo power.

In more respects than one, modern conservative reacts against the official ideology of the so-called 'Right'. Though a free market capitalist, he may realize that his favored economic system is overly dynamic and uprooting, therefore needs to be balanced by core values, timeless themes, and even a bit of socialism. (Consider how Tucker Carlson is sounding lately.) He values conservatism precisely because he values change. Because change + change is too much for humanity, he opts for change + balance. He may feel that a counter-power system is necessary to tame the bull-like nature of capitalism. In this sense, a modern conservative is at war with his own party. It's like sailing. To harness the shifting winds to move from place to place, the mast has to be strong and steady. A conservative may feel that extreme liberalism is eager to surrender to the winds whereas his own kind seeks to use them for the ship. He appreciates the power of winds but as something that serves the ship than vice versa. Today, those on the Right want to use the international system for the good of one's own nation, whereas the so-called 'progressives' want to offer up one's nation to the global system. It's 'use the world for the good of our nation' versus 'lose the nation for the good of the world'. (Granted, 'progressives' are really tools of Jews whose secret motto is 'use all the goy world to ensure Jewish supremacist rule forever.') Western Expansion could be said to have been an artful combination of liberal and conservative principles. There was the curiosity to find new lands and go where the winds carried the ships, and yet, there was also mastery of machinery and methodology to ensure that the forces of nature served man than man surrendered to forces of nature. Thus, the West could expand far and wide but still maintain their ways, manners, and values far away from home.

Conservatism has a certain sentimentality for the past, traditions, established conventions, long standing rituals. But, conservatism doesn't have a clear agenda like reactionary-ism nor does it have the quasi-radical edge or the fighting spirit of fascism. Conservatism in the modern era is essentially bourgeois(especially in Europe) or about the Common Man(especially in the US). Conservatives come in different shapes and colors. Some resemble reactionaries. Some tend to be liberalish. But even liberal-ish conservatives who realize that change is necessary may lament that something grand, beautiful, or meaningful will be lost, perhaps for good, with the necessary change. There is a sense of elegy with the resigned acceptance of progress. It's there in MAKIOKA SISTERS and MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. Neither film suggests the past was preferable, but they do invoke a sense of what's been lost, forgotten, and paved over by progress. Also, there is a subjectivity to nostalgia. Those without memory of what had once been won't understand the poetry and melancholia. It is why the ending of MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is doubly sad. Not only is something lost but there is no one around to share the character's sense of loss.
Conservatism is also a matter of personality, i.e. some feel the loss with greater sensitivity than others do, just like some people mourn the death of their loved ones more strongly. Conservatism isn't merely a preference for previous power-arrangements but nostalgia for how it used-to-be, even if what-had-been was far from ideal. In more ways than one, THE LEOPARD(the film) is more a work of nostalgia than conservatism. It doesn't long for the past in terms of power-politics but acknowledges the regal splendor that passed away with change and modernity; it's like what Ruth Gordon says in HAROLD AND MAUDE: "I don't regret the kingdoms - what sense in borders and nations and patriotism? But I miss the kings. Also, those who knew nothing of this past, culture, and order could hardly miss it as nostalgia is about what one remembers but no longer has. As most people weren't aristocrats, they could hardly feel nostalgic for the aristocratic order, of which they have no memory. For the hoi polloi viewers, their impression of THE LEOPARD will be less of nostalgia than of fascination with a world of riches and grandeur. Still, even the hoi polloi may feel a certain shared-nostalgia because fiction allows the audience to empathize with the characters. To the extent that the viewers come to intimately participate in the life of a prince(especially in a work as masterly as that of Visconti's), they do feel some measure his grief and quiet tragedy.


Libertarian movies shouldn't count as conservative because there is little sense of love or reverence for the past or tradition. Libertarianism is free-market-'fascism'-of-the-individual. If Italian Fascism said there is one and only Il Duce in the form of Mussolini and all Italians must gather around him, Ayn Randism says each person should be his or her own Mussolini(and since she knew everything, every individualist-Mussolini would really be her mental minion; Rand was a radical mono-individualist who decreed how all individuals must think and feel in order to be 'free' and 'rational': Like Her). Rand, as we know, had little respect or love for American or Russian heritage(or for the Jewish one for that matter though she certainly had a Jewish Personality & radical will and supported Zionism against Arabs whom she denigrated as 'barbarians'). What she liked about America was the opportunity for growth, riches, and change fueled by radical individualist freedom. She couldn't have cared less about American folks lived in prairie towns who wore Sunday best for Church attendance.

List of conservative movies should be chosen based on merit alone. Suppose some Homo-Marxist made a movie with noticeable conservative themes. His inclinations shouldn't negate the work's content. But suppose an inferior work was made by a prominent someone known to be 'conservative'. If it isn't good, there's no sense pretending it is just because he happens to be in the 'right' camp. No sense lauding something just because it was made by Mel Gibson or happens to be pro-family or pro-Christian. PASSION was underrated by its detractors but way overrated by hardcore Christian types and Conservatism Inc., which also dutifully wet its pants over BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT. Furthermore, no special consideration should be given to crowd-pleasing movies. It's dubious that FORREST GUMP is really a conservative movie, but people like Pat Buchanan slurped up its cheap sentimentality.

It's worth noting that some of the greatest films ever are conservative-themed(or right-wing) yet made by liberals. Why would that be? Maybe because liberals are artistically more curious, open-minded, and experimental whereas conservative themes are meatier and/or more substantive: The bond of blood or triumph of spirit runs deeper than ink of justice. It's rightness vs righteousness. The Right feels right, whereas the Left has to feel righteous. 'Being' itself is right enough for the Right, whereas only 'being right' is right for the Left. We see this in the dichotomy of the White Right and White Left. White Right is content with being white and would be happy to have their own homelands and be left alone. White Left feels justified only when it feels righteous about something, and if opening white nations to the world is deemed the 'right thing to do', they must hysterically go about realizing such vision... if only to feel more self-righteous.

Also, art works through friction and tension, and the tension between liberal curiosity and conservative density makes for interesting dynamics. APOCALYPSE NOW is more interesting for the creative tension between Francis Ford Coppola's liberal leanings and John Milius' right-wing vision. A liberal making a liberal movie might be comfortable with the material; he merely has to endorse it. The element of friction would be absent. However, a liberal working with conservative themes must struggle with them; this makes for creative tension and dialectic sparks.
Also, power, privilege, sanctity, spirituality — the favored themes of conservatism — are ultimately more interesting and resilient than do-goodery and social consciousness. Would most people rather see a movie about Don Corleone or a do-gooder social activist? A leftist revolutionary can be an interesting material for a movie, but he has to be hyper-charged with action. A leftist is interesting for the way he tries to change the world. A conservative is interesting simply for being a part of the world. A leftist must transform the world to have meaning, whereas a conservative already has meaning in his world. The prince of THE LEOPARD merely needs to be an aristocrat to be regal and majestic. In contrast, a leftist revolutionary has to throw bombs or make speeches to be somebody. The king is interesting because he lives in a castle and HAS power. The rebel trying to overthrow the king is interesting because he WANTS power. To the extent that all rebels eventually want power and to rule, they are working toward what eventually becomes the New Conservatism. In the end, it's about power than ideals, and all leftisms become rightisms. Indeed, leftism is essentially the wanna-be new rightism. Look how the Jewish 'Liberals' became the new ruling class in the West and will go about doing just about anything to conserve their power. Granted, Jews aren't merely conservative because they aren't content merely with keeping with what they got but salivate for more and more. They are conservatives with what they have and expansives with what they don't yet have but crave.

Despite being mass entertainment and perhaps the most democratic of art-forms, cinema may essentially be a very conservative art form in one sense: Nearly all movies create larger-than-life-heroes. Rightism is distinct from egalitarian leftism in the acceptance of hierarchy. To be sure, there are different kinds of hierarchies — based on blood, merit, or gangsterism. The thing is, even a movie about leftists like Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin would mythologize them as a Special Higher being, a king-like or even godlike figure. Presence of larger-than-life figures runs against the ideal of leftism that is egalitarian and says NO ONE should be bigger or larger than anyone else.
But, movies make the heroes and main characters larger-than-life, larger than ordinary mortals. They give us heroes who dwarf the hoi polloi both figuratively and literally(as they're magnified on the big screen). So, 'Michael Collins' isn't just an Irish revolutionary but something like a demigod. Even a whacko like Travis Bickle in TAXI DRIVER becomes a mythic anti-hero. This wouldn't necessarily be the case with drama or novel. Both work on the human level and proportions. They don't present giants on the big screen, whose moments are further heightened by music. Opera's exaggerated vocals may be the closest thing to the exaggerated image of cinema.
Movies almost always create mythic heroes; it's largely due to the size of the screen but also the power of editing and the sped-up narrative(that takes us all over the map across time and space). Now, this isn't the case with the films of the Dardennes Brothers or Jean-Luc Godard. Or with something like Ermano Olmis' TREE OF THE WOODEN CLOGS where the realist-setting and the way of life are more important than any single character. Still, especially with the impact of the Auteur Theory, we do feel the personal signature of the star director as a near-godly presence. Most movies have this power over us. Even a movie about leftists or leftist ideals become rightist or even 'fascist' in its presentation. A profound sense of hierarchy is unmistakable. Take V FOR VENDETTA(a terrible movie to be sure) where the hero becomes not just a warrior for justice but a demagogic super-duper-man of awesomeness. Or take MALCOLM X. He is elevated to silver screen aristocracy, and all the Negro kids in the audience were supposed to stand up and say "I's Macum X."

Now, some genuinely conservative films:

The Leopard, Makioka Sisters, Tokyo Story, Apu Trilogy (boy grows to manhood, seeks freedom, but realizes he's part of something bigger, part of a continuum), Music Room (leading character is a decadent aristo BUT the film captures the seductive allure of leisure and privilege), Andrei Rublev, Stalker, Tree of the Wooden Clogs(critical of social inequality of Old Italy BUT a paean to the virtues and decency of simple god-fearing peasant folks), Diary of a Country Priest, Time Regained, Sunshine(by Szabo, conservative at least in its insistence on importance of Jewish memory), Ride the High Country, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander Nevsky, Nixon, The Godfather, Six Moral Tales, Fanny and Alexander(for family and liberalism), High and Low, Magnificent Ambersons, Chimes at Midnight, Barry Lyndon, An Unfinished Piece for a Mechanical Piano, Burnt by the Sun(revolution destroys a national hero and devours the family unit), Siberiade, Ugetsu, The Long Riders, Birth of a Nation, Once Upon a Time in the West, Farewell My Concubine, Earrings of Madame de, Christmas Story, Radio Days, Man Who Knew Too Much, The Birds, My Father's Glory, My Mother's Castle, Age of Innocence, Time of the Gypsies, Great Expectations, Amorres Perros, Notre Musique, The Return(Russian), Nostalghia(Tarkovsky), Metropolitan, Last Days of Disco.