Monday, January 14, 2019

If the Homo-Tranny Community goes by the Acronym LGBT or LGBTQ, the Straight-Moral Community should go by NSMF or NSMFR: Normal-Straight-Male-Female-Real

It's comical that the Homo(and Tranny) Community should be called LGBT or LGBTQ considering that only 2.5% of the population is genuinely homosexual(and trans-gender). L is for Lesbian, G is for Gay, B is for Bi-Sexual, and T is for Trans-gender. Some even add Q for Queer, which is even more redundant. But why do they need L and G when H(for Homosexual) will do just fine? After all, 'Homosexual' comprises both lesbians and male homos, aka 'gays'. As for 'bisexual', they should just be counted as 'homosexual' since they do homo stuff. After all, if someone is both criminal and cop, he is essentially a criminal. A crooked cop has lost the right to be considered a cop, an upholder of law and order. As for trannies, they are such a small fraction of the population that it's ridiculous to treat them like some important social group. The current Tranny-mania is all due to mass hype by the Jewish-controlled Media. Take away the delirious promotion of trannies as the new 'angels', and no one would notice or care about those clowns. Furthermore, some trannies seem to be just extra-twisted homos while the rest are more demento-sexual than anything else. In a sane world, most people would agree that Bruce 'Caitlyn' Jenner has lost his marbles. As for Q, it's just another name for 'homosexual'; the only difference is Q-types tend to be more culturally & intellectually oriented and more willing to make a BIG deal of their homo-ness. So, the a 4-or-5 letter acronym to describe a tiny percentage of the population doesn't make much sense. Granted, I suppose it could be worse as some 'scholars' in so-called Gender Studies insist that there are maybe 50 or more genders to choose from. If you've ever looked at the list, all of them are just quirky synonyms for straight, homo, or gender-trollish. Indeed, if the trolls at 4chan wanted to mock Gender Studies, they couldn't have done it any better because universities are now unwittingly into self-parody(and gets awfully triggered when exposed).

Why all this hair-splitting over a mere 2.5% of the population? Granted, Americans are so stupid and misinformed(not least due to brainwashing by the Jew-run media, academia, and entertainment) that many Americans think that up to 25% of Americans are 'gay' or LGBTQ or whatever. Also, because of the Globo-Homo Jewish Pavlovian trick of associating 'gays' with cleanliness, kindliness, smiles-and-sunshine, lace and linen, the 'new normal', and even holiness(what with homo-colors now being displayed in churches & important occasions and with homo casualties of AIDS being canonized like saints), the majority of Americans now think there is nothing holier and more sacred than 'gayness'. Jews want it this way because Homomania is really Jewish-concocted, Jewish-funded, and Jewish-promoted proxy for Jewish globalist supremacism. Jews value homos as allies because both groups are ambitious, arrogant, and high-achievement(in many of the same sectors of vice, entertainment, narcissism, elitism, gangsterism, and intellectualism). Also, Jews want to normalize the idea that a minority elite should rule over a servile and cuckish majority. So, vast majority of non-Jews sucking up to the Jews = elite minority supremacism = vast majority of straights sucking up to Homos(and trannies).
But the fact remains that the Homo or H-Community is only 2.5% of the population, if that. Granted, some estimates put the percentage of LGBTQ folks at around 3.5% of the population, but even that is a small number. Why do we need L and G and B and T and Q(though some activists want to tag on even more letters) to name such a small community that could easily be summed up as HOMO or H is beyond common sense? One reason is Homos, the most powerful of whom are men, want to distract us from the biological fact of what homo-men do. They don't want us to focus on their being Ass-boys, or guys who stick their dongs up the arseholes of other men. They don't want us to ass-ociate homosexuality with fecal penetration among men. Even as they insist that homosexuality is BIOLOGICAL(and even genetic), they want us to regard homosexuality as essentially a cultural, creative, or even spiritual endeavor. So, we should look at the cultural manifestations and expressions of the Homo Community than focus on what homos do for 'sex'. (This is rather self-defeating because so much of homo expressions are lurid, erotic, and even downright pornographic. After all, most of what happens at 'gay pride' festivals are not reminders that Andre Gide and Marcel Proust were homos but that 'gays' are wild & crazy and want to have orgies in bathhouses.) Even if it's true that homos are disproportionately represented in the arts, culture, fashion, design, and entertainment -- the 'creative' domains -- , the fact is most homos aren't all that talented, and some have no sense for art. If homoness = creativity, it would follow that non-creative homos are not homo or 'gay'. But the fact is even the dumbest and least creative assboy is still a homo because he wants to indulge in penis-sucking and fecal penetration. If there is a common denominator among rich homos, poor homos, smart homos, dumb homos, creative homos, and un-creative homos, it's the fact that, when it comes to 'sexual' pleasure, they are all assboys, assniks, or asskins. Furthermore, there are plenty of non-homos even in fields commonly associated with homos. A lot of women work in fashion, and if there aren't more of them, it's because the 'Gay Mafia' conspire to keep the choicest positions for themselves. Some women grumble about this, but most dare not press the issue for the same reason that most non-Jews remain silent about crooked Jews in Hollywood. Homos, like Jews, are seen as sacred objects, and complaining about 'too many gays' or 'gay collusion' could lead to charges of 'homophobia'. And, that is why fashion has become more homo-heavy than it really needs to be. Also, there are plenty of straight men in arts and design. While homos are clearly disproportionately represented in such fields, they are far from being the exclusive domains of 'gay creativity'. Besides, there could be more non-homo men in certain fields IF such weren't so carefully guarded by the 'gay mafia' as their own. Homos are bitchy-shameless in working together behind-the-scenes and under-the-table to rig things in their favor. They are just like Jews and Asian-Indians in networking and intra-favoritism, if not more so. And because they have powerful allies among Jews, they can get away with a lot of things. Consider how so many homo perverts like Ed Buck got away with so much bad behavior because the corrupt Law was on his side. Rule of Law is for the birds, as far as the elites are concerned. The well-connected, esp if Jewish or homo, can get away with lots of stuff that we can't even imagine.

One reason why many non-homos steer free of homo-dominated fields and industries is because there is little recourse to being abused. If a homo grabs your ass or crotch and if you complain(and the matter turns into one of 'he said, he said'), the homo will have the edge because the Law and Media(both controlled by Jews) will side with the homo. Any media person or lawyer(or law firm) that takes a tough stance against corrupt & powerful Jews or homos knows that he will be targeted for destruction. (When Jews or homos fall, they are usually brought down by other Jews or homos. It's like only blacks can call black people 'nigger'.) Jews and Homos act like mafia goons. As far as they're concerned, Rule of Law is for the little guy. They use every dirty trick in the book to get theirs, and because of the Jew Taboo(the tripwire of 'antisemitism') and Gay Rites(the fear of blaspheming the Holy Homo with 'homophobia'), they can easily silence anyone left and right as they're backed with media power and mob passion(as tons of PC idiots can be relied upon to foam at the mouth and bark rabidly like deranged hounds in online forums or real-life protests; their lives and souls are so hollow that their main mode of feeling righteous is worshiping the Holy Homo and Tranny Angel). So, Jewish bad boys(and bad girls) and Homo perverts have gotten away with so much rotten behavior, all the while playing 'victim' against any criticism that is characterized as 'antisemitic' or 'homophobic'.

Anyway, if the H-Community insists on labeling itself as LGBT or LGBTQ, then the straight community should follow suit. After all, the straight community has more reasons to do so because there are so many more straight and normal people than homo and queer ones. Surely, if a mere 2.5% of the population gets to claim 4 or 5 letters to form an acronym, then the 97.5% of the population has even more justification for doing so. Then, what should be the acronym for the straight community? Well, there is N for Normal. There is S for Straight. There is M for male and F for female. That would be NSMF, but we may add R to mean Real: NSMFR. Why 'real'? Because unlike the LGBTQ pseudo-intellectualism that prefers to play with notions of 'gender', NSMFR-thought prefers the reality of Sex. Gender means socio-cultural constructions of sexual roles, whereas Sex means the biological reality of male and female. Now, used wisely, both terms are meaningful. After all, while it's biologically true that there are two sexes, male and female, the truth is different cultures and periods define manhood and womanhood somewhat differently. Some cultures believe it's okay for men to show their emotions and even cry, while other cultures say that's sissy behavior only suitable for womenfolk. Also, culture changes over time. At one time, it was common in the West for men to have long hair. And then, long hair was almost exclusively for women while men had short hair. But in the 1960s, it was vogue for men to grow their hair long again. So, gender is a useful notion in understanding that different cultures and different periods define manhood and womanhood differently. The problem is when notions of gender turn into a full-blown ideology and claim that maleness and femaleness themselves are social constructs than biological realities. That is surely crazy. Consider: Different cultures defined childhood and adulthood differently. What is deemed childish in one culture is acceptable among adults in another culture. So, society goes a long way in defining the ways of childhood and adulthood. However, it'd be crazy to conclude that, because culture plays a key role in defining the perimeters of the various stages of life, childhood and adulthood must totally be social constructs and have no basis in biological reality. That would mean puberty is a social than a biological process. While there is a grey area between childhood and adulthood, there is clearly a stage known as childhood and a state known as adulthood. (Maybe the rise of gender-confusion has something to do with arrested development, a perennial teenage-mentality among so many adults. After all, while there is obvious childhood and obvious adulthood, it is difficult to discern exactly when a child becomes an adult. It is a dramatic but gradual process whereupon children undergo hormonal changes to 'metamorphose' from kid to grown-up. But for several years, they have attributes of both children and adults, and they are very confused during this process. But eventually, the childhood phase is gone for good, and who was once a child and then a child-adult is fully an adult. Or, it used to be like that. But with the rise of Youth Culture, so many people are still stuck with teenage-mentalities[or even lower]. Whether it's adult males in the US hooked to comic book movies, Japanese women hooked to Hello Kitty, or even the cultural class seriously pontificating about silly Pop-Idol music, it's like so many adults failed to psycho-emotionally make it to adulthood even if their bodies did. The vile pop star madonna is still stuck on teenage-mentality. We have middle-aged women getting green or purple hair like they're Cyndi Lauper of "Girls Just Wanna Fun" fame. Many people, especially women, seem to be mentally aging backward when they reach their late 30s, trying ever more desperately to regain their youth. And consider Michael Jackson who was infected with a serious case of Peter-Pan-ism. Of course, Peter Pan character is both androgynous and 'agingynous', a creature between male and female, between childhood and adulthood. On Broadway, he was always played by a female for some reason.)
By using the acronym LGBTQ, the H-Community has created the impression that it is much bigger than it really is. It's like birds puff up their plumage to seem larger and more intimidating or attractive. Homos have exaggerated their power by 'Political/Cultural Plumaging'. With the backing of powerful Jewish globalists and their soulless cuck-collaborators, Homos have been allowed to take over entire downtown areas for parades, grab an entire month for themselves, claim 'gay' and 'pride' as almost exclusively homo-related terms, festoon places secular and religious with homo 'rainbow' colors, and grab token roles in even in movies and TV shows that have nothing to do with homosexuality. The cult of Gay Rites is such that a shortcut to righteousness is to recite Holy Homo sacraments. After all, Associative Morality is so much easier than active morality. It's much more challenging to actually do a good deed than score righteous Pokemon points by mouthing PC platitudes or waving the Homo flag. Christians, especially Catholics, were masters of Associative Morality over the centuries. So, never mind all the un-Christian, greedy, and nasty things they did. As long as they repeated certain rituals and recitations of faith, they were on the side of the Good. How easier to justify yourself with blessed chants and holy symbols than to actually go out there and DO SOMETHING to make the world a better place. And PC morons are just a secular version of Catholic Associative-Moralists. As long as they gesture 'correctly' with 'gay' colors and chant about 'diversity' & 'inclusion', they are on the side of the 'good' because the Power says so.
Just like a peacock exaggerates its size with grandiose display of feathers, the Homo Community uses globo-homo pageantry to fool the world into thinking it is much bigger than it really is.
In fact, despite all the hype, promotion, and marketing, the H-Community is only 2.5% of the entire population. Granted, the Homomaniacal propaganda beginning with kids(who are so naive, impressionable, and eager-to-please) is such that one report from Britain shows that nearly half the boys identify as something other than straight and male. In a world where kids are raised with 'gay' colors(as the holiest symbol) and reminded that homos-and-trannies deserve the most love and adoration, naturally a lot of silly children(for whom PC is the dominant ideology and Pop Culture is the only culture) don't want to be thought of as someone tagged with 'toxic masculinity'. Craziness can become the social norm by distortion fields of corrupt power. Consider how foot-binding had once become the norm among Chinese women. Look at the spread of tattoos or body graffiti(and uglier piercing) in today's degenerate society where most people know only PC and/or Pop Culture(now totally defined by nasty Jews, homo perverts, numbnut skanks, black thugs, and pathetic cucky-wucks).

The undeniable truth is the straight community is totally essential and much larger than the H-community. After all, even homos(and trannies) were created by real sex by men and women. (We are now told that 'men' can have kids too, but such people are merely women pretending to be 'men'. One thing for sure, men who pretend to be 'women' cannot have kids. Funny that if indeed 'sex is just a social construct called gender'.) So, 'gay pride' is really False Pride. Besides, how can any real pride be based on fecal penetration and penis-sucking among men or vaginal-grinding among women, neither of which has ANY biological purpose or meaning? But then, at least vaginal grinding is relatively clean, whereas homo fecal penetration among men is downright gross, sickening, unhealthy, and disease-spreading. It is Homo-Factual, not 'homophobic', to state the obvious physical facts associated with assboys and their putrid behavior. In a free society, we can accept the right or freedom of homo men to do as they please, but such people have no right to forbid us from speaking the truth. Homo fecal penetration is objectively gross and disgusting. Just how is it good and sound for a male sex organ to enter a poopchute? And how is it healthy for an anus to be pummeled by penises? It's only good for spreading germs and diseases. So, all this talk of 'gay pride' is based on falsehoods that became rampant only because the academia, media, courts, finance, and whore-politicians are owned and controlled by Jews who are most closely allied with homos. And many elite non-Jewish cucks went along because they realized that homos are on their side socio-economically and because, being soulless and craven, their substitute for both Christianity and Enlightenment has come to be Homomania, a perverse neo-spiritualization of secular decadence. (As for conservatives who are privately repulsed by Homomania, they kept silent because of the fear of Jewish Power that threatened anyone who overtly opposes the Agenda with excommunication and exile from elite circles.) If 'gay pride' is false pride, then REAL PRIDE is about the truth of love between men and women that is the foundation of life and meaning. So, let homos yammer about the false pride of 'gay pride'. Normal-Straight-Male-Female-Realists or NSMFR's should own REAL PRIDE. And the 'gay rainbow' of the LGBTQ freaks should be countered with the True Rainbow of the NSMFR. Though I've never been a Believer, I can appreciate the symbolism of the rainbow in the story of Noah and the Ark. How did Noah save life on Earth? He took one male and one female of each species, and upon finding land, the animals in Noah's ship embarked to replenish the world with life once again. That is the truth of life. It is created through the union of male and female. It is as true as 2 + 2 = 4 and the fact that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. But, Jews who've gained control of media, academia, finance, courts, and government would have us believe that homosexuality is just as biologically viable and normal(or new normal) as Real Sexuality between Man and Woman. Jews have fooled the dummies and the shallows. Dumb people can be made to believe anything, and shallow people, even if smart, are slaves of fads and fashion in their conceit of being 'cutting edge' or 'more evolved'. Their eyes are focused on what trinkets are hung on trees than on how the tree is alive only because of its deep roots in the soil. The truth of life is like a tree. And yet, there is a mystery to life that makes it seem a miracle. And that miracle is the creation of life from the love between man and woman. Then, it is fitting that in the Noah Story, the rainbow is associated with rebirth of life and re-population of the Earth by the mating of male and female. But in our deranged age, Jews have associated the rainbow with homo fecal penetration, lesbian poon-grinding, and tranny dick-and-ball-cutting-to-get-fake-vaginas.
Now, not all Jews are so demented as to support such foulness, but the great majority of Jews are totally supportive of Homomania, mainly because they see it as a proxy of Jewish globo-homo supremacism. We must reclaim the rainbow, the True Rainbow. Let homos have their 'gay rainbow' that is associated with buggery and penis-cutting. The True Rainbow must be associated with Noah and the truth of life, as either gift of God or product of evolutionary process. God or nature, the fact of life is that all complex animals and humans are born of male and female involving the proper use of sexual organs.
We hear so much about the hate and intolerance toward the LGBTQ community, but the fact is the Jew-run West is now all about hate and intolerance of the NSMFR Community, which is 97.5% of humanity. Just like Jews who are 2% of America push around the 98% that is gentile, Homos and Trannies(who are 2.5% of the population) push the rest of us around. Homos and even Trannies act in such manner because they have the backing of Jews. Just like the Tattaglias in THE GODFATHER got cocky because Barzini had their back, Homos know they can gay-whip the rest of us as long as all-powerful Jews keep them as the #1 ally.

This is why Homos are so hellbent on serving Jewish Globo-Homo power. Wherever Jewish Hegemony spreads, the priority is given to Homomania. Indeed, given the cult of Gay Rites, Jews can 'pink-wash' all their crimes around thew world by sticking Gay Victory Flags all over. So, Jewish financial gangsters on Wall Street and Zionist-globalist warmongers have been able to justify their deeds as being in service of spreading Holy Homomania. Just like so many morally-minded Westerners once supported imperialism as a vehicle of Christianity, so many proggies support globo-homo imperialism as a spreader of Holy Homo Faith. If Pentagon paints 'gay' colors on a bomb, most proggies will not protest even if it kills many innocents in the Middle East and Ukraine. After all, it'd be a holy homo bomb. Because homos are naturally arrogant, snobby, and narcissistic, the notion of 'enough' is not in their vocabulary. They want to be cheered and praised by all the world. They want to own the entire world as their stage, strut around like fashion models, and wave their sassy-assy homo colors at everyone. If Jews have chutzpah that makes them insatiable with power-lust, egomania, and greed, Homos have poopchutzpah that makes them preen like globo-neo-aristocrats over the unwashed masses. Jews whine about 'antisemitism'(and homos nag about 'homophobia'), but the Current West is all about Jewish globalists robbing us blind, addicting us to opioids, feeding us cultural slop, and hooking us to gambling. It is also about Jews riding the White Horse to wage Hate Campaigns around the world at Russia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Palestinians. Jews bitch about 'hate', but it's hard to think of another people as hate-filled and murderous as Jews. Jews insist that we must keep bombing nations hated by Israel. Jews insist we must hate Russia and Iran even though it's the Jews, not Russians or Iranians, who robbed us financially and are taking away our freedom, rights, guns, pride, and border security. Chutzpahistic Jews are great at projection. They hate and hate, but when we say NO MORE to their hatred and demand liberation from Jewish Supremacism, they accuse Us of hate. Imagine that. It's like a master blaming a slave-who-wants-to-be-free-of-the-master of 'slavery'. So, if we no longer want to hate Russia, Iran, Syria, Libya, & Palestinians and if we no longer want to take part in Wars for Israel, Jews say WE are guilty of 'hate' and 'antisemitism'. What a vile disgusting bunch of people. Granted, not all Jews are this demented, and there are courageous Jewish voices who see the injustice of what Jewish globalist-supremacists are doing, but they are too few and far between, and the depressing fact is that nearly all powerful Jews are globo-homo supremacists and warmongers and the vast majority of Jews support the globo-homo hegemonic imperialism of monsters like Sheldon Adelson and Chuck Schumer. Scratch the surface of Jewishness, and there is little difference between Jewish Liberals and Jewish Conservatives. Both are just veiling themselves behind convenient ideologies to push forth what is essentially a Tribal-Supremacist Agenda.

As for homos and trannies of the LGBTQ community, we know how hissy, bitchy, nasty, and vicious these preening, sneering, snobby, snotty, narcissistic, neo-aristocratic, and hyper-elitist pricks can be. Homos were never going to be content with mere tolerance because, as with Jews and Negroes, there is something ultra-egomaniacal and megalomaniacal about their character. There is a reason why so many homos gravitate toward fashion, entertainment, vice industries, and elite sectors. This is especially true of homo men. They have the combination of male aggression and female vanity. Imagine combining James Cagney with the Queen in SNOW WHITE, and there you have the basic homo character. (What makes homo men especially neurotic is they are obsessive about order, neatness, and cleanliness BUT they indulge in gross acts like fecal penetration. Homos are germ-freaks who smear their puds with fecal matter. Homos are more sensitive of odors but stick their dongs in the most malodorous part of the body. It's no wonder they are so twisted in the head. But because so many homos are so fastidious in public demeanor, they are regarded as cleaner-than-clean, even though their public image hides so much that is gross about their 'sexual' behavior. Indeed, because of people are so besotted with the fancy-pants public image of homos, they get upset when reminded that homos actually indulge in gross acts like bung-donging. It's like triggering a snob at a fancy restaurant that his dish is the product of slaughter of animals OR some oligarch that his fortune owed to the military-industrial-complex that destroyed countless innocent lives in the Middle East.) So, once society decided to let homos run around footloose, dickloose, and buttloose, they were likely to act in wretched ways. In a way, the trajectory of homos paralleled that of Counterculture. The truly wild & crazy mavericks burned out in the 60s and 70s with excessive drugs, sex, and/or violence. In the end, the real winners were the less reckless radicals who hit the books and gained access to institutions. Likewise, the truly wild homos dropped like flies in the 80s in the AIDS epidemic because they couldn't resist going from bathhouse to bathhouse to bugger as many bungs as possible. They burned out or were burned by HIV. In the long run, the rise of homo supremacy owed to homos with a modicum of self-control to go for the bigger pie than the easy fudge. The self-restrained homos were just as subversive deep down inside, but they favored long-term power, prestige, and privilege over short-term debauchery and revelry. Paradoxically, the 'conservative'-styled homos were more dangerous in the long run because they could suppress their homo-lust and work patiently to gain access to the kind of people who mattered most. The kind of homo in the movie NO WAY OUT gained the most power by making themselves useful(even indispensable) to the powers-that-be. And being so close to power, they had the dirt on everyone, so if they went down, they could take others down with them. So, they came to be protected by the Power.

Anyway, just consider how the Homos(and even Trannies) wield their power in the Current Order. They bitch about 'intolerance' and 'hate', but they act queenie-meanie with neo-aristocratic airs. With the crucial help of Jews and craven cucks, they pushed through 'Gay Marriage' that would have us believe that the time-honored and bio-morally meaningful institution of marriage should be extended to guys who bugger each other in the butt or to go doctors and say, "Doc, cut off my dick and give me a fake pussy." It's not enough that they managed to push this degeneracy; they must go about acting like Cultural-Terminators hunting and mowing down anyone who refuses to swallow the validity of 'gay marriage'. These homos weren't content to be tolerated and free. They weren't content to push through 'gay marriage'. They aren't even content with destroying(with the help of Jews, of course) those who find 'gay marriage' and homo fecal-penetration to be gross. They now even demand that all churches(and even mosques) fly 'gay' colors and worship the homo butt with a pink dildo stuck inside.
In other words, LGBTQ agenda is an act of hate, intolerance, defamation, and desecration against the true values and symbols of the Normal-Straight-Male-Female-Realist or NSMFR community. It is time that the NSMFR community came together and spoke truth to power. It's about time they waved their symbols of the True Rainbow. It's about time they dug in their heels as to the facts of Real Sexuality. Truth and Reality are something we can't have enough of. In a world where Jews and the H-community push the sexuality of 2 + 2 = 5, the NSMFR community must come forth, take to the streets, and storm the institutions with the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 sexuality.
Truth is always true but can't assert itself. It has to be asserted by courageous and conscientious individuals. In a world where so many liars and lunatics insist that the World-is-Flat, the fact that the World-is-Round will not assert itself. It can only be asserted by people with courage and integrity who value truth over falsehood. Truth, no matter how true, cannot make itself known. It can only be known through those willing to tell the truth. Thus, anyone who dares to speak the truth in a world of lies is a revolutionary... like the boy in the story "Emperor's New Clothes". If you know the truth but keep silent while another person lies, most people will go with the lie because you haven't spoken the truth. Just like the police department can't know of a crime that is not reported, people cannot know of the truth unless there is someone willing to speak it.
And it is about time the NSMFR community came together and forth to speak the truth and push back against the decadence, degeneracy, hatred, and intolerance of the LGBTQ community that knows no bounds in shameless contempt for all that is true, sane, and healthy.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

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

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

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

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

1. Richard Spencer = Carlo Rizzi

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

2. Nick Fuentes = Moe Greene

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

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

3. Jim Goad = Sonny Corleone

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

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

4. Irony Bros = Assassins

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

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

5. Matt Forney = Philip Tattaglia

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

6. Mike Enoch = Sollozo the ‘Turk’

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

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

7. Jean-Francois Gariepy = Peter Clemenza

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

8. Stefan Molyneux = Tom Hagen

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

9. Kevin Michael Grace = Jack Woltz

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

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

10. Voxday = Hyman Roth

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

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

11. Jared Taylor = Senator Patrick Geary

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

12. Matt Heimbach = Luca Brasi

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

13. Ramzpaul = Johnny Fontane

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

14. Kevin MacDonald = Don Tommasino

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

15. Andrew Anglin = Fredo Corleone

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

Friday, January 11, 2019

Limits of Individualism — In a World of Innate Racial and Sexual Differences, Meritocracy based on Individualism invariably leads to Neo-Tribalism — Look at the Owners and Players in the NFL and Imagine what would happen if we forced Individual Meritocracy for Men and Women in Sports

Meritocratic Individualist Competition among Greyhounds
Greyhound and Bulldog. Two breeds with obvious group differences.

In a Perfect World, we would like to believe that Meritocracy based on Individualism would result in 'May the Best Man(or Woman) Win', and that would be that. What fair-minded person would have a problem with the Best Individuals winning due to natural talent and hard work? It would be Meritocracy over Tribal Favoritism. If there’s a society made up of green people, red people, and purple people, and if green individuals are favored over red and purple people solely based on his color, then there would be cases of green individuals of inferior talent being elevated over red and purple individuals of superior talent. It would be unfair. However, if meritocracy based on individuality were enforced, the best individuals of all three peoples would be favored. The best green individuals, best red individuals, and best green individuals would rise to the top. The Social Order would no longer be about Greens(talented and untalented) over Red and Purples(talented or untalented), but Talented Greens, Reds, and Purples over Untalented Greens, Reds, and Purples. This way, all three groups win and lose, and even the losers could take heart in the fact that SOME of their kind made it to the top. So, the lower Greens can identify with and take pride in the success of higher Greens. And lower Reds can identify with and take pride in the success of higher Reds. And lower Purples can identify with and take pride in the success of higher Purples. Pride isn’t only individualist but shared on some level. It’s like a father who never attended college and works at menial job takes pride in his son who attended good college and has a high-paying job. The father, as an individual, is a ‘loser’, but he shares in the success of someone of his own blood.

If Greens, Red, and Purples were all generally equal in talent, then each group would have roughly the same number of talented people and untalented people. Then, a system of meritocracy wouldn’t necessarily favor the individuals of any one group. Green individuals, Red individuals, and Purple individuals could all hope for equal chance at success up the social ladder. Of course, many will not make it, but some individuals of each group surely will(as long as they do their homework and commit themselves to competition). So, meritocracy will undermine tribalism, at least as a means of deciding the success of individuals. Tribalism may still continue to the extent that the successful individuals of each group may still identify with the lower elements of their own kind and vice versa. For example, a successful Mexican in America who rubs shoulders with successful non-Mexicans in professional life may still feel a deep connection with Mexicans, rich or poor. And poor Mexicans may look upon him as a ‘role model’ and ‘representative’ for the Mexican community.
Still, when it comes to who-gets-what, meritocracy based on individual ability should work against tribal favoritism where winners are chosen on the basis of identity. Success would be measured on the basis of WHICH INDIVIDUALS have the most natural talent and work ethic. Thus, pride of success, power, and privilege would not belong to any single group. After all, individuals of all groups would be represented in the upper ranks because they gained success by a combination of natural ability and hard work. So, if there is an institution of higher power, not only the Greens but the Reds and Purples could point to it and notice successful individuals of their own kind. There would be successful Greens, Reds, and Purples. Success would exclusively be a Green, Red, or Purple thing but an individual thing. Furthermore, since there are successful Greens, Reds, and Purples at the top, Individual Meritocracy would result in a Success that is Green, Red, AND Purple. It'd be ‘And’ over ‘Or’. Individualism will ensure success of all three groups to the extent that some members of each group will make it to the top. Thus, Meritocracy is both color-blind and colorful. It chooses winners in a color-blind manner, but the result, at least in a Perfect World where all groups are innately equal in talent, is very colorful as individuals of all groups will win in part. Of course, many individuals will lose, but there is consolation in knowing that SOME of their own kind won. It’s like even a Jewish nobody takes pride in the fact that there are rich, powerful, and successful Jews.

The problem is we are not living in a Perfect World where all groups are innately equal in talent in all things. We’ve been told over and over that Race is just a ‘social construct’, that Jewish Success is purely due to history & culture and not to biology, and that even Sex is just a man-made concept that should be called ‘gender’(and that maleness and femaleness are, above all, states of mind, e.g. if a man insists he is a ‘woman’, we must take him at his word and address him as a ‘she’ and even let him or ‘her’ participate in female sports... with predictable results, of course, which we are not supposed to notice).
In a world where all groups are generally equal in innate talent, social policy and cultural re-conditioning can conceivably produce roughly equal results for all groups. So, if Group A and Group B have equal talent but Group A has work ethic but Group B doesn’t(and therefore members of Group A succeed more), the problem could be remedied by re-conditioning members of Group B to develop a pro-work-ethic mindset. But what if there are real innate differences(which aren’t negligible) between Group A and Group B? If Group A is innately more talented than Group B, the only chance of parity between A and B would be if members of A are talented-but-lazy whereas members of Group B are untalented-but-studious -- lazy hare vs dogged tortoise. But if members of both are equally studious, Group A individuals will still outshine Group B individuals. And the differences will be even more dramatic if Group A individuals are talented and studious whereas Group B individuals are untalented and lazy. By the way, there would be little incentive for Group B individuals to be studious at something if they instinctively feel they don’t have a chance-in-hell against the naturally advantaged individuals of Group A. In the US, why would an Mexican-American work hard at trying to make it in the NBA or 100 m sprint? On some level, he must know that NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIES, he can’t compete with the Negroes(and some whites who just eke into the NBA).
The most obvious example of how Individualist Meritocracy will most certainly lead to triumph of Identity would be if men and women were made to compete purely as individuals. So, there would be no Men’s Sports that bans women and no Women’s Sports that bans men. All males and females would be required to compete purely as individuals, and may the best individuals, male or female, win. The result will be obvious. All the sports will be dominated by men, most likely totally. Even if all men and women were to pretend that the winners are the best individuals than Male athletes, one would have to be jaded or deluded not to notice that the result is Triumph of Maleness and Defeat of Femaleness. Sure, the system allows all individual, male and female, to compete for the same sports, but the fact is men will always be favored over women due to innate sexual differences. When nature has made men stronger and faster as a sexual group, all this talk of individualism rings hollow, at least when it comes to Men AND women in physical competition. Among men only or women only sports, individualism would be meaningful: Best Men winning over the men or Best Women winning over the women. But the notion of ‘best individuals’ among both men and women is useless because the men, as a sexual group, have such a decisive advantage over women. So, pretending, as radical libertarians do, that individualism should be the ONLY standard of success is to ignore reality. Individualism and Meritocracy make sense ONLY AMONG those of roughly comparable talent. So, it makes sense to have greyhounds race with greyhounds. That would be a matter of individual meritocracy among greyhounds, all of which are designed by breeding to be fast. But in a case of greyhounds vs bulldogs, individual meritocracy becomes beside-the-point because greyhounds, as a group, are so decisively faster than bulldogs, which have NO CHANCE against greyhounds. Granted, a mutant bulldog with extra speedy legs might beat a mutant greyhound that is exceptionally slow, but for the most part, individualist meritocracy makes NO SENSE when applied to greyhounds vs bulldogs because of dramatic innate differences coded in their DNA. So, if one wants to discuss the relative merits of greyhounds as individual sprinters in a race involving greyhounds, that makes all the sense in the world. But any discussion of individual merit between greyhounds and bulldogs is, at best, a solipsistic abstraction, and, at worst, willful deception to lend false hope to bulldogs and their owners.

When we look at the real world and real people, despite all the dogmatic PC yammering about how Race and even Sex(misleadingly called ‘gender’) are mere Social Constructs formulated by ‘racists’ and ‘sexists’, we see real group differences in all walks of life and all spheres of high intensity endeavors. One would have to be downright retarded not to notice innate differences between men and women. Even PC-cucks who toady up to the Power must, in their private heart of hearts, know they are just mouthing BS... even though there are always those True Believer types whose passions get the best of them. (More often than not, the True Believer types have no agency, and therefore, must be FED what to be most passionate about. They compensate for their lack of individuality by being most fanatical with received passion or 'wisdom'. Since they can't own their belief or conviction on the basis of originality or autonomy of thought, the ONLY WAY they can claim it is by sheer zealotry. It's like dogs, having no agency, obey their masters as to what to bark at and bite, and their own means of pride is sheer doggedness of aggression.) I mean, what honest person doesn't understand that there are two sexes, men and women? And who, in his or her right mind, really and truly believe that a man with a wig and dress, after a few hormone injections, qualify as a 'woman'? We live in strange times. In truth, a man pretending to be a 'woman' is a social and ideological construct(as well as the product of Frankenstein or Trankenstein Medicine), but we are told THAT is 'natural', whereas the notion of 'male' sex and 'female' sex are 'social constructs'. Truth has been turned upside down, and black has been made white.
There seems to be roughly four groups of people on matters such as this. (1) Those who see the BS and say so. But calling BS on PC can jeopardize one's career prospects, especially in government and fancy institutions like Finance, High-Tech, and Law. (2) Then, there are those who see the BS and remain silent or grumble only in private. Most of Conservatism Inc is like this. (3) Then, there are those who parrot the PC line but don't really believe it in private. It's probably the case that many Liberals actually don't much care for Tranny Politics but remain mum because it's currently fashionable in the Prog Community and favored by the Power. 94) And then, there are the True Believers who swallow PC whole. These morons may be useful to the Power as inquisitors and attack dogs, but No One really respects them. It's like the Power in the Middle Ages had little respect for the most rabid witch-burners even though it found them useful enough at times to carry out purges.

In the real world, individualism becomes pointless in uni-sexual sports. While it's true enough that some women are bigger and stronger than some men, elite sports will favor men over women to the point where sports will be all-male affair(unless some of the top male athletes decide to suddenly declare themselves as 'women'). According to PC, women should not be alarmed by tranny men taking over female sports because those trannies are really 'women'. So, when trannies win in Women's Sports, it's the power of Sisterhood.
PC is controlled by Jews and push such nonsense because trans-sexualism runs parallel to trans-nationalism. Jews figure that the mentality that accepts trans-sexualism(or trans-genderism) will be more amenable to trans-nationalism. After all, an idiot who believes that a male athlete in Women's Sports is really a 'woman' is more likely to believe that African migrant-colonizers in Europe are the New Europeans. Whether sexual identification or national identity, it all becomes a matter of State of Mind. So, we should accept that a man is a 'woman', just like we should accept that an African is a 'European'. But try convincing Jews that they should accept Arabs and Africans as fellow Jews or New Israelis, and they will balk at the proposal and call you an 'Anti-Semite' for suggesting that Israel adopt Immigration Policies that are sure to wipe Israel-as-a-Jewish-State off the map.
The fact that so many white people go along with the Trans-sexual & Trans-national charade that men are 'women' and that Africans are 'Europeans' goes to show that Jews have the white race by the balls. But then, Jews don't need to really convince all the white people or even majority of white people. They only need to buy off the white elites into cuckery of acquiescence (white Democrats) or silence(white Republicans), and then, most whites will either fall in line(like the libby-dibbers) or remain comfortably numb or 'numbstruck'(like conzo-bonzos). In a representative democracy, it doesn't matter what the people say IF there is no elite representative to stand up for their views. On Wall Street, there has to be brokers to process your investments, and in a true democracy, there has to be politicians, leaders, and public intellectuals to take up your cause or the voice of the people. But because virtually all white elites have been bought up by Jews, they are more likely to take commandments from the top than take up 'demandments' from the bottom. White elites don't represent the white masses; they serve the Jewish Supremacist Hegemonists. They don't need the masses as stilts when they have puppet-strings from above to hold them up.

Now, let's consider what Individualist Meritocracy has wrought in the West. Even though it was sold as an anti-tribalist and anti-'racist' means of selecting the most excellent and most deserving individuals of all groups, the result has been neo-tribalism and race-ism. (By 'race-ism', I mean race + ism = belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Ism means belief, so race + ism should mean belief in racial truths.) If indeed all groups are more-or-less equal in talent, Meritocracy-based-on-Individualism would have meant a colorblind system of producing colorful winners in all fields and sectors. But the fact is group differences are real. In the realm of sex, this has long been known, which is why the sexes were segregated in sports because women cannot compete with men on the basis of individual merit. The recent phenomenon of male trannies entering female sports has demonstrated why women must be segregated from men if they are to have a sports culture of their own. If men and women are both seen as mere individuals in uni-sex competitions, women have no chance no matter how hard they train as individuals.
The differences among the races, while not as dramatic as that between the sexes, are nevertheless significant enough to produce results that favor group domination than individual success. This is most obvious in sprinting. It's been noted that Blacks of West African descent have such a group advantage over other races that it makes little sense for non-West-Africans to even bother to compete. But it's much the same in professional football and basketball in the US. Even though all groups are free to try out and compete for those sports, the only race with any real chance of making it is the blacks. So, football and basketball have essentially become black sports and platforms for black identity and black pride. The result has been neo-tribal and race-ist.
And, when it comes to ownership of sports teams(and the media that broadcast the events), Jews have been dominant. As the saying goes, a Jew is more likely to own a sports team than play in one. Now, one might argue that super-rich Jews are the results of Individual Meritocracy(though less so in sports for obvious reasons), but when so many Jews outwit goyim and gain dominance in sports franchises, media ownership, finance, law firms & courts, entertainment, Big Pharma, Big Tech, and etc., the result isn't merely the Success of ultra-smart individuals but a neo-tribal consciousness among the winners.
Yuri Slezkine said as much in THE JEWISH CENTURY in his chapter on Soviet Jews in the early period of the Revolution. Even though they'd pledged their hearts to communism and universalist ideology, they couldn't help noticing that so many of their elite peers were Jews. So, despite their conscious efforts to be Good Communists, they always felt an undercurrent of Jewish pride and power. And Slezkine notes how, in the end, the ethnically conscious Jews won out in Israel and the US over the Soviet Jews who made a serious effort to favor universalism.
It should also be noted that, in the long run, the more ethnic-conscious Eastern European Jews won out over the more assimilationist Western European Jews who aspired to be the Other Wasp. Animal House Jews won the Frat War against the Wasps. It goes to show that those with stronger ethnic identity/personality wins over those with weaker ethnic identity/personality. Wasps did much good for their own society by practicing individual meritocracy, but they made a fatal mistake in extending meritocracy to other groups, especially those with innate superiority in brains or brawn. Even though such reform was done in the name of fairness, justice, and merit, the result has been neo-tribalism and race-ist in producing a New Order dominated by Jewish Supremacists in brains and Black Supremacists in brawn. The New Order may be more just in the sense that the superior-brained Jews and stronger-muscled blacks won out -- meritocracy in action, no doubt -- , BUT the result hasn't been what was promised. The promise was that all groups would win out equally-and-proportionately under a system of individualist meritocracy because there is only one race, the 'human race', because 'race is just a social construct', and because all races are virtually the same except in skin color. But the fact is innate differences among groups are real, and this is why individual meritocracy among groups with markedly different traits only leads to neo-tribailsm and race-ism. In the end, smarter Jews make more money than other groups, develop ethnic pride & consciousness, buy up media and politicians, and use their power to serve Jewish interests. Jews whine about how Bad Old Wasp America favored whites over others, but they muster all their power and influence to make all of us support Israel, not least by buying up whore goy politicians who do the bidding of ADL and AIPAC to shut down BDS movement and the Constitutional right of all Americans to speak and spend freely.
And what has happened to black consciousness over the years? After decades of black domination in boxing, basketball, football, track & field, and even tennis, blacks feel pride as the superior badass race. Almost no one looks at basketball & football and just think of athletes as mere individuals chosen by colorblind meritocracy. The fact is, even if the system isn't rigged to favor blacks, biology has been rigged by evolution to favor blacks in sports. So, Western Sports have become platforms for black pride and black consciousness. This is why black football players took up the BLM cause and 'took the knee'.
If blacks weren't so dominant in sports, such racially-charged and tribally-minded gestures wouldn't make much sense. But blacks could act thus in football because they are naturally so dominant. Top that off with the pornified pop culture of the West where the big black dong is a dominant trope, and the end-result of individual meritocratism has been neo-tribalism and race-ism. Jews win with wit and intellect, blacks win with fist and dong. So, despite all the PC propaganda about diversity-and-equality, the result has been the New Tribalism. The reason why so many blacks are filled with arrogance and self-esteem is because they know they can beat up whitey and other races. It's because they watch sports, listen to pop music, and consume pornified culture, all of which boost black megalomania.
And who can deny that Jews are full of arrogance, supremacism, and contempt because they amassed so much money, power, and influence by the use of their superior wits. Granted, Jews with brains have one decisive advantage over blacks with brawn. Many more people can make it with brains than with brawn. Many people can work in law, finance, media, and high tech, whereas only a handful can make real money in sports or pop culture. Also, whereas those in sports must demonstrate their superiority in the most naked way -- one can't fake ability in 100 m sprint or football -- , sufficiently clever Jews can gain over smarter and more deserving people. Also, smart Jews can help and favor less smart Jews in fields such as management in ways that talented black athletes cannot help less talented blacks in sports. So, while many elite fields have Jews who aren't the very best, sports only have blacks who are the very best.

Of course, just as Jews are inferior to blacks in sports and blacks are inferior to Jews in smarts, neither group is superior in everything over other groups. Generally, whites are smarter than blacks, and this is why pure individualist-meritocracy will not really work between whites and blacks. White individuals(even excluding white Jews) will win out over blacks individuals. Under pure individualist meritocracy, much smaller number of blacks will make it to good schools and a tiny few will make it to elite schools. This is why blacks insist on Affirmative Action. Blacks are all for individualist meritocracy in sports where they have a natural advantage over whites, but they totally oppose it in academics where they are bound to totally lose our without group-preferences and set-asides.
Given the truth of innate group-differences, this makes some sense. What is really offensive about Affirmative Action is the LIE that blacks need extra-help because of the legacy of Slavery and Jim Crow. If blacks are so traumatized by history, where do they get all the energy for Booty Call, House Party, Sports, Dancing, and letting the good times roll? They should all be sullen and depressed. But, it seems blacks got plenty of energy for Soul Train and Funky Town and for dribbling basketballs from morn to night. No, the real reason why blacks dominate in sports and fail in school is due to nature. Nature rigged the odds for blacks in sports and rigged the odds against blacks in smarts. But because of black pride and white 'guilt'(and the virtue-vanity highs that 'good whites' get from vaping on holy-schmoly 'guilt'), we are supposed to believe that black failure in schools is purely the result of Evil Whitey, and that's why whites must do more for blacks. (But if whites must prioritize black needs, why are Progs pushing for more immigration-invasion that exposes blacks to more competition?)
Still, blacks are currently favored by both individual meritocracy and group-preference(or group-protection). In fields where blacks have a natural advantage, they are allowed to totally dominate without any regard to diversity. No one complains that sports are Too Black. And in fields in which blacks are naturally handicapped, they get special preferences. In contrast, whites must shut up and accept total defeat in areas in which they are naturally disadvantaged -- notice there is no talk of affirmative action for white or non-black athletes and no talk of white-only sports where whites are shielded from competition with superior blacks -- but also make concessions to blacks(and even to browns) in areas in which whites are naturally advantaged and winning purely on individual merit. The system is rigged so that whites lose by both meritocracy and group-protection. In sports, whites must accept total defeat, and in areas in which whites are better than blacks, whites must give up their rightful achievements to blacks and others in the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'.
Of course, by 'whites', we mean non-Jews, especially those in flyover country and rural areas who tend to be Christian or culturally conservative. Jews rigged the system so that they can pull strings from behind the curtain to favor their own kind in elite institutions. Also, because any criticism of Jewish Power is deemed 'antisemitic', so many Jewish abuses & hypocrisies go unnoticed or unnamed. When so-called 'progressive' Jews combat the bogeyman of White Privilege, they don't mean something must be done about Jewish power and privilege. It means sacrificing more positions of white goyim to appease non-whites(especially blacks and white Hispanics) to maintain the Alliance of Jews and People of Color against whites. It means using the white-privilege-scapegoat to distract people from the real power in America that is controlled by Jews. (Also, by claiming that the problem of Hollywood, Big Tech, and Wall Street are 'too white', it gives the false impression that they are controlled by Texan Cowboys, West Virginia Hillbillies, country club Republicans, and Mormons than by Jews.)

Recently, Asian-Americans at Harvard and other Ivy League universities have gone forward with lawsuits on grounds that the current admission system violates the principle of colorblind individual meritocracy. Asians are generally seen as inferior in EVERYTHING but hitting the books, studying for exams, and getting better grades. So, academics seems to be what Asians cling to most dearly because they can't succeed or gain victory in anything else. The reactions of big academia and big media have revealed how confused, convoluted, and contradictory the current system is in terms of what it professes and practices.
At any rate, if there is a niche in which Asians do better than other groups under a system of colorblind competition, it's just another example of how individual meritocracy among groups of different abilities will de facto lead to neo-tribalism and race-ism. After all, Asian-Americans noticed that their best bet is in academia, and therefore, any barrier to their success there undercuts what is their only meal ticket. Why don't Asians complain that there aren't enough Asians in sports and pop music? It's because they know they are generally inferior as athletes and have weaker voices in a musical culture where the hottest thing is to holler like a black man or woman.