Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the “free press” – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.
Nothing will make sense unless we mention Jewish control of much of Western Media and Finance. And of course academia that produces all the 'thinkers' and strategists and enforcers of law firms, courts, and deep state. While ALL global oligarchs and corporations have some things in common, ethnicity and group-identity do matter. Jewish oligarchs, Russian oligarchs, Chinese oligarchs, Iranian oligarchs, and etc. are all in the Game for Wealth and Privilege, but they don't think alike. The reason why Jewish Power hates nationalist candidates is because nationalism means 'our nation, our people, and our land first'. America First or Brazil First. This is bad for Jewish globalist supremacism because nationalist regimes will put their nation before Jewish globalist interests. Generally, a nation is defined by its majority population. Poland has minorities of non-Poles, such as Vietnamese, but Core Poland is the Polish people. So, a nationalist Poland is about prioritizing the identity and pride of Poles. Now, this shouldn't be a threat to ordinary Jews or even successful Jews. After all, Poland is open to world trade and has gotten over its worst anti-Jewish excesses. So, why are Jews so pissed? Because they seek world dominance and hegemony. And that means making white nations(and some others) prioritize Jewish-controlled globalism over nationalism. Also, nationalism, because it boosts national and ethnic pride and identity, is more difficult for Jews to manipulate. In order for Jews to gain control over a people, they need to suppress national pride in favor of 'white guilt' or Homomania or Afromania. Nationalism is like a heavily shielded phalanx. This is why Jews push Diversity, Homomania, Afromania, and White Guilt. Diversity makes it more difficult for white nations to pull together into one. Homomania undermines moral integrity, and young ones become most excited about waving 'gay' flags in honor of homo fecal penetration. Afromania undermines white manhood by presenting blacks as superior studs with more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. It infects white women with Jungle Fever and white boys with cucky-wuckery. It says black race is superior to the wussy white race that needs to be mixed with cooler blackness. And White Guilt makes whites feel that they are uniquely guilty of historical 'sins', and therefore, the ONLY permitted pride among whites is the Pride of Redemptive Self-Loathing. Then, Jews can manipulate whites into supporting Jews, the people with Sacred Victim Identity.
The problem with Jonathan Cook's brand of leftism is it analyzes the world only in terms of Economic Interests, as if the world is made up of Noble Poor and Evil Rich. He also assumes that all the Rich think alike. Not so, especially when a Rich People happen to have a strong ethnic identity. Jews do have a strong identity, and therefore, Jewish Rich aren't only out for money. They are out for Power in service of Jewish supremacism. Consider the sanctions against Iran. From a purely economic viewpoint, it makes no sense. Lots of Jews can make tons of money dealing with Iran. Iran would be happy to do business with Jewish oligarchs in US and EU. So, why the sanctions? Why are Jews sacrificing business opportunities in Iran? It's because they, as an ethnic-minded people, see Iran as a threat to Israeli hegemony. And take Russia. Jewish bigshots can make tons of money by encouraging more trade with Russia. So, why the sanctions? Because Russian brand of nationalism(though mild) and sovereignty inspires other nations to defy the Jewish globo-homo hegemony. So, unless Cook mentions the Jews, he won't get at the heart of what is going on. Indeed, one reason why even non-communist Jews valued Marxism and ideology of Class Conflict was because the theories obfuscated the level of Jewish involvement in capitalism. By turning the conflict into one between the Workers and the Generic Bourgeoisie, it led people to overlook the fact that Jews had a special role in world capitalism, especially in finance. People don't live on bread alone. Money is nice but ultimately meaningless. Like Sheldon Adelson said, he found true meaning in life by becoming an avid supporter of Israel. Money gave him privilege and power, but Zionism gave him meaning. Granted, there are lots of rich people without meaning. They just rake in all the dough. But such people eventually end up serving those with meaning(whatever it may be) because power is like electricity. In and of itself, it has no higher purpose. It has to be directed at something. So, power from an electric generator is used to power TVs. Or radios. Or computers. Jews use the Juice to serve the Jews. This is why they are so powerful. They not only have money but meaning. In contrast, deracinated creeps like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have no meaning except money, money, and money. So, when it comes to meaning, they follow the lead of the Jews who do have meaning. So, Bezos' Washington Post continues to shill for Israel and Jewish supremacism even though Bezos the Bozo isn't Jewish.
Simon Jenkins: When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes.
Of course, Jenkins is full of BS. Not because he's wrong about much of social media but because he'd be fine with the lies, fake stories, vulgarity, and stupidity AS LONG AS the political outcomes favored globo-homo hegemony. After all, homomania was spread through trash culture, celebrity nonsense, PC mobs on social media, and lots of herd-like hysteria. But people like Jenkins never protested the trashiness as long as it served their agenda. Also, the reason why there are so many crazies in social media is because the globalists have pushed the erosion of roots and culture. So, we have too many clowns who get swept up with the latest trends, fashions, and hypes. If there is one good thing about the spread of nationalism via social media, it is the desire to reconnect with roots, identity, and heritage that give life meaning.
Also, even if social media are full of fake news and conspiracy theories, they are beneficial as counterweight against the power of Deep State and Corporate Media. Alex Jones spread lots of nonsense, but his conspiracy theories did encourage his fans to be more critical and less trusting of the Deep State and globalism. Given that the Deep State is a warmonger and that the big corporations brainwash us with endless BS advertising, it's not the worst thing to be more distrustful and cynical about the Powers That Be. Under Limbaugh-ism, many Americans were led to support the Iraq War. But under Jones-ism, Americans are far more likely to question the US aggression. Indeed, Jones condemned Trump for his attacks on Syria. Social media are filled with lots of alternative truths and lies. But even alternative fake stories are still preferable to fake stories by MSM because, whereas MSM tells lies to support globo-homo imperialist hegemony, alternative fake stories are made to question the Power and oppose imperialism. So, even if not every alternative 9/11 story is true, it still encourages people to ask more questions than just TRUST the Power, which by now is utterly corrupt, not least because it is concentrated in the hands of Jews who, unlike Wasp elites of old, will not tolerate any criticism of them. Jews say we must condemn 'white nationalism' but ignore the fact that 'white nationalism', like other forms of nationalism, is a reaction to Jewish Supremacism. When Jews in media say they are going to do to white people what they did to Palestinians -- replace them permanently -- , of course nationalism against Jewish supremacism is going to be a response. Jews claim that they stand for a polyglot multi-cultural society against 'white supremacism', but Jewish vision of Diversity isn't about all peoples sharing power equally and proportionately. No, it's about Jews at the top using the Diverse Mass against white people. It's like British using their multi-colored troops to put down national resistance in the colonies. If Jews were truly for equality and proportionality, they would be pushing for a New Social Order in which Jews own only 2% of wealth, 2% of media, 2% of Wall Street, 2% of Hollywood, 2% of gambling, 2% of Silicon Valley, 2% of Law firms, and etc. After all, Jews are only 2% of the population. But Jews never seem alarmed by the fact the the 2% is gaining more of the wealth, privilege, and power. So, Jewish opposition to white nationalism is to protect Jewish supremacism. Jews seek to use Diversity to create divisions against goyim so that the 98% won't be able to unite against the 2% that rules the West.
Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite’s power.
If Trump is an intensification of the worst impulses of neoliberal order, why are Jews and Deep State so angry at him and even cooked up Russia Collusion nonsense to derail him? If neoliberals are all about greed, why do they oppose Trump's wish for peace with Russia? It will mean more business opportunities for US corporations and businessmen? NeoLiberal is Judeo-Hegemonic, and Jews put their identity and power above all things. The fact is the US is the most powerful and influential nation on Earth. So, when Trump says he is a nationalist, it is a green light for other nations to follow suit. Neoliberals hate this because their increased profits depend on Free Trade Globalism. Also, Jewish supremacism depends on suppression of national identity and pride in goy nations, esp white ones. Money isn't everything, and Jews know this. Germany is the biggest and richest nation in Western Europe, but it is politically among the weakest. Why? It's nationalism and identity have been totally suppressed by Shoah-Worship and German Guilt. So, Jews can run circles around Germany despite its great wealth. In contrast, Hungary, though much smaller and poorer, has pride of identity, and that makes it difficult for the likes of Soros to run roughshod over it. It's not only about money and class. Jews know that national identity is the most unifying force in a nation. Indeed, even a poor backward nation like Vietnam was able to expel a superpower like the US because of the power of nationalism. Rich people, middle people, and poor people can become one under nationalism. Even socialism works best along with nationalism. Nationalism breeds trust and shared sense of destiny. Socialism works better within homogeneity than amidst diversity where some groups feel they are being robbed by others. Because socialism works best within the national framework, the fascist-socialism is the best kind. Sweden's success didn't owe to democracy or liberalism. It owed to homogeneity, intelligence, trust, and unity of rich-middle-and-poor. But look how the social fabric and social welfare in that country is beginning to fray with Diversity Invasion that fills the nations with leeches.
Trump and Bolsonaro are not logical CONCLUSIONS of the world order. They are limbo-figures. What they stand for is inconclusive and contradictory, not least because the nations they rule over are now so diverse, fractured, and messy. Trump has been all over the map, partly due to his impetuous nature but also due to Deep State obstacles that have sabotaged his plans for making up with Russia, ending war in Syria, and erecting a wall along the border. Because of these pressures, Trump has been forced to be even tougher on Russia to prove he's not a Russian agent. While the super-rich may prefer Trump's tax cuts, they are not just about money. Most of the super-rich hate Trump because they are either Jewish and/or Globalist. Jews hate Trump for reviving nationalism(that may stand in the way of Jewish supremacism), and globalists like Bezos hate Trump because they are post-national and see the entire globe as their oyster for the taking. A nation, even a nation as big as the US, is too small for their scope and ambition.
Do the globo-oligarchs prefer 'fascists' like Trump and Bolsonaro over true socialists? Maybe, but keep in mind that Bernie Sanders stood with the globalist oligarchs against Trump in 2016. Also, Sanders seems to be just as anti-Russia and anti-Syria. So, is Sanders really a Socialist First or Zionist First? As for Jeremy Corbyn, the Establishment's opposition to him has little to do with his economic policies. The Power knows they can always pull the strings and manipulate things to rein in socialism no matter who wins. The reason for all the ire against Corbyn has been his pro-Palestinian stance. Most media are owned or financed by Jews. If Corbyn just played at being socialist and waved the Israeli flag, Jews would be seeing him as their boy. But Corbyn has often sided with Muslims and Palestinians, and this pissed off Jews. British Jewish elites pushed mass-immigration-invasion into the UK to use non-whites against whites. The Jewish narrative was 'we noble Jews and you noble colored against those evil racist whites'. But Corbyn listened to Muslims who said, "Racist Jews are killing Arabs and waging evil wars in the Middle East" and agreed, even if mildly. And that set off the media firestorm against him. So, what do Corbyn and Trump have in common despite their different economic theories? They are both hated by Jews. Jews hate Trump for igniting 'white nationalism'(against Jewish supremacism), and Jews hate Corbyn for supporting Palestinian nation-hood(against Zionist supremacism). The failure to mention the Jewish Power in this is either a blindspot or craven cowardice on the part of Jonathan Cook.
The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US... Former socialist leaders like Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule.
Hugo Chavez became virtual dictator. He rose through army ranks, and he used cronies in the military to back him. The reason why his successor is still in power is due to strong-arm tactics. Also, Chavezism failed for two reasons. Total dependence on high oil prices and promising freebies to masses of Diversity. Even as Chavez railed at Uncle Sam, his nation's economy depended totally on American capitalism. Without US consumers buying Venezuelan oil, there was no economy to speak of. Also, Venezuela is a low-trust and low-talent society. All that race-mixing led to too much low IQ and high-impulse African genetics. And, Diverse societies lack trust. White elites in Venezuela don't feel a common bond with the masses. And mixed-race people are confused in identity and feel nothing in common with native Indians. With such low talent, its economy depended on selling oil. And when oil prices were high, Chavez could dole out freebies to the masses to gain popularity. But he did nothing to expand industry or encourage enterprise. When oil prices plummeted, the whole thing collapsed. Socialism only works in tandem with nationalism and productive capitalism. Capitalism creates the wealth that can be taxed. No taxation, no socialism. Communism was about all the economy run by the state, and that was one huge failure. Also, socialism requires trust. People must think in terms of paying into the system and getting things back. In low trust societies, people try to pay nothing in while getting everything out. Now, a homogeneous people can be lacking in trust too. Look at Greek national character(though, to be sure, Greeks are much mixed due to endless invasions). But diversity makes it even worse. This is why any socialist who rejects capitalism and nationalism isn't for real. Socialism must rely on healthy capitalism that can be taxed. Socialism must maintain national unity that allows for trust and common bonds. This is why Swedish socialist policies must be for Swedish. If Swedes conquered Poland and Hungary and tried to maintain socialism for all three peoples, it'd be a mess as there would be too many divisions. How did Soviet socialism work throughout its vast diverse empire? Non-Russians got tired of Russian imperialism, and Soviet elites got sick of providing free stuff to an empire of leeches who did minimal work but demanded maximal benefits.
The real problem of Latin America isn't socialism or lack of socialism. It's diversity. Socialists will say all the world will become nice if they adopt Swedish social democracy, and libertarians blame the failure of Detroit on 'socialism' of the Democratic Party. It's all BS. Swedish social democracy worked for Sweden due to its racial, social, and cultural factors. Sweden will fail as it fills up with Diversity. Its social democracy will not work in an African nation with too many contentious tribes, low IQ, and lack of cultural capital. But then, libertarianism will also fail in places like Detroit because blacks are predisposed by genetics to be wild and crazy. Yes, that is race-ist but race-ism is truth. Races evolved differently to have different talents. Blacks are talented at chucking spears at hippos and running from them. They didn't evolve for civilization. They were not domesticated by evolution. Bringing them inside civilization is like bringing in coyotes and badgers into the house. They still got the wild genes.
Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America.
What about Cuba? Castro gained total power, and while the Cold War was on, the Soviet Union provided it with generous subsidies. But what did Castro create? Nothing. His entire economy depended on freebies provided by the Soviet Union. There are good things about capitalism and socialism, and societies need combination of both, but Cook's worldview is simply, "It failed because socialism wasn't allowed to take over totally." Has he forgotten about how the Chinese rejected Maoism? How the Soviet Union collapsed? Communism doesn't work. Also, history teaches us that capitalism isn't a universal panacea either. While capitalism allows for great freedom and opportunity in business, it is also fiercely competitive, and some nations are bound to do better than others(or some groups in any nation are bound to do better than others). So, Hindus are far more adept at business than blacks in Africa. Chinese, with their generally higher-IQ population, have done better with capitalism, along with Japanese. In contrast, low-IQ nations failed with capitalism. Chinese have also done much better under capitalism than the native populations of Philippines and Southeast Asia.
Anyway, socialism isn't some panacea. I know socialists feel justified in pontificating about it because socialism is about 'social justice', but the world doesn't work simply on the basis of chest-thumping 'good will' and 'righteousness'. The fact is too many Latin American nations are too diverse, too divided, too low in IQ, and etc. to succeed with either capitalism or socialism. So, both libertarians and socialists are wrong when they apply their theories on the global scale. The best that such nations can hope for is a kind of humanist national neo-fascism where elites instill the people with some positive national character. It won't fix problems overnight but can set the nation forth on a sound long-term path that favors the right kind of genes and habits. Bolsonaro isn't such a character because he's essentially a lout.
Within days of Corbyn’s election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it refused to name, warning that the British army’s commanders had agreed they would sabotage a Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.
It's about the Jews. Jews hate Corbyn because he's pro-Palestinian. It's not about socialism. Jews and British oligarchs don't fear socialism because they can easily pull strings to undermine it, like they've done under both Blair and Cameron. What they can't stomach is how Corbyn gave moral support to Palestinians and Muslims opposed to Neocon wars. That is the good side of Corbyn. And his socialism isn't bad either. But he too is an idiot because he's for mass colonization of UK by Africans and Muslims. Ironically, even as he denounces Zionist colonization of West Bank, he totally supports the Third World colonization of the UK. This is why being a socialist isn't enough. One must be a social-nationalist.
Finally, the problem of putting socialism or class consciousness at the center of meaning is that class is too fluid. Consider all the immigrants in the US who began on the bottom but whose children rose to the top. If someone has a working-class father but becomes a rich person, what should be his 'class consciousness'? There are legit class interests, but class is not a deep identity(and ever-changing along with technology). Also, a society cannot function with a single class; communism tried to utter failure. It's natural to have several classes(and many sub-classes) due to differences in talent and specialization of tasks. So, how can the various classes co-exist and cooperate? With nationalism. Nationalism instills the elites with the sense that the masses are part of the national family to guide than merely economic units to exploit. And nationalism instructs the masses that the rich elites are okay as long as they use their wealth and talent for the good of the national community. But globalism undermined this. Globo-elites, libertarian or proggy, pretend to care for ALL humanity, but that is of course impossible. So, they end up making noises but doing nothing except fill their own pockets... like Bono. It's like a parent who neglects his own children by pontificating that he loves all the children in the world. All talk, no walk.
The best societies are ones where socialism serves nationalism. The cooperation among the classes based on shared identity, trust, and culture of responsibility. Globalism and Diversity undermine all this.
The Unspoken Truth about the history of American Power is that went from Wasp Elite to Jewish Elites. It didn't go from Wasp Elites to All Americans.
‘Antisemitism’ is now a trick term used by Jewish Elites to discredit any criticism of Jewish power and influence.
Contra the prevailing PC Narrative, the Power didn’t go from Wasp Elite Rule to All-American-rule(or power dispersed equally and proportionally among all groups of Americans). In other words, the power didn’t go from the Wasp tower to the American square. Rather, it passed from Wasp tower to Jewish tower. It went from Anglo-elitism to Judeo-elitism. THAT is the crux of the problem of American Power. If anything, the New Elitism of Jewish domination is even more unequal and unfair than the Old Elitism of Wasp domination. After all, Anglo-Americans made up a huge part of America. So, Wasp elites were representative of large section(the majority well into the 20th century) of America. In contrast, Jews are only 2% of America, and that means Jewish Elite Rule is really about domination over the 98% by the 2%. Now, Jews may flatter themselves by claiming that their power is used for the good of all Americans and all peoples around the world. Really? Just ask the Palestinians. In fact, Jewish power compels the US to support Zionist mass murder of Palestinians. And Jews use US power to subvert Russia, Iran, Syria, or any other nation hated by Jews. Also, Jewish Power shuts down BDS movement in the US. Also, Jewish power favors the network of Jewish oligarchs in Las Vegas, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood who rake in all the profits for the globo-expansionist Tribe. And the ONLY reason Jews push for Mass Immigration-invasion is to increase Diversity among goyim so as to play divide-and-conquer over them. Notice Jews do NOT push for non-Jewish immigration to Israel.... even as they demean Hungary and Poland for wanting to maintain their ethnic, cultural, and territorial integrity. According to the Jewish Narrative, Bad Old America was about Wasp elites hogging most power and privilege for themselves. So, the rise of Good New America was about the Power passing to All Americans equally. But it didn’t happen that way. The once-Wasp-Power went mostly to Jewish elites instead of to All of America equally. THIS is what Jews are trying to hide. They want us to believe either that
(1) The Power went from Wasp elitism to All of America equally(than to Jews)
or
(2) The Power still remains with Big Bad White Male Privilege, and therefore, Jews and non-whites must work together to bring down this Nasty Wasp Country Club Power.
The problem with this Narrative is that it totally ignores the fact that Wasp Elite Power passed over to Jewish Elite Power. In other words, Jews are the ‘new wasps’. Actually, it’s worse. If Wasp Power was out in the open, Jewish Power remains hidden. It is plain-as-day for anyone who wants to notice, but if the observer is honest about what he sees, he is denounced and destroyed as an ‘anti-Semite’. If awareness about ‘antisemitism’ in the past was about protecting vulnerable Jews from bigots, it is now about safeguarding the ultra-power of the super-privileged Jewish elites. Jewish elites simply want us to remain blind, deaf, and mute about the fact that Wasp elite power did NOT surrender to All-American Power of All Groups, white and non-white, but instead surrendered to Jewish elite power.
Jews want non-white Americans to see Jews as allies and fellow comrades against white elite power. In other words, the American People are to believe that Jews have been anti-elitist and working hard to transform the elitist nature of American Power(in the hands of Wasps) into something more democratic and egalitarian. Burn down the white-shoe country clubs of privilege and turn American Power into one big square for everyone. But in fact, Jewish Power did no such thing. Rather, it took over the elite institutions from the Wasps and has been ruling America on the basis of “Is it good for the Jews?” Jews didn’t burn down the country clubs. They took them over or built bigger and more lavish ones for themselves. To hide this fact, Jews train and hire yellow dogs like Sarah Jeong to bark at the ur-specter of White Privilege.
The fact that Jewish power hates Populism with such rabid virulence gives the game away though. Elitism is their thing. As for the former Wasp elites, they carry on with the charade of dominance even though they take their orders from the Jewish Bosses. Why? Because as long as they obey the New Jew Bosses, they are given a seat at the table. Clintons, Bidens, and Bushes can have a seat at the table as long as they sing hosannas to Jews and Israel while turning up their noses at Deplorables and Palestinians. So, we have Wasp politicians signing on to Wars for Israel and promoting Hatred against any people Jews don't like: Palestinians, Russians, Iranians, Syrians, etc. Also, cucky Wasp toadies kinda like the idea of 'White Privilege' because, despite its anti-white rhetoric, it gives the impression that Wasps still have the Top Power. Thus, craven Wasp cuckery can masquerade as magnanimity. Thus, Wasp comprador elites(who suck up to Jews) can play at being generous and 'inclusive' of non-whites and helpful to Holy Holocaust Jews even though, in fact, they are just toadying up to Jewish Power that uses the smokescreen of 'white privilege' to conceal the reality of Jewish Dominance.
Donna Zuckerberg, the hideous Jewish globo-homo bitch and sister of a**hole Mark Zuckerberg, abuses her position in the field of Classical Studies as a termite gnawing away at the pillars of Western Civilization. Who is this vile and toxic Jewess to subvert another peoples identity and culture?
Rebecca Futo 'Fatso' Kennedy
The Politics of Saints and Sinners.
People on the Right tend to believe ALL peoples are sinners. But through the cultivation of virtue, they can become more like saints.
People on the Left tend to believe ALL people are saints. But due to social conditions, they are corrupted into sinners.
With the rise of Identity Politics, things got a bit more complicated.
People on the Right(or at least the true right) care more about winners than sinners. The Right is about the competition among individuals/groups to win as much as possible. Libertarians emphasize winning on the individual level, whereas identitarians stress winning on the ethno-organismic level. The Right still believes all peoples to be 'sinners', but it has pretty much abandoned the Christian Project of 'saving the world' through Jesus Christ, the patron saint of sinners seeking redemption.
People on the current so-called 'left' believe certain groups are natural saints, certain groups are natural sinners(or historical sinners so stained with the legacy of guilt that wickedness has become their second nature), and certain groups are neither. Jews, blacks, and homos are seen as natural saints. Whites are seen as natural sinners. The rest are neither. (Muslims, for example, are sometimes seen as saints[as victims of white 'racism' or 'Islamophobia'], sometimes as sinners[as terrorists who want to harm Jews and Israel].) But since all groups prefer to be regarded as saints than sinners, they emulate the politics of Jews, blacks, or homos OR try to associate themselves with one or all three of the sacro-anointed groups. So, we have Muslims bitching about 'Islamophobia'(which sounds like 'homophobia'), and we have even successful Asians moaning and groaning as 'victims' in imagined alliances with blacks, Jews, or homos.
The New Left of Identity-Politics differs from the Old Universalist Left of the Rousseauean Catcher-in-the-Rye School that regarded ALL peoples as natural saints prior to becoming corrupted by social tyranny and injustice.
The New Leftism of Identity Politics bestows natural/automatic sainthood upon certain groups while reviling certain other groups as naturally/innately sinful.
This dynamics has ironically led to new sins: The sin of pride and moral vanity among certain groups, especially Jews, homos, and blacks. It has also led to the sin of self-debasement and suicidal mentality among whites. Atonement and redemption are one thing, but self-debasement and/or self-destruction are another. (Worse, those whites who debase themselves and call for white suicide feel a sudden rush of pride and vanity for being 'good whites' who've seen the Light. Their display of self-debasement thus serve as moral exhibitionism.)
There is a kind of moral exemption for white 'progressives' in the current 'leftism'. True, Identity Politics Leftism says that all whites are natural sinners, but by dramatizing their self-purgatory rituals, whites can score temp-sainthood points, at least against 'deplorable' whites who aren't so hung up about 'white guilt' and redemption.
So, even though the putrid and disgusting Rebecca Futo Kennedy belongs to the race of natural sinners, she feels smugly superior by the virtue of smearing OTHER whites, alive and dead(even 1,000s of yrs ago), as 'racist'. She's the sort to dig up her great great great great great grandfather from his grave and spit on him just to score 'virtue' points with PC. This is the 'sinergy' that progs like Kennedy draw upon to congratulate themselves.
It never occurs to these smug (ass)holier-than-thou prigs and progs that people of different times and places thought and felt differently and had other priorities due to particular circumstances and crises. They lack empathy and fail to understand the rules of the game in other times and places.
For them, the PC of the Current Year is the absolute truth, and they wield it like a cudgel(or padlock for smashing skulls) and smugly pass judgement on others, even on Greeks who lived 1000's of years ago and struggled to survive in a dangerous and contentious world. (After all, Greeks not only invaded others but were invaded many times by others. It was a very insecure and dangerous world torn asunder with constant warfare, not least among the Greeks themselves.) But affluent, comfortable, and privileged bubble world of academia, prigs and progs like Kennedy have NO idea of how things may have been in other times and places. Any sensible person knows, just as it'd be stupid to judge ancient Hebrews by standards of today's PC, it'd be ridiculous to judge ancient Greeks with today's 'values'.
There was a time when historians and classicists tried to understand and empathize with peoples of different times, places, and cultures. They understood that only a narrow-minded self-righteous idiot studies history just to pass judgement on other times, peoples, and places, indeed as if current values and assumptions are the only true ones, the end-all of truth. Real scholars studied history to broaden their understanding of peoples and cultures, not to reduce history into Smug Self-Righteousness for Dummies.
Today, we have PC snobs like Kennedy feeling superior to others and even turning up their noses at 'ancient racists'. She's like a junkie addicted to smugasms. She needs her daily fix and is on the constant lookout to call something else 'racist' to get her next high.
Also, where do people like Kennedy get the idea that today's PC is the 'most evolved' and most advanced moral value-system? If so, why has it led to such decadence, degeneracy, and corruption in the West(and its political & cultural satellites) as the Whole World began to adopt Diversity and Homomania as universal truths? Is Sweden really getting better with the invasion of Africans and Muslims? Will Italy and France really fare better with millions of black Africans who come only for sex and money and whose idea of culture is gangsta-tribal rap music? Is it really morally uplifting to associate the venerable institution and tradition of marriage with men who do homo fecal penetration or have their penises and testicles cut off to get fake vaginas? Really? Has Western Europe really benefited morally and intellectually by handing its culture and discourse over to rappers, flaming homos, and Zionist globalists? Really?
As a sinner, one seeks atonement and redemption. When this is sound and sincere, it can lead to moral good and rejuvenation. But when one dramatizes one's 'sinergy' to feel holier-than-thou, it's just vanity of bogus sainthood by other means. Vanity is an especially corrupt form of pride, and as such, a sin.
Kennedy is saying that, though born of sinful white 'racist' blood, she is an honorary saint because she bleats endlessly about 'racism', even to the point of spitting on ancient Greeks for having been too white. What an idiot.
In truth, all peoples are sinners. The most they can do is draw some inspiration from saints, but then with caution because there real saints are exceedingly rare. Also, is it worth being a saint when genuine saints usually get martyred? (Sometimes, I suppose it is worth it. The Christian bakers who lost their businesses and their savings because they refused to bend over to degeneracy and bake 'gay wedding cakes' should inspire all decent people for whom there is higher value in life than profits and social approval of the corrupted.)
The best moral/spiritual formula is for all people to accept that they are sinners. 'Sinfulness' is just the way of human nature. With that in mind, people should also try to be winners since life is about competition, without which there is no achievement. But being conscious of our sinner-nature, we need to observe the Golden Rule that applies to individuals and to nations in their competitions. Just as an individual shouldn't do unto others what he doesn't want others to do unto him, a nation shouldn't do unto other nations what it doesn't want other nations to do unto it. The golden rule among nations should be DO NOT INVADE OTHER NATIONS AND DO NOT VIOLATE THEIR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
The US is now a sick evil nation because, even as it bitches endlessly about non-existent Russian Collusion in US elections, it has done more than any other nation to interfere and mess with other nations' political processes.
The current problem is that Jews, blacks, and homos now act arrogantly, aggressively, and insufferably because they regard themselves as Natural Saints who can never do wrong. This has led to total moral corruption, a kind of moral nihilism or amoral morality. Indeed, what are SJW but a bunch of Justice Nihilists? Then, it's not surprising that blacks now think it is their Moral Privilege to carry out 'hate hoaxes'. Even when they get caught, they act like the aggrieved... because they've been flattered constantly as being natural saints NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. So, a black doing wrong is more righteous than a white doing right. You see, blacks are BORN Saints whereas whites are BORN sinners.
And we have Jews acting the same way. When the Israeli hate-hoaxer was captured and exposed for having defamed white people as 'anti-Semites' who send bomb threats to Jewish centers, the reaction from ADL was the Jewish hoaxer is also an 'anti-Semite' and therefore, Jews are once again the pure-as-snow victims even though the Jewish hate-hoaxer had defamed white people to serve Jewish interests(by drawing sympathy to the Jewish community).
As for homos, we must believe the fiction that they weren't in any shape or form responsible for the AIDS epidemic. Never mind all their foul and irresponsible behavior in bathhouses. It was all the fault of "Reagan's Indifference". We must look upon homos as something akin to angels. In the Current Year, men who have other men stick their penises into their fecal holes are to be revered as possessing the cleanest souls. When will there be 'gay hymns' in churches singing about how nothing excites the angels as much as a guy cutting his penis and balls off to get a fake vagina?
The cult of Natural Sainthood for Jews, blacks, and homos has led to total moral corruption, not least because Jews, blacks, and homos tend to have out-sized personalities that lean toward pushiness, egomania, thuggery, and vanity. We have chutzpahstic Jews, rappin'-hollerin' Negroes, and bitchy-flaming homos acting like they are the paragons of all that is good & noble despite the fact that Jewish-directed US foreign policy has wrecked the Muslim World and restarted 'new cold war' with Russia, blacks commit the most crime and social violence in the US and other places where they are prominent, and homos routinely degrade culture around the world into a celebration of narcissism, decadence, and degeneracy. (If the Ancient Greeks should be admonished for one thing, it was letting too many homos and pederasts get out of hand.)
But there is another group of people who are a pain in the ass. The sinner-saints of the White Prog Community. Unlike Jews, blacks, and homos, these white progs see themselves as born sinners stained with 'white guilt'. So, their moral imperative is to make scenes of atonement and redemption. They have an obsessive-compulsive mental disorder of constantly washing themselves of sin. They feel so dirty, having been born with wicked white blood, so they do their Lady Macbeth thing as PC theater.
But paradoxically, those who feel most dirty and compulsively wash themselves feel so much cleaner than others who don't share in the obsession-compulsion. If Jews, blacks, and homos feel clean for having been born with clean blood, white progs feel cleansed and replenished by endless rituals of PC blood transfusions. The difference is Jews, blacks, and homos feel clean simply by being what they are since PC deems them to be natural saints. In contrast, white progs must tirelessly, or obsessively-compulsively, undergo self-cleaning ritual-therapies to feel cured. White progs can never feel clean; they can only feel cleansed, and this requires endless process of enema-like expurgation of one's natural sinner-status. The ensuing hysteria makes the sin-cleanser feel superior to those whites who aren't as obsessive-compulsive in their expiation of natural white sin.
Kennedy the white sinner constantly washes and dries her wicked dirty white soul. Because she feels dirty and constantly lathers her soul with PC soap, she feels so much cleaner and superior to whites who don't feel so dirty and don't feel an obsessive-compulsive need to take PC showers. So, Kennedy's sin-obsession has ironically filled her smug-ugly soul with the supremacist pride of soapy-sudsy sainthood. She may be not be a natural saint like Jews, blacks, and homos, but boy oh boy, she surely is saintlier than 'racist' whites who don't scrub themselves with PC soap as obsessively-compulsively as she does.
Her ilk doesn't impress me. They are just snot-nosed supremacists of another kind. They are virtue-nazis wallowing in ideological supremacism. She thinks herself so superior to other whites who don't preen, sneer, and virtue-signal like she does in her foamy white-guilt bubble bath.
Worse, her moral masturbation is blind to her preferred ideology being the biggest evil in the world, one that is destroying entire nations and communities. ONLY AN IDIOT thinks 'diversity' is a panacea for all problems. Diversity is the product of imperialism and colonization. Alexander the Great created an Empire of Diversity, and how much blood was spilled in the process? And eventually, the Greeks became part of a diverse Roman Empire that didn't expand peacefully. The loss of autonomy was NOT GOOD for Greek Civilization. PTOLEMY WAS RIGHT IN HIS PRIVATE MUSINGS in Oliver Stone's movie: https://youtu.be/YK4s2Fjefn8?t=1m3s
The last thing we need is Mark Zuckerberg playing Alexander the Grape, with his snot-nosed spoiled-brat sister Donna doing the Angelina Jolie part of the crazy mother hen.
At least the real Alexander, crazy and ruthless as he was, was a real romantic and courageous leader of men. The master-connivers of globalism like Zuckerberg are a bunch of snakes and weasels who risk nothing of their own power and privilege while endangering what is most meaningful and valuable for most people: A sense of homeland, a place to return to. If an Hungarian travels around the world, he may see all sorts of remarkable things and meet interesting people. But he will always be a stranger in other nations. It is only when he returns to Hungary that he can relax and feel 'this is my homeland.' It's good to know that there is at least one place in the world where you are not a stranger but an owner along with your fellow countrymen.
But what happens when Hungary fills up with foreigners? There WON'T be any part in the world where a Hungarian can feel at home. He will be a stranger even in a familiar land, in the land of his ancestors. Globalists and their well-paid and well-connected commissars don't understand this since they live in a Laputa-Elysium world of their own.
Globo-Homo Mark Zuckerberg, the cyber emperor of censorship and Jewish supremacism, pretends to sympathize with blacks and Christianity. These Jews...
Oddly enough, PC says the only way to clean whiteness is by staining it with color. (But won't, non-whiteness be 'stained' and infected with Evil Whiteness?) Oddlier enough, non-whites who denounce whiteness are ever so eager depart from and abandon their colorful societies to go to white nations and live & mix with whiteness because they prefer whiteness over their own kind.
Now, if whiteness is so problematic, then non-whites should stay in their wonderful non-white colorful world and revel in it. But all they ever dream about is running from the world of color and going to where white folks are. Since non-white immigrants prefer whiteness above all, even over their own kind, aren't they a bunch of 'white supremacists'?
Darth-Vader-Wannabe Richard Spencer derides Universal Nationalism at 2:25:10 in the video below: VIDEO DELETED BY YOUTUBE Spencer says he believes in Power, and the name of the game is to be more ruthless than one’s enemies/rivals and WIN. He says Omni-Nationalism(his term for Universal Nationalism) is stupid and terrible. He says it’s ahistorical. He says History is all about the Power. The Power is greater than the Truth. He says he rejects nationalism, independence, and sovereignty for Other Races. He thinks the Aryan Race, being a conquering and wandering global people, must destroy and dominate all the world. He says he respects Neocons because they have global ambition. His rejection of Neocon-ism isn’t moral but racial-political, i.e. he wishes his race, the Aryans, were doing what the Neocons are doing: Turning the world upside down and destroying countless lives to gain hegemony, domination, and supremacy. His attack on ‘omni-nationalism’ is clearly an attack on people like Ramzpaul and Greg Johnson, even Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald, who've clearly stated that they reject White Supremacism and merely hope that white people will thrive in their own homelands. According to Spencer, it’s all about the Will and Power. I guess he didn’t learn from World War II that the mania for Will and Power by the Germans led to total catastrophe for tens of millions of people. Also, Spencer has a very limited understanding of power and human psychology. There are MANY facets of power. Indeed, EVERYTHING is potentially a weapon of power. Power has a 1000 faces. Spencer also has no understanding of limits. Everything has a useful limit. Empires can expand only so much before it begins to fall apart, causing more problems than providing benefits. It's like a tower can be built only so high in defiance of the forces of gravity. The Romans and the British eventually found out the hard way the limits of empire. So did the Soviet Union, despite all its tyranny and represion. And the Assyrians and Mongols who relied so much on terror and ruthlessness didn’t last long and faded from history. In contrast, the Jews, who weren’t one of the great imperial powers of the Ancient World, outlasted all other tribes and eventually gained great influence. Why? They had a keener and deeper understanding of power as a strategy of ethnic survival grounded in moral conviction. Spencer thinks Will = Power, but there is also the Wit to Power, something his witless understanding of history and psychology doesn’t allow. There is also what might called the ‘Well to Power’, or the power of morality that can conquer hearts and minds. There is also the Wisdom to Power. Indeed, morality and wisdom are also kinds of power. After all, the power of persuasion is more long-lasting than the power of mere intimidation. As humans are naturally moral and have an innate(if crude) sense of right and wrong, the demonstration of rightness and righteousness is also a kind of power. Indeed, ‘right’ is more powerful than mere ‘might’. While might is certainly effective, it can only maintain itself by threat and terror. Eastern Europeans who lived under Soviet tyranny never respected it. They were eager to toss it away the minute they were given the opportunity(just like the minions of the Wicked Witch were glad to see her gone in THE WIZARD OF OZ). In contrast, those who were morally or spiritually won over to an ideology or religion remain loyal even without compulsory force. Spencer’s vision of power is that of Aryan Thuggery. He seems to think the Aryans should conquer the world, dominate others with ruthless terror, and thus use the Will to Win. History is full of such examples, but they all came to a bad end as their subjects, even in obedience, were filled with resentment and vengeful hatred. Now, let me address his points one by one.
Spencer says application of universal morality for the world is ahistorical. He says history was moved by Will and Power, not by morality and right-and-wrong. But what is historical and ahistorical? History is filled with so many examples and counter-examples that there is no single universal truth for all of history and humanity. For example, slavery was universal all around the world for most of human history. The powerful conquered the weak and often enslaved them. Or even within a homogeneous people, many people were relegated to serf or slave status. So, are we to say that the idea of freedom for all men is ahistorical and ‘stupid’? Since history was mostly about the powerful enslaving the weak, we should bring back slavery? Should neo-Aryans think in terms of MEIN KAMPF and conquer other races and enslave them? The fact is rules of history change as the modes of human existence changes. The rules of some primitive tribe are different from the rules of a feudal order, which are different from those of a modern system. What is relevant and meaningful in feudal France or feudal Japan are no longer applicable to modern France or modern Japan. Also, the concept of power changes over time. In monarchies, the power belongs to the king and noblemen. In democracies or states based on mass-politics, the power is legitimatized with the consent(or at least contentment) of the people. This has been true of the US and other democracies and theoretically in communist nations because the theme of socialism has been the (more)equal distribution of goods for the betterment of all peoples. And even Fascism and National Socialism were mass-political movements where the Great Leader claimed to represent the will of the nation, the people, or the race, something far bigger than himself and his coterie of enforcers. Indeed, this is why Mussolini and Hitler rejected traditionalism of rule by monarchs and noblemen. They understood that modern people don’t want to lose their authority and return to the old way of aristocratic privilege. Thus, the ONLY way they could be won over to Fascism or National Socialism was by convincing them that their voices would be heard and their needs would be provided for with job programs, universal healthcare, and other grand statist projects. One reason why the Reds prevailed over the Whites in the Russian Civil War was that the Bolsheviks better understood the political psychology of modernity. Especially after the horrors of World War I, an overwhelming number of Russian masses didn’t want to return to Tsarist rule and aristocratic privilege. They wanted land and bread. Granted, communism turned out to be a disaster for Russia, but the Bolsheviks won because their moral argument had more effective mass appeal. THAT is a kind of power. Spencer can dream of all the power he wants. He won’t get any unless he can convince the people of his rightness. And most people are not amoral psychopaths who want to wage wars and use ruthless means to crush other peoples around the world. Most people have some sense of fairness and reciprocity. Power doesn’t just come from Will or Wishful Thinking. It comes from winning hearts-and-minds. Converting people to your worldview is more effective than pointing a gun to their head. And people are converted most assuredly with moral arguments. Granted, there are OTHER ways to win people to your side. There is bribery, which is effective but very expensive. Also, once the money dries up, the loyalty vanishes instantly. The US, being very rich, has been able to win over many allies with bribery. And China is doing the same. But there is little love and no trust among the bribed. Once the money is gone, the 'alliances' fall apart. As Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER PART 2, all the gangsters are businessmen and, in the end, it all comes down to money. Paulie in the first GODFATHER movie betrayed Vito Corleone for a few pieces of silver.
In contrast, deeper power comes from a sense of respect and righteousness. In such bond, there is guilt and remorse(and desire for redemption) that follows betrayal. Why did Peter weep when he denied Jesus three times? Why did he spend the rest of his life spreading the Gospel even at the price of death? To atone for his guilt and to serve whom he revered as a truly Great Man. That is real power. Spencer in his delusions of grandeur may see himself as Aryan Darth Vader, but the fact is he will never win over many people with respect and righteousness because his worldview is so hollow. It’s schoolyard bully boy antics: "I’m bigger and stronger than you, so give me your lunch money." That’s Spencerism in a nutshell. He thinks this is profound stuff, but it’s the mentality of rappers and gangsters. Sure, it has a certain appeal. Rap is very profitable, and SCARFACE is a pop classic of sorts. Still, their main appeal is as fantasy, not reality. In the real world, we don’t want to live in communities where the values and rules are defined by rappers and gangsters. We don’t want to live in Detroit or corrupt towns run by mafia goons(like the ones in GOODFELLAS). The problem with raw Will & Power is that every subject is a potential enemy. Those who are conquered by terror and ruled by tyranny come to hate their tormentors, and they bide for time to get revenge. Creating subjects is like creating enemies... unless the subjects can be morally or spiritually won over to the rightness of the dominant side. Indeed, this was why Christianity and Islam were so effective as tools of conquest. Arab Muslims, in converting their subjects to their religion, were able to turn the vanquished into brothers. And for a while, even communism had this power. By offering comradeship to all who were conquered, the Soviet Union made the case that its power wasn’t one of tyranny but liberation and emancipation from either feudal tyranny or capitalist exploitation. In contrast, Nazi Germans won over few allies because their ideology expounded that many non-Aryan subjects must be slaves of the superior Aryans. Unsurprisingly, when the opportunity arose for non-Aryans to throw off the German yoke, they struck with burning vengeful fury. Revenge can be just as ruthless as conquest and tyranny. The book AFTER THE REICH details the anti-German fury that gripped much of Eastern Europe as the Third Reich collapsed. For a time, I thought critics of Spencer were exaggerating and mis-characterizing him as a ‘white supremacist’ and ‘neo-nazi’, but the discussion in the video above leaves no doubt that he is indeed those things. He believes the ‘Aryans’ should conquer, dominate, and rule others with ruthless abandon. He differs from the Paleo-Nazis in that he regards Slavs and other kinds of whites as honorary ‘Aryans’(whereas the main victims of Paleo-Nazis were fellow Europeans of different hues), but his core worldview is about his People conquering and ruling all the world, that is prior to finally trekking to the stars as ‘supermen’ and do what? Build a Death Star and invade Superman’s home planet of Krypton?
Spencer doesn’t understand history. While it’s true that there are certain structural themes & threads that run throughout all of history, how they manifest themselves under different ideas and circumstances have had profound implications. After all, we can find lots of similarities between Aztec Civilization and a European Christian one. Both had rulers and the ruled. Both has spiritual systems and priestly classes. Both had the warrior caste. Both were conquering peoples. Power was central to both civilizations. But their different spiritual and moral premises led to huge divergences in how that power was defined, idealized, and manifested. It made all the difference between seeing people as objects to sacrifice to the gods and seeing people as possessed of unique souls that could be redeemed in the eyes of God. Furthermore, Christianity says God sacrificed Himself for mankind out of great love and empathy. Why was this idea crucial? Because it’s about the power of rightness than of mere might. If God or gods are amoral and only about power, they just hold the whip-hand and don’t care what happens to humans. Weak and mortal humans are just toys and playthings to the powerful gods. But if God or gods aren’t merely about power(like a shark, lion, or bear) but about morality and justice, then the Good cannot be measured simply on the basis of brute power. Theory of Justice itself becomes a power. Power goes from mere measurement to moral judgement. If raw power is everything, then a big strong Negro football player deserves more respect than a weak old white man. (In our nihilistic world obsessed with Rap Thug Power, people don't care when some tough black thug beats up, robs, and kills an old weak white man. Indeed, Current America that reveres black 'badassness' as the ultimate display of power isn't all that different from Spencer vision where Power has license to do as it pleases.) In nature, a lion has supremacy over a cheetah, and that’s that. There is no morality but merely the fact of stronger dominating the weaker. But if God or gods aren’t merely brutish gangsters in the sky, they must also ponder the meaning of truth and justice. And to understand the greater truth, they must be capable of multiple perspectives. Instead of being limited to their superiorist conceit, they could see the world from the eyes and bodies of mortals. So, Jesus shared His short life among the people and felt their pain and understood what it’s like to suffer as fragile humans do. Instead of just holding the whip-hand as God, He felt the pain of the flesh under the whip. And such wider perspective allowed for a deeper appreciation of life and the world. Not just from the perspective of divine power but from that of the powerless. It’s like an arrogant boxer who has always won can only learn the lesson of sportsmanship when he is defeated and humiliated. Those who only hold the whip-hand cannot understand what it is like to be one who is whipped. The problem with Richard Spencer is he represents ‘white privilege’ at its worst. Because he was raised as a spoiled brat in an affluent family and allowed to do as he pleased, he has a habitual whip-hand syndrome. Even after he got whipped real bad by the Powers-that-be, he still think he has the whip when, if anything, the whip is being applied on him, when he’s being caned and spanked by the power that is now laughing at him as a pathetic loser. The problem is not Spencer’s appreciation of power and the need for white people to regain it and use it effectively against their enemies. It’s that Spencer wants to do to the world what the Jews have done to him. Because Jews used their might to crush and humiliate others, Spencer wants that power for himself. He wants to deny rights and freedoms to other peoples like the Jewish oligarchs and activists have done against white Americans and Palestinians. Like the character of Poe in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID, Spencer is essentially a worshipful toady to the Power.
John Beck as Poe in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID. The worshipful toady of power and privilege.
Granted, Spencer is under some grand delusion that HE will be the fuhrer-vader of all the world and all the galaxy, but that makes him all the more difficult to take or stomach. One might think that Spencer, having got his comeuppance at Charlottesville and thereafter, would have wised up a bit and realized the injustice of tyranny. But instead, he admires the power of tyranny and merely wishes HE had the whip-hand so that his kind can do to the rest of humanity what the Jews are now doing to the white race and Palestinians. Now, why would humanity want to be freed of Max Boots of the world to be replaced by Richard Spencers of the world. Maybe Spencer is so deluded in his narcissism that he thinks most of humanity will be flattered to be kicked around by the likes of his majesty. If Spencer can’t learn from his defeats and humiliations, maybe the tawdriness of his soul is less the result of upbringing(in ‘white privilege’) than an innate personality defect, as with Tony Soprano or Adolf Hitler. After all, following the horrors he witnessed in World War I, you’d think Hitler would have tried to avoid another war that could destroy more millions of lives. He'd been in the trenches. He’d even been incapacitated by poison gas. He’d experienced war as destruction and defeat. But what did he do? He regarded millions of German soldiers as mere cannon fodder and had even a lower opinion of civilians of other nations and triggered a war that may have wipe out 50 million Europeans. But even as he faced doom and defeat, his delusional mind fantasized about winning with phantom armies on that map who no longer existed in reality. Will is an integral component of power, but will without wit and material support eventually crumbles. If will is the key, then any boxer with greater will should beat any boxer with weaker will. But in most fights, the bigger/stronger boxer usually wins. Japanese had great will in WWII but lost their empire and got defeated and utterly humiliated. Hitler’s intoxication with will and self-image of himself as the Man of Destiny blinded him to a sense of limits so integral to reality. Even as Berlin was burning with the advancement of Soviet Troops, he ordered his generals to use armies and forces that were no longer there. Spencer is similarly delusional. The world has changed drastically since the 19th century, yet he thinks he’s the Great White Conqueror of Rudyard Kipling’s imagination. The West is on the verge of being inundated with masses of non-whites, but his obsession is with the ‘Aryans’ conquering the world. When the white race should be doing its utmost to defend and preserve itself as people and domain, Spencer’s worldview is of light-speed wanderlust in the Imperial Fleet of Lord Vader. At this point, Spencer really belongs in a funny farm. There, he can tell others he’s the nephew of Darth Vader and share conversations with others who claim to be Napoleon, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, and Skeletor. If Spencer were a highschool student or still in college, I could understand his immature and over-excited babbling about Will and Power. It’s like we can see where the Nietzsche-obsessed kid in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE is coming from. But Spencer is over 40, and he’s talking like some cosplay clown at a STAR WARS convention.
Spencer is also utterly lacking in self-awareness. He puts himself forth as a grand strategist like Michael Corleone but exhibits all the impulsiveness of Sonny Corleone. His advice to political candidates — that they should run as either a populist mainstream candidate OR an inspirational idealistic candidate — is lost on himself. Just like dufus Paul Nehlen, Spencer cannot make up his mind as to his mission in life. Is Spencer a Truth-teller or a Power-strategist? He’s too impulsive as a blabber-mouth to be one or the other. For example, he says Power counts more than the Truth. So, to gain power, people must be careful about what they say. They must use deception and manipulation to gain power. If so, why is Spencer spilling the beans about his grand design that is sure to turn most people(including whites) off? Whatever Spencer believes, he must know that he can’t gain any power if he openly admits to the world that his ultimate dream is to be Lord Vader of the White Race that shall conquer and rule all the world with ruthless terror. (Worse, most people are laughing at this as Spencer's been bitch-slapped into oblivion by the Jews who DO KNOW how to use deception to wield power.) Now, if Spencer is willing to relinquish his role as Alt Right strategist, I suppose one could at the very least credit him with honesty as Truth-teller. Whatever one thinks of his views — Illuminating or Infuriating — , one could say he’s forthright and has placed all the cards on the table. But, Spencer also sees himself as a strategist and leader. He wants to operate in ways to gain real power, and he says, much like Saul Alinsky, that deception is key to strategy. But how can he deceive anyone anymore when he’s spilled the beans about his White Supremacism and Neo-Nazism? Imagine Michael Corleone telling the other families and Hyman Roth what he’s really thinking and what he really intends to do: Kill them all and take their stuff. Spencer is too much of a narcissist to stare honestly into the mirror and see a Class A fool staring back. As a child, he was overly spoiled when he should have been spanked once awhile. Also, his impulsiveness and delusional nature must be infectious as just about everyone around him imploded or crashed-and-burned as drunkards, hotheads, or knuckleheads. Ultimately, Spencer is more Uther than Arthur. As Merlin said of Uther:
Arthur: "What kind of man was my father?" Merlin: "Oh, he was brave, he was strong. He was a great knight." Arthur: "Was he a great king?" Merlin: "Well, he was rash. He never learned how to look into men's hearts. Least of all his own." Arthur: "You loved him?" Merlin: "Well, it is easy to love folly in a child."
Granted, Spencer didn't even come anywhere near what Uther accomplished. His 15-minutes-of-fame was entirely due to the Media using him as the go-to-guy as to what the Alt Right was all about. He threw away this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity by openly associating the Alt Right with Neo-Nazi and white-supremacist elements. While the Jews played dirty and low at Charlottesville, it was as if Spencer was more than willing to fall into their trap and confirm the Media Narrative that Alt Right is nothing but hipster-neo-nazis.
At this point, Spencer’s yammerings don’t even have the amusing qualities of childish babble. They are just stupid, utterly delusional and lacking in self-awareness, insanely contradictory, and have more holes than Swiss cheese. It just goes to show that intelligence isn’t enough. Spencer, while no genius, is certainly smart and educated. But his emotional character is that of a 5 yr old who wants to hog all the toys for himself. And this is probably a genetic trait. Though nurture does shape us, nature ultimately dominates, and some people are too egocentric to have empathy for larger humanity. Both Hitler and Mao witnessed so much horrors in their paths to power, but with power they unleashed even more hellishness because their propensity toward Action and Domination just couldn’t let history and humanity alone. Tragically, the disasters were so unnecessary. National Socialism could have been a success as a limited national enterprise. Instead, Hitler went for Empire and brought about the most destructive war in human history. Mao, upon gaining supreme power in China in 1949, could have patiently and diligently worked to build the nation and improve the lives of his countrymen. Instead, his overheated imagination fueled by delusions of grandeur led to the lunacies of the Great Leap Forward, needless rivalry with the Soviet Union, and the Cultural Revolution. Neither man had the depth and foresight of someone like Kemal Ataturk who, though not without ambition and vision, knew the limits of power. Ataturk knew that Ottoman Empire couldn’t be reconstituted, and so, the sane and logical thing was to secure a nation for the Turks. Spencer invokes Nietzsche time and time again, but I think the main inspirations for his zany delusions are BATMAN and 007. We all need some entertainment, but it has nothing to do with reality. Look at Sean Connery today. He’s a doddering old man. That’s reality. 007 and STAR WARS make violence and mayhem exciting and fun, but reality is otherwise. Of course, like all delusional egotists, Spencer surely thinks of himself as the leader than cannon-fodder. Since he sees himself calling the shots and wielding the whip-hand, what does he care about the millions who may die in wars? In this, he’s just like the Neocons who infest Washington and NY. They and their kids don’t fight in wars. They don’t come home in body-bags. No, they occupy supreme elite positions and cook up plans in which dumb white goyim go to fight, kill, and die. Neocons don’t intend to be shot with bullets, lose limbs, or end up dead. And their kids are raised to attend elite schools and have clean jobs. And if they do serve in the military, it is the Israel military for the sake of the Tribe(while dumb white goy US soldiers fight in Wars for Israel). Neocons(and Liberal Zionists like Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman) can afford to think this way because they occupy the pantheon of power. They can play the role of the gods while the goy mortals do all the fighting and dying. Especially as Jews consider themselves as racially & culturally superior, they don’t care what happens to all those goyim as killers or killed. But Spencer and his ilk are no different. As they see themselves as the vanguard and elite, they won’t be the ones who will do the fighting and dying in future imperial projects. Perchance Spencer gains Darth-Vaderian power, it won’t be he and his kids who will do the fighting and dying to conquer the world. No, all the low-class white suckers will do the killing and dying. Notice the Bush and Quayle dynasties kept their sons from wars. It was the sons of the working class who did most of the killing and dying... and for what? Because by waging Wars for Israel, the GOP hoped to attract Jewish Zionists to the its camp. Because Spencer always regards himself as the Great Leader with the whip-hand, he is incapable of see himself as the whipped-back. He’s like someone who’s so used to seeing himself as the bomb-dropper from above that he can’t see himself as the bomb-receiver on the ground. Also, his sense of history is so selective that he is blind to all the suffering of humanity as the result of wars and conquests. Indeed, this is a common failing among many Americans because the US hadn’t been invaded by a foreign power since the War of 1812. Perhaps, Spencer might think differently if his families suffered like Polish families in WWII. Or like Russians whose motherland was nearly run over by armies commanded by a genocidal maniac. Imagine if Spencer’s home town had been bombed and strafed, with his parents being torn to pieces by shrapnel. Then, imagine armies marching in to rape his sister and others in the community. That is precisely what happened all across Europe in World War II, and many Europeans understood the horrors of war, something that didn’t just lead to military casualties but entire destroyed communities. That too is part of history. The tragic suffering of peoples upon peoples. But, none of it registers in Spencer’s amoral pea-brain because his worldview is a superhero comic book version of Nietzscheanism. World War II was tragic not merely for the victims of Nazis but ultimately for the Nazis themselves. When one looks at the footage of German prisoners-of-war in Stalingrad, it is a sad sight. Here are the Germans, a great and capable people, reduced to the roles of untermensch in rags being forced to march in utter humiliation. And most of them never made it back home to see their families again. This was all the result of the mania for ruthless Will and Power, but Spencer apparently learned NOTHING from history. His understanding of history is more STAR WARS than World War II. And even in STAR WARS, he sides with the power that blows up entire planets. Does this mean Spencer is a psychopath? Probably not. More likely, he’s just hungry for notoriety as White Nigga of Aryan Gangster Paradise.
An obvious character flaw of Spencer is greed. Enough is not enough for him. Anyone sane person would look at the world map and say white people have enough or more than enough. After all, if whites play it right, they have Europe, Russia & Siberia, Canada, United States(that includes Alaska), Australia, New Zealand, and large chunks of Latin America(where even majority non-white nations are still ruled by white elites). That’s a lot of land. Especially the Anglos and Russians lucked out because they moved into mostly empty territories. Siberia was mostly empty land for the taking. Russians took Alaska too but foolishly sold it to the US. Anglos lucked out because they were pioneer-conquerors in mostly sparsely populated lands of North America and Australia. Anglos eventually discovered it is difficult(and ultimately impossible) to maintain long-term control in areas with sizable populations. British could maintain control over rebellious India only with massive bloodshed, but even that would have failed in the long run because, even with advantage in technology, the Brits didn’t have enough men to lord over hundreds of millions of brown people. In contrast, Australia was mostly empty, inhabited only by primitive savages tossing boomerang at kangaroos and wombats. And North America was mostly empty. Estimates say there were around 5 to 10 million natives, and a good number of them were wiped out by Old World diseases even before whites moved westward with guns and wagons. Anglos had all those prime lands to conquer and claim for themselves.
So, let’s consider the map again. Whites have Europe, their homeland. They have all of Russia with its vast Siberian territories. Whites have Canada and the US that includes vast Alaska. Whites also have Australia, a continent unto itself. And US has military bases all over the world. And Argentina, Uruguay(95% white), and Chile are substantially European. And yet, this is NOT enough for Spencer. Instead of trying to defend and preserve what whites have gained for themselves throughout history, Spencer wants whites to go into Napoleon-Hitler mode and conquer all the world and use ruthless will to terrorize everyone into obeisance. Spencer is like the dog with a bone in its mouth that wants the bone in the reflection too. Worse, he seems oblivious to the depressing fact that the white world, including the European homeland, is now facing invasion by non-whites. (His anti-nationalist imperialism favors the vainglory of White Rule over the needs of White Security. He doesn't identify with white people but with the white ruling class. So, the idea of whites RULING OVER others appeals to Spencer more than the idea whites having their own homeland. In an all-white homeland, whites don't lord over other whites; white elites can lead and represent but not rule like ubermensch. But whites can put on supremacist airs and lord over non-whites, and this is why Spencer is so drawn to imperialism. It is only with dreams of white rule over non-whites that his ilk can fantasize about pop-Nietzschean 'superman' antics. So, Spencer has said that it doesn't matter if whites become minorities because they will still have elite advantage, as whites still do in the South African economy. But this is true ONLY for White globalist-elites. For the white masses, demographic decline means total disaster. Look at California. The Jewish/white elites are doing better than ever in their enclaves in Hollywood and Silicon Valley. But so many ordinary white folks have lost their Arcadia. It's like white/Jewish elites are still doing fabulously well in South Africa. They can buy off black politicians and rake in record profits. They can continue as the defacto behind-the-scenes real lords of South Africa. But what has happened to the white working class and white farmers over there? As long as Spencer identifies with the white vanity than with the white volk, he will favor the politics of the whip than of the hand.) White populations are plummeting, white minds have been colonized by PC and Afromaniacal Pop Cuture, white women got jungle fever, and white boys are infected with ‘white guilt’. Given all these dire trends, any responsible white person would prioritize preservation of white lands and restoration of white identity, but Spencer is fixated on conquering the rest of the world. It’s like Hitler in his bunker dreaming of World Conquest when the enemies are closing in on Germany from all sides. Spencer is like someone deeply in debt(and on the verge of losing his home) dreaming of shopping for more and more stuff. He’s the shopoholic of ‘power’. He’s so obsessed with MORE than he’s blind to the fact that white people have MORE THAN ENOUGH to secure their greatness for all eternity IF they play their cards right. Being delusional and childish(and maybe a bit not-quite-right in the head), Spencer has poor grasp of reality. Now, suppose the Spencerian Alt Right were to come to power. How would it convince white people to join the military and start wars around the world to conquer all of it? How many white people would want to see their sons fight endless wars with China? How many white Britons want to fight new wars to retake India and Malaysia? And Iran? Are the Dutch just itching to take over Indonesia and rule over its 200 million people? US, the sole superpower, has demonstrated time and time again that it can win wars militarily but cannot rule over foreign lands effectively. Of course, one could argue that the US should be more ruthless and wipe out entire populations and just take everything, but most white people aren’t as immoral and demented like Spencer. Also, how would the world react if the US were to, say, invade Iran and go about wiping out the entire population to gain total mastery over the land and resources? Now, it goes without saying that we can't expect equality among nations. Some nations are bigger obviously. And some nations will always be richer, stronger, and more influential. So, the ideal of Universal Nationalism is NOT about ensuring equality among all nations. Rather, it is about ensuring basic right of sovereignty for each nation, like the right not to be invaded and enslaved. It's like equality is impossible among Americans. Some, like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, will be much richer than others. Others will be more educated and influential. Still, each person can be assured basic rights of freedom and liberty. Even a white working class person with high school degree is assured of free speech and right to bear arms. Thus, Universal Nationalism isn't some utopian dream but a realistic arrangement where all nations, even the least powerful, have certain basic rights of existence and self-preservation. Why is this so offensive to Spencer? If a school environment says even a weakling kid shouldn't be beaten up and robbed of his lunch money, most decent people would agree. But Spencer is the bullying type who will rant about how such niceties go against the Will & Power that his awesome self embodies. So, the Big Strong kid should exercise his 'Aryan' will and grab the lunch money. Like all bullies, Spencer is really a coward who toadies up to power and picks on the weak. Even as Jews bitchslap and dickslap him endlessly, he praises Zionists while shitting on Palestinians(even though Jews treat him like they treat Palestinians). Why? Because Spencer cozies up to power. His Will-to-Power is really Wish-to-Cower-before-the-Power.
Richard Spencer once had the 'fashy' haircut of Moe, the bully of CALVIN AND HOBBES. His worldview is that of Moe. A bully-coward who worships power and picks on the weak.
Spencer shits on Omni-Nationalism or Universal-Nationalism but such would be good for the white race and especially hurtful to Jews. Why? Because whites control so much of the world territory. If the world were to forsake all future imperialism and stick with current national borders, the white race would be positioned most dominantly. It would have the heritage and talent of Europe. It would have the vast resources of Russia/Siberia. It would have Australia, another land of tremendous resources. It would have Canada, another vast nation with tons of untapped resources. It would have the US and Alaska. And it would have much of South America where some nations are close to half-white and where even non-white majority nations are ruled by European-descended elites. So, Omni-Nationalism would mean independent white nations would have control over vast territories with tremendous resources. In contrast, it would be disadvantageous to Jewish globo-homo supremacism because the only Jewish nation is Israel, a tiny speck on the map with few resources. This is why Jews try to undermine nationalism in white nations. For Jews to have global power, they must make white nations serve Jewish identity and interests, and this is why Jews defame any white identity as ‘white supremacism’ while telling white people that it is their moral imperative to support Israel-as-a-Jewish-state as the ‘greatest ally’ of the West. (Jews also prefer imperialism/hegemonism over nationalism because, simply by taking control of the hegemonic white nation, they can gain control of ALL white nations. Suppose there are 10 white nations and each have full sovereignty. In order for Jews to gain control of them all, they must work on each nation separately. They have to undergo 10 labors to gain mastery over 10 white nations. In contrast, suppose one white nation has hegemony over the other 9. Then, Jews only need to take control of the one hegemonic white nation to gain control over the other 9 as well. This is why NATO and EU have been so harmful. Because the US is the sole superpower and hegemon over most white nations, Jewish control of the US has effectively translated into control of Canada, Australia, UK, and EU as well. It's like Jewish Bolshevik control of Moscow meant that they had control over all lands and peoples within the Russian empire.) Now, imagine if there were a massive island-continent in the middle of the Pacific the size of India or Australia. Suppose it’s a Jewish nation with 500 million Jews. Then, Jews would be content with universal nationalism since they would have a massive power center for themselves. Even without goyim serving Jews around the world, Jewish global power would be assured on the basis of Jews having a massive nation for themselves. But Jews don’t. Their only nation is Israel. So, Jewish global ambition and power require Jews to undermine goy identity and unity in every white nation and to make whites serve Jews. Jews also use blacks to undermine white pride and white prestige. Jews play on ‘slavery’ and ‘apartheid’ narrative to fill white minds with guilt and self-loathing. Jews promote blacks in sports, song, and sex to make whites worship Black Cool. Jews also promote Homomania as proxy of their power. As homo power is about minority-elite supremacism, it complements the minority-elite supremacism of Jews.
Unlike Jews who have only tiny Israel as their homeland, whites have tremendous amounts of land around the world. Especially Russians and Anglos lucked out by grabbing mostly empty areas and colonizing them with their own kind. Anglos lucked out the most because, whereas much of Siberia is harsh and cold, much of North America has ideal weather that is neither too hot nor cold. History tells us that a people can gain permanent mastery over mostly empty land but usually not over heavily inhabited land. It’s like China can hold onto Tibet and Xinjiang but would have a hard time holding onto, say, Vietnam for the long haul. Even if current China were to invade Vietnam, it would face all the problems US faced in the 60s and in Iraq after the invasion. Spencer seems to think white race gained so much in the past few centuries because of its Wandering Will and Conquest, but the fact is white mastery ultimately failed in the heavily populated parts of the world. Once the natives gained national or collective consciousness in places like India, Indonesia, Algeria, Kenya, and etc., the white imperialist project was doomed. The long-term dominance of white conquests was assured only in areas where the native populations were small, primitive, and vulnerable to Old World diseases. The primitive Aborigines were no match to the Anglo colonizers. And the vast North American continent could easily be cleared of its Red Savages who still had Stone-and-Bone Age technology when the whites arrived. If Spencer thinks the British could have indefinitely held India, he is dreaming. So, it wasn’t just Will and Conquest. It was Good Fortune in that Russians faced few obstacles in the taking of Siberia and in that Anglos claimed much of North America and Australia. In contrast, even in city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore, the days of white rule were numbered. Indeed, even prior to the handover of Hong Kong back to China, much of the economy had been taken over by Hong Kong Chinese already. (Whites could have permanently settled large parts of Africa which were empty back then, but the birthrates of the top imperialist nations fell precipitously and, given the climate and diseases rife in Africa, most whites had no stomach to make a permanent move there. Today, the retaking of Africa is impossible as plenty of African nations are now over-populated while European nations have falling birthrates and no stomach for world conquest. If anything, the main worry of current EU is colonization by Africans.)
When we ponder the Good Fortune for the white race(especially in taking Siberia and North America/Australia), a sane person would say white folks should prioritize doing whatever is necessary to preserve what they gained. In an Omni-Nationalist universe, it means white folks can lay nationalist claim to all of Europe, all of Russia, all of Canada, all of US + Alaska, all of Australia & New Zealand, and huge chunks of Latin America. Sounds like a great deal to me. But instead of prioritizing the preservation of this bounty, Spencer dreams of being a Batman-007-Vader version of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes.
Spencer, the Ubermensch Lord of the Apes
Now, Spencer’s anti-universal-nationalism and pro-imperialism might have made sense prior to the discovery of the New World. Back then, white people didn’t have much of the global turf. Russia had yet to conquer Siberia. If anything, they’d been invaded by Mongols from the East. And Western and Central Europe were relatively a small part of the world. Most of the world was not under white control. North America was inhabited by Red Savages, Australia belonged to a bunch of kangaroo-hunters, and South America was dominated by various indigenous kingdoms that rose and fell. So, one could understand why white people back then wanted to explore the seas and find trade routes and new lands. Europe wasn’t big enough for them. Also, what if there was MORE OUT THERE but non-Europeans took it first. Imagine if the Arabs or Japanese had been more adventurous and took North America. What if China had grabbed Siberia? As it happened, white peoples made breakthroughs in navigation and technology. And they began to develop ties with much of the world. In time, they began to colonize parts of the world. But the great fortune was the North America, Australia, and Siberia. As they were mostly empty, they could not only be conquered but effectively colonized. People are like bacteria. Just like it’s easier for a strain of bacteria to take over a sterile medium, it’s easier for a people to colonize an empty land. If you introduce a strain of bacteria into a culture filled with bacterial strains, the new strain will struggle to gain a foothold. It is when the bacteria is introduced to a sterile medium that they will have a head-start in colonizing it and taking over. Likewise, white attempts to colonize places like India and Indonesia were doomed because, despite white advantages in weapons and knowledge, they were outnumbered and surrounded by vast pools of non-whites(who increasingly grew resentful and hostile, and furthermore, learned from whites to gain wealth and power for themselves). In contrast, white settlers could effectively colonize and take over North America, Australia, and Siberia. Whites had such a chance in South Africa as well, even making up 50% of the population at one moment. But over time, white birthrates declined, whites came to rely on blacks for manpower, more blacks migrated to South Africa from neighboring areas, and black birthrate skyrocketed. White bacteria lost out to black bacteria. In the case of Israel, it was made feasible only by massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by white Ashkenazi Jews. Still, the problem is far from resolved as Israel is still 25% Arab and Occupied West Bank is majority Arab. Han Chinese are effectively colonizing Tibet because it is mostly vast empty territory. It is telling that Anglos had a harder time colonizing tiny Ireland than the North American continent. Why? Because Ireland had plenty of angry and proud concentration of Irish who never stopped resisting. In contrast, North America had just a bunch of tribes of Red Savages who were as often battling each other as they were battling whites. As Indians didn’t have fixed borders and stable nations, their ceaseless migrations into each other’s territories led to endless battles(that were exploited by whites in divide-and-conquer fashion).
As Richard Spencer went on a video-discussion hosted by a self-professed Neo-Nazi, let’s consider the matter of ‘omni-nationalism’ vs imperialism in the context of World War II. What brought it about? Which is preferable? Omni-Nationalism or Imperialism(especially one fueled by Cult of Will and Power Domination)? Let’s go back to 1939 and imagine two scenarios: One where National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy are into Omni-Nationalism and one where they are into Will-and-Power Imperialism. Which would have been better for Europe? We know that Germany and Italy went into the mode of Will-and-Power Imperialism. So, what happened as the result? Germany invaded Poland with Soviet Union as partner. Incredibly enough, Italy tried to invade Greece, then ruled by a right-wing regime. Germany, as ally of Italy, finished the job as Italians were more bluster than real power. As a result, Greeks, who’d been favorable to Germany, came to hate the Right, and many sided with Communists. And as the result of German’s Imperial Will to Power, a war widened to the point where Germany even betrayed and invaded Russia, setting off the mother of all wars that killed tens of millions in the East and took out 10 million Germans as well. Maybe this sort of thing is exciting in an Wagnerian opera or STAR WARS movie. After all, in arts & culture, no one really dies. The exploding planet and Death Star were only models. But what happens when armies march into towns and mow people down? When bombs fall out of the sky and kill untold numbers of people? How would Spencer feel if his family was wiped out in such manner? Now, sometimes wars are necessary and sacrifices must be made. But was the German invasion of Poland necessary? Or the crazy idea of invading Russia? Sure, Hitler saw himself as a Man of Destiny, a kind of Napoleon x 100, and he believe in the Power of the Will, but what resulted from his egomaniacal will-to-power? Germany was stretched to its limits and faced defeat and destruction, resulting in the vengeful rape of millions of its women. But even if Germany had prevailed over Russia, what would have been the result? Mass enslavement and extermination of the Slavic population. Apparently, Spencer doesn’t care about such things. He is a Nietzschean superman who is above ant-like humans. He is the Harry Lime of Political Science 101. He’s a wandering superman conqueror of Aryan Pedigree, and he must stomp his boot on the face of all of humanity and then conquer the entire galaxy. In summary, his view of humanity is utterly loathsome and incapable of learning from history. Ironically, Spencer and his ilk in the Alt Right exhibit the same tendencies of the Mentally Ill Crusaders(MIC), aka SJW. Whether ‘right’ or ‘left’, they are so far-gone in their egotism that they mistake their delusions for truth and the ‘right side of history’. Because Spencer sees himself as a combo of Batman, 007, and Darth Vader who worships at the Altar of Vulgar Nietzscheanism, all of humanity is nothing but a plaything in the Game of Thrones. Likewise, because MIC believe reality is all about MUH FEELINGS(based on PC crammed into their feeble minds since cradle), they think all the world must be remade with Diversity & Homomania and that we need more pronouns to accommodate 50 or more ‘genders’. Whether it’s Richard Spencer or Lena Dunham, their view of reality is all about MUH FEELINGS. There is zero empathy for people in the real world, but then, so many people have been turned likewise by a heady dose of PC and Pop Culture. Look how many idiots define themselves with tattoos, piercings, and bragging about loose drugs & degeneracy.
Now, imagine an alternative scenario. Go back to 1939 and suppose Hitler decided on Omni-Nationalism than Will-and-Power Imperialism. Germany would not have taken Czech Republic. It wouldn’t have plotted with the USSR to take Poland. There would have been no bombing of Warsaw, no Katyn Massacre by the Soviets. And Italy would not have moved against Greece(with Germans finishing the job for them). A continental war could have been avoided, and tens of millions of lives would have been spared from a horrible war. And Germany could have focused on its building its economy, expanding trade with neighboring nations, and furthering its nationalist project. Hitler and Albert Speer could have built the city of Germania.
And other nations would have looked up to German success and used it as political and cultural model. Wouldn’t this have been much better for all parties involved? A mutual respect among nations, a brotherhood of European peoples living in peace and harmony. Of course, it wouldn’t have been as exciting as Will-and-Power Imperialism. Of course, World War II was grand and spectacular, something for the history books. But what was the nature of this ‘excitement’ for those caught in the maelstrom? It’s always easy to romanticize war from a distance. This is why even Anti-War movies always fail in their objective. As no one in the audience gets hurt, they ultimately find it thrilling and adventurous, what with US soldiers watching APOCALYPSE NOW before the invasion of Iraq. Both WWI and WWII resulted from imperialism. In WWI, Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavicism destroyed one another. In WWII, Hitler went from nationalist mode to imperialist mode. He mocked the rights of other nations and embarked on to trampling on any nation as he wished. In time, stretched to their limits, German forces began to pull back and crumble. No amount of hubris could reverse the dire outcome. And eventually, the victorious nations trampled on Germany like Germans had trampled on others. And how did this feel to the German volk? Totally bombed out cities, children killed in massive firestorms, and millions of raped women. Countless dead children. You’d think Spencer would draw a lesson from this but apparently not. His childish mind fixates on some Batman vision of Nietzscheanism. Actually, it’s less Batman than Joker or Bane. After all, Batman and other super-heroes are moral and on the side of the good. They try to save lives. The nihilism is represented by the villains, and Spencer the Moe-like ‘bad boy’ really identifies with the crooks and gangsters. Why? He’s greedy and must trample on others to feel BIG about himself. Some he-man! So, this is 007 Nietzscheanism. I suppose Spencer sees himself as Too Great and Too Awesome for something so humdrum as family obligations and basic decency. (But then, his wife, as an admirer of Josef Stalin the mass killer, also has issues. Both are so admiring of Power that they seem to regard humanity as disposable.) After the fiasco with Matt Heimbach and his Jerry-Springer-Show Act, it turns out the Spencer hardly has more sense. Seriously, what’s the use of all this Big Talk about Power, Will, and Traveling to Stars IF one cannot even manage one's own family?
In the video below, Hitler mocks the right of independent nations not to be invaded by Germany. How nicer the world would have been if Hitler had heeded FDR’s warning. There would have been no WWII. Indeed, Hitler could have come out ahead even after his invasion of Poland and victory over France. All he had to do was not invade the USSR. But driven by Will and Power, he did that too, and all hell broke loose. Intoxication with Power leads to madness. Like a degenerate gambler, one doesn’t know when to stop.
Now, a far more effective rebuttal to FDR’s warning against Germany would have been to point out the sheer hypocrisy of the US and UK. After all, why not a similar warning to the Soviet Union that was an empire made of vassal states? And weren’t UK and France heads of world empires that ruled over foreign peoples? And hadn’t the US not only expanded as an imperial power but even took possession of Spanish Imperial properties? But then, Hitler was not a moralist but a supremacist. He wasn’t anti-imperialist but a would-be builder of the most powerful empire to be led by Germans. Thus, he had no moral argument against FDR and the democracies. If anything, he thought they weren't ruthless enough, something he would correct with mass-extermination campaigns against the Slavs.
Another fact that Spencer overlooks is that the conquering people are often conquered in turn by the peoples they conquered. This has happened many times in history. The Greeks who conquered others came to be conquered by them in turn. It was even truer of Romans. The roads that they built to conquer other peoples were used by others to conquer Rome. Also, empires generally didn't possess the manpower necessary to do all the conquering and occupying. Thus, they had to recruit and promote foreigners in their ranks. Empire relied on Diversity to maintain control, but in time, the Diversity had a way of overwhelming the Core. The Mongols conquered their neighbors but, in time, were absorbed and conquered in turn. Manchus conquered China, but Manchuria is now just a part of China. Japan played the imperial game but eventually not only lost all their conquests but came to be conquered by the US. To this day, it is a whore-geisha of the US. One of the problems of Current Europe is it is still in imperialist mindset despite having lost the empires. Because Europeans played the game on the global stage for so long, they have a difficult time just focusing on their own affairs and readjusting to politics on the national scale. But as UK, France, and Germany play this globalist game, they forge bridges with the non-West, the people of which keep streaming into the West. Also, the obsession with power makes the elites favor the global masses over their own kind. After all, Merkel as leader of Germans is rather humdrum. Why not be a Imperial Queen Mother to all the Africans and Muslims? Thus, she can be Mother Merkel, the Iron Matriarch to all the world. And it must be boring and humdrum for Emanuel Macron to represent and lead his own fellow Frenchman. He prefers to go ‘Bono’ and act as the Global Leader of Europe and Africa. (His African Ambition is like that of Daffy Gaddafi who wasted so many men and resources on trying to be Lord of All Africa, an enterprise that alienated his people.) You see, Frenchness isn’t just about France itself. Macron says the heart of French language and culture is now in Africa. He’s a global leader. And of course, Tony Blair wasn’t content to be leader of Britons. No, he pushed for a new kind of imperialism where UK took in all the world and meddled in the affairs of other nations, especially as the poodle of the US. That way, UK could be a global player again. And isn’t it more exciting for British leaders to rule over Diversity than mere white Britons? With swelling numbers of Africans and Muslims in the UK, the British rulers can pretend to be global in scope. UK has been made into a kind of mini-world. Gee, it has people from all over the globe. And of course, Sweden defines itself as a Moral Superpower. Somehow, a nation with fewer than 10 million people is going to lead in the salvation of the world. A kind of secular crusade. So, in a way, there is much commonality between these globo-homo lunatics and Richard Spencer. They are too full of themselves to be content with something so 'humdrum' and 'boring' as nationalism. ‘My nation’ and ‘my people’ are too small for their scope and ambition. They must play it globally. They must meddle in world affairs, and the world must be allowed to come to the West. Just like ‘all roads lead to Rome’, all roads must lead to the West as the premier global metropole. The vision of Hillary Clinton and Justin Trudeau. Now, the difference between them and Spencer could be that Spencer wants the invasion to be a one-way street. Whites conquer non-white lands while protecting their own lands. This was doable in the past, but how is it going to work today? Are Europeans really going to take India and China again? Are they going to govern Bombay and Hong Kong again? The US, the lone superpower, has enough trouble maintaining its puppet regime in Afghanistan, and yet the Aryans, fired up by Batman Spencerism, are going to take over the world once again? ROTFL. Spencer can’t even keep his own wife but is going to possess the world? Was he always this crazy or did he become crazy of late? Like so many deluded fools, Spencer has a way of selecting one aspect of something and then applying it as the general rule. For example, he says that nationalism and sovereignty haven’t been historical. He says history was always about Will and Power. Yes, power was always a part of history(and all living organisms). But Spencer fails to understand that long stretches of history were rather stable and absent these bursts of overweening will and power. For long stretches of Ancient Greek history, the various City-States respected and co-existed with one another. It was only later than Athens and Sparta got into a squabble for domination(which turned sour for both loser and winner). Also, even in victory, Sparta didn’t totally destroy Athens. Egyptians were mostly conservative and generally defended their borders than sought conquest beyond its civilizational core. For centuries, Japan was content to be self-enclosed and stable. China was also defensive than offensive. It preferred to build walls that chariots and ships. The Byzantine Empire was also essentially conservative and defensive than expansive. For long stretches of history, the various European kingdoms used diplomacy to prevent or minimize wars. This was especially true after the horrific Thirty Years War. And after the trauma of the Napoleonic Wars, the New Order established by Metternich maintained general peace in Europe for nearly a hundred years. The major exceptions were in German and Italian lands, but those wars were mostly ethno-internal affairs to unify Germans into Germany and Italians into Italy. Also, the demands of Germany in the Franco-Prussian War were limited. It was not a war for total domination over France. So, contrary to Spencer’s power-mad lunacy, much of European history was about the cautious employment of diplomacy to keep the peace and maintain stable borders. Indeed, the areas that became the seismic focal points of WWI were exactly those where secure and stable national borders had been denied by overarching and overlapping imperialist ambitions: The Balkans fought over by Germanics, Slavs, and Ottomans. If the Great Powers had been more compromising and constructive in their resolution to the Balkan problem, both WWI and WWII could have been avoided. Also, Spencer’s view of history is retro-supremacist. While it’s true that European explorers were adventurous and curious, they did NOT embark on voyages of discovery to CONQUER and DOMINATE much of the world. In most cases, they were looking for trade routes. Columbus was looking for a closer path to India. And well into the 19th century, Europeans thought China was too big and powerful to push around. They initially sought only trade. And climate and diseases made it impossible for Europeans to venture deep into the Dark Continent of Africa. If anything, whites relied on African kingdoms to capture and sell slaves to whites. And Europe was rocked by invasions by North African Moors and Ottoman Turks. For much of its history, Europeans feared being conquered more than dreamed of conquering. In the East, the Mongol invasion wreaked havoc on Russia and even parts of Poland. So, when and how did Europeans become a conquering people? It was the realization of the vulnerability of the native folks of the New World. The Spanish soon discovered that the natives were falling like flies from Old World diseases. Also, the natives hadn’t the use of the wheel, and their weapons were no match for the European rifle. And the natives were also divided as the Incas and Aztecs had oppressed and terrorized other tribes. And in North America, Anglos and French realized that the only thing between themselves and the vast continent were a bunch of Stone-Age savages. If Europeans had arrived in the New World and found a powerful civilization that withstand them, I highly doubt if they would have thought in terms of conquest. Indeed, prior to the advancement of technology, European powers mostly crossed the seas not to conquer but to trade. It was only with the further advancement in technology and especially the coming of the Industrial Revolution that made the Europeans more ambitious and think in terms of the World Conquest. And this period didn’t last very long. Furthermore, most European peoples were not involved in World Conquest. It was mainly the Spanish, the French, and the English. To a lesser extent were the Dutch and Belgians. Germans were late comers to global imperialism and, also, soon lost their overseas empire after WWI. And Italy was an even later-comer and was able to scoop up a few left-overs. Furthermore, the two of the great early empire builders, Spain and Portugal, fell into irreversible decline. After WWI, the only two European empires that mattered were the British and the French, but their colonies were doomed once the politics of national consciousness spread among the natives. Indeed, one of the great advantages of European Imperialist powers was modern nationalism that had unified the elites and the masses, e.g. British elites and masses were bound as fellow countrymen, as was the case between French elites and French masses. In contrast, in the non-West, the elites tended to treat the natives as mere subjects or property. Thus, when the Europeans took over those areas, the masses saw events in terms of ‘old boss replaced with the new boss’. But as modern national consciousness spread among non-whites, the native vanguard directly appealed to the native masses who, in turn, began to feel a sense of solidarity and regard the vanguard as inspired leaders than a mere privileged rulers. Against such unity, it became ever more difficult for the white powers to maintain control. Of course, whites with bigger guns could ruthlessly mow down the rebellious natives, but this created even more resentment, hatred, and hunger for revenge. In the Americas, whites could effectively eradicate or remove the limited number of native savages. This simply couldn’t be done in more heavily populated lands with civilized peoples who, though not as advanced as Europeans, had their own ways of organization and systems of thought.
During Donald Trump’s campaign, Richard Spencer praised how the ‘god-emperor’ had the balls to denounce the Iraq War, Libya War, and the US involvement in Syria. He liked Trump’s idea of better relations with Russia. So, I assumed that Spencer was a nationalist and anti-imperialist. I also thought he had basic moral sense that despaired of the mindless spreading of mayhem and terror around the world(at the behest of Israel-Firsters). It now turns out I was wrong. Spencer is no better than the Neocons. It seems his opposition to the Iraq War was that it was led by Zionists for Jewish/Israeli interests. It seems safe to assume that if the US were ruled by Spencer and co., he would gladly call for global wars to conquer lands and destroy peoples for the sake of Will and Power. So, Spencer was never anti-war. He only sided with anti-war forces during the Iraq War because he hated the idea of American foreign policy being dictated by Jews. But if his ilk had the power, they would likely instigate wars and violence all over the world because it's their diehard conviction that History is all about Will and Power. In truth, men like Alexander, Muhammad, and Genghis Khan were relatively rare in history. While various kingdoms vied for territory and control all throughout history, a general truce prevailed over much of the world for long stretches. If the world had been endlessly torn asunder and turned upside down by Great Conquerors and Invaders, civilizations would all have collapsed. It’s like life on earth couldn’t have been secure and stable if Earth was constantly hit with asteroids. The rise of civilizations weren’t just about Will and Power but defense and security. That’s why civilizations built walls. Before they could expand, they had to secure the core. And when civilizations clashed with other civilizations, they often sought compromise to prevent mutual destruction. Also, even when one civilization conquered others, the domination was often unstable and ill-fated in the long run. How long did Alexander the Great’s empire last? Even the very great ones, like the Roman Empire and the British Empire, lasted for a few centuries. In the case of the Romans, the empire they created became the very reason for their downfall(from which it never recovered), and it seems the bug of the neo-imperial mindset is leading to the destruction of Britain as British elites still prefer to play the global game than secure and defend their own people and culture.
Everything has limits. A contender in boxer may win fight after fight, but despite his will-to-win, he eventually comes up against an opponent who can destroy him. Look what happened to Tommy Morrison’s winning streak when he faced Ray Mercer.
Also, even the champion eventually falls as he grows older and is destroyed by a younger athlete. So, will-to-win only goes so far. Now, the Will is essential to anyone who wants to win because winners need motivation and confidence. But everyone and everything is limited in its power. A tiger is top predator in India, but it can be brought down by a large pack of dholes(wild dogs). Germany went from victory to victory until it entangled with USSR and US. Muhammad Ali had a great run and retired with glory, but he returned to the ring to be totally destroyed by Larry Holmes. The ‘greatest’ wasn’t the ‘greatest-forever’. So, one needs not only the will-to-power but wisdom-of-limitations. As Harry Callahan said in MAGNUM FORCE, "A man’s got to know his limitations."
History tells us that empires gained permanence ONLY WHEN the conquering people gained demographic dominance. While there have been many cases of heavily populated areas coming under conquest, the domination has usually been relatively short-lived. In time, the conquering folks were either overthrown/expelled/exterminated or absorbed/digested by the much larger conquered folks. The Greeks and Macedonians who conquered the Near East and South Asia simply assimilated and disappeared into the native population. And many Mongol conquerors were absorbed into China, Central Asia, or Russia. Even in cases where a caste system was instituted to ensure the Rule of Conquest, time eventually eroded much of the distinctions between the conqueror and the conquered. The Aryan invaders in India eventually came to look a lot like the darker-skinned conquered folks. And even though color barriers exist to this day in Latin America, there has been so much mixing of white blood, brown blood, and black blood, especially in nations where whites failed to secure demographic dominance. So, the only kind of conquest with long-term prospect of success is one where sparsely populated areas are taken and colonized by the conquerors who, via reproduction and replenishment-immigration(more of their own kind), secure demographic dominance. And Anglos truly lucked out by taking most of North America and Australia, vast areas of land sparsely populated by Stone Age savages. In contrast, Anglo hold on India and China was doomed in the long run. As the military philosopher Sun Tzu said, power must navigate like water. Water goes around obstacles and flows through empty areas. And Anglo power gained the most by moving into the sparsely populated wildernesses of North America and Australia. And Russians gained tremendous territory by taking thinly populated Siberia. Indeed, the only reason why Russia and US-Alaska/Canada became so huge was because the conquering folks ventured into thinly populated areas. And the US could wrest the Southwest Territories from Mexico because the Mexicans had hardly settled those areas.
Another problem of imperialism is that the conquered-collaborators eventually learn the tricks of power of the conquering people. And the absorption of those tricks eventually empowers the conquered against the conquerors. The Germanic barbarians and others soon absorbed the Roman Way of Power and eventually used them against the Romans. The Chinese in Hong Kong and Singapore quickly learned the tricks of modern commerce and began to out-compete the British, especially as they knew the native peoples and cultures much better. East Asia, under American neo-imperialist umbrella, learned the Anglo-American Way and used it to grow their own economies at the expense of US industry. Jews, whom the European elites had hired and protected to serve White Christian interests, eventually came to dominate much of Western finance and commerce. Today, Jews pretty much control most of the power in America(that has control over EU). Blacks took up white sports and began to totally demolish whitey. Blacks also gained tremendous ground in Pop Culture industry created by whites and Jews. Now, blacks are colonizing white wombs at an accelerating rate. So, the conquered can use the tools and media of the conquerors to, in turn, conquer the conquerors. Just like the roads built by Romans to conquer the world led to the world conquering Rome, the tools and rules of conquest used by whites are now being used by the world to conquer the white world. Richard Spencer is blinded by childish hubris and nostalgia(for a world that no longer exists). If he had a better reading of history, he should know that Anglos and Russians gained not only by Will and Ambition but by Luck. Russia had vast empty Siberia to its east, and Anglos were the first to conquer and lay claim to mostly empty Australia and North America. In contrast, Anglo attempts to conquer heavily populated areas all came to naught in the end. If anything, they only strengthened the non-West by spreading Western science/technology into those areas. East Asia was forced to modernize under pressure of Western Imperialism, and the long-term result is a much stronger China and growing India. It's no wonder Napoleon said, "China is a sleeping giant. Let it sleep." There was no way a small number of Western imperialists were going to maintain permanent control of such territories. Spanish did gain prolonged dominance over much of Latin America, but how long could it last in places like Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, and etc? Also, to prevent a us-versus-them confrontation between whites and non-whites in Latin America, there has been much race-mixing and the creation of mestizos(and mulattoes), but that has diluted whiteness as an identity. Indeed, even whites and mostly-whites in Latin America often prefer to see themselves as ‘people of color’ than as whites.
Hitler understood this about conquest. He believed, none-too-incorrectly, that the conquering folks throughout history lost out in the long run through race-mixing and assimilation into the very people they’d conquered. To prevent this, his Nazi Empire would require mass-slavery and mass-extermination on an unprecedented scale. The Eastern Policy was to be Spectacular Spartanism, what with Slavic populations reduced to slaves eventually to be starved to death and replaced by German settlers. When a people conquer a heavily populated territory and want to ensure permanent control over it, there must be mass genocide or at least mass expulsion. For Russia to become a permanent fixture of the Germanic empire, the Slavic populations had to eventually be made a minority population. This meant killing millions of them to be replaced by Germanic colonizers. Indeed, this plan was more violent than Classic Spartanism. The Spartan minority ruled over the Messenian helot majority, but it had no plan to eradicate the subject people to make room for a majority-Spartan state. Hitler was right to believe that a people can never be secure in power UNLESS they have majority dominance. So, Spartanism could only be temporary as a policy in Russia upon German victory. While Slavs were to be used as slave-helots, they were eventually to be eradicated or expelled(into the far reaches of Siberia) and replaced by German farmers. Zionists had the same belief. They knew that Israel-as-a-Jewish-state would be doomed if it opted for Spartanism: Jewish ruling minority relying on the labor of Arab majority helots. Eventually, the outnumbered Jews would fall(like the whites in South Africa who came to rely heavily on black helot labor). So, in order for Israel to become a permanent Jewish State, Palestinians had to be ethnically cleansed by massive pogroms. Now, as tragic as that was, Palestine was tiny, and its population of Arabs wasn’t more than 800,000 in 1948. In contrast, the population of the Soviet Union in 1941 was close to 170 million people. For the Germans to carry out their Lebensraum Plan, it would have necessitated the biggest extermination campaign in human history. Would it have been worth it? Of course not(to any sane moral person anyway; but then, Hitler was a pathological lunatic, and Spencer doesn't seem to be far behind, especially as he cavorted with the likes of Gregory Conte who wished the Nazis had prevailed over Russia and razed Moscow to the ground). While the Russian conquest of Siberia and Anglo conquest of North America and Australia did entail bloodshed and horrors, they were limited in scope because the native populations were much smaller. Also, one might find some moral rationalization in replacing primitive savagery with advanced civilization(as opposed to razing one great civilization to the ground to be replaced by another one led by pathological loons).
I don’t know what future vision Spencer has, but the Current Reality is that the West is being invaded by the World. Also, the reason why nations like Hungary and Poland have opted for nationalism is they don’t have any chance of gaining control of the EU to alter the policy toward Pan-Europeanism(that defends Europe from invasion from the Other). Poland and Hungary were fine with being part of EU as long as it remained Eurocentric and 'continentalist'(or unity among Europeans). But the fact is the EU is controlled by the US that is controlled by the Empire of Judea(or EOJ), the hegemonic superpower around the world. So, for the time being, the best hope of resistance is to disobey or even remove oneself from the globo-homo hegemon. Hungary and Poland are saying they will work with the EU as long as it doesn’t force Afro-Islamic invasion of their homelands. This isn’t petty nationalism but sane nationalism that seeks pan-national cooperation among all European peoples on a sane and rational basis. (Indeed, Hungary and Poland are eager to forge alliances with any European nation to defend the European project from the globalist project of redefining Europe as a demographic colony of Jewish elites and Third World migrant-invaders.) Hungary and Poland are making the case that the EU has betrayed its original mission as a union of European peoples. It has become a Judeo-Afro-globo-homo strategy of uniting Europe with Middle East and Africa. That will be the doom of Europe. Also, if anything, the EU is obsessed with the Will to Power to enforce its globo-homo decrees on all of Europe. So, it’s not enough for Angela Merkel to inundate Germany with masses of invaders. Along with Theresa May and Emanuel Macron, she wants to enforce the German Suicidal Pact on other European nations as well. It’s like the Jim Jones Cult. It wasn’t enough for Jim Jones to kill himself. His way was Suicide Imperialism where all his followers had to follow him in his death too. The final stages of Hitlerism and Merkelism have one thing in common: Suicide Imperialism. Facing defeat, Hitler wanted all of Germany to be destroyed forever with him. And Merkel, the self-loathing German hag-wench-bitch, isn’t content to destroy her own country. She has to take Poland, Hungary, and rest of Europe down along with Germany by opening all European gates to endless migration-invasions of Arabs and Africans. In the current climate, nationalism is the only sane option. Also, even though pan-national and international cooperation and mutual understanding are good, it is nationalism that ensures some degree of sovereignty for each people. But of course, Spencer hates that idea because he has the personality of a narcissistic bully. How dare weaker and smaller nations have any rights, independence, or sovereignty? The only rule of history is Power, and that means bigger stronger nations can trample on small nations like elephants on birds’ nests. And supposedly, the god-emperor of the world should be Spencer or someone like him. But why would anyone want to live under a spoiled-brat mama’s boy like Spencer? Spencer cannot even keep the loyalty of those close to him. Even they’ve bailed out on him because they couldn’t stomach his vanity and inanity. But somehow, he’s going to be Lord Vader of the world? What Spencer needs at this point is Will to Sanity. He’s gone cuckoo bananas. He sounds like the Panglossian character of in LITTLE BIG MAN.
He’s so full of himself that he doesn’t know his boat has too many holes and is filling up with water. Instead of patching up the boat and rowing to land, he imagines he’s the captain of some great ship destined to take over the world. Like Don Quixote charging at windmills, Spencer is chasing after fantasies. Too full of himself as the Batman-007 of History, he fails to see that his boat is sinking fast and the only thing he will have left is a life-jacket, if that. When even your allies and close compatriots depart and find you intolerable, isn’t it about time to reassess who and what you are?
Spencer is an amoral nihilist, and that means none of his arguments is moral or based on the theory of justice. This ‘worldview’ seems more the product of spoiled upbringing(where he was showered with whatever he wanted) than philosophical contemplation. He’s just use to having things go his way because of his affluent background and looks. The more anyone gets to know him, they end up feeling weary and bored with his self-aggrandizing antics. Spencer is blind to the fact that we are not living in a world of savages or barbarians. In a chaotic world, a man can get far by promising conquest and loot to his followers. In a civilized world, a great movement needs a sense of moral purpose. It has to be grounded in a theory of justice. A Viking or Mongol chieftain could rile up hordes of ruffians by promising opportunities for rape, pillage, and loot. It doesn’t work that way for a civilized people. If a would-be Great White Man called upon fellow whites to start new wars to conquer the world on the basis of Will and Power, they’d tell him to go to hell, and rightfully so. This is why Machiavelli’s THE PRINCE was an advice to be used secretly in the dark corridors of power. Nihilism, at least in a civilized setting, works only as hidden strategy and conspiratorial plots. In other words, the Prince must know how power works and plot cleverly & ruthlessly, but he mustn't reveal the nature of his game. It’s like a game of poker or chess. You don’t show your hand. And in chess, you don’t declare your moves beforehand. Stalin and Mao were arch-Machiavellians, but they didn’t go around gloating about their ruthless Will to Power. They would have lost support almost overnight. They held the support of their peers and masses because they were heads of great movements centered on a theory of justice. How many people would have respected and followed Stalin and Mao IF they declared themselves as nihilist-gangsters whose real modus operandi is Will-to-Power? To win over the masses, especially in a civilized setting, one has to appeal to something more than Power-for-power’s-sake. Indeed, even the rise of National Socialism owed to the Theory of Justice. No German would have supported National Socialism if Hitler had run a political campaign based on genocidal wars for Aryan Supremacy and Imperial Greed. Many Germans voted for National Socialism in 1933 because they just about had enough of national humiliation, depression, and degeneracy. National Socialism seemed to promise a more just future based on restoration of national borders, revival of national pride, improvement of economic health, and healthier culture. So, despite Hitler’s spellbinding charisma as orator and the emphasis on the power of the will, many supported National Socialism as the most promising ideology of justice, at least for Germans. But why did National Socialism fail in the end? Because it betrayed its Theory of Justice(based on nationalism) and geared its global strategy based on the Theory of Supremacism. It went from National Socialism to Imperial Nihilism based upon the notion that the Aryans, being a superior race, had a ‘cosmic’ right to conquer and wipe out the Slavs. In time, even Britons who’d felt sympathy for Germans(who'd suffered much as the result of the unjust Versailles Treaty and Great Depression) came to regard them as warmongering lunatics. Sympathy turned into bitter hostility. Also, it’s difficult to win over allies when your stated ideology is contempt for other races and cultures. At least communists could appeal to other peoples on the basis of ‘brotherhood of man’. At least Christians could appeal to humanity as fellow children of God. In contrast, Nazi ideology said "We Aryans are better than you inferior idiots." MEIN KAMPF even detailed how Germany must conquer eastern territories and turn Slavs into slaves. The ONLY way Hitler could gain allies was by deception and other Machiavellian trickery. So, he was able to forge an uneasy alliance with the Soviet Union based on utter cynicism. And because the alliance was purely tactical and utterly lacking in principles, it wasn’t long before Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the USSR. And then, he was cooked because no one trusted him. He’d alienated the world with all the arrogant talk of racial supremacism. Since non-Aryans couldn’t be part of Nazism(that held them in low regard), the only way Hitler could form alliances was on the basis of realpolitik. And he was able to forge such an alliance with the USSR. Ideologically, they had nothing in common, but geopolitically, they had overlapping interests over Poland and common enemies in the Capitalist West. But when Hitler turned on the USSR as well, he lost even that. Now, some have argued that the fault was less with Hitler than with the hypocritical Anglos who were racial supremacists in action but denied this truth in rhetoric. So, if Anglos had been more honest with their true nature and world power, they should have forged an alliance with Germans. Then Anglo-Aryans and German-Aryans could have combined their forces to rule the world. An Anglo-Germanic-Aryan World Order from North America to British Empire to Australia could have defeated the USSR. If Anglos in UK and US had backed the Germans, there was no telling what they could have done together. But, here’s the problem. People are moral creatures. And even though Anglos had gained great power through imperialist race-ism, they didn’t want to see non-whites as subhumans. Despite their sense of superiority, Anglos didn’t want to see rest of humanity as mere chattel. And to be sure, most Germans didn’t want to be part of genocidal wars either. They got swept up with war fever and imperial glory only because Hitler consolidated near totalitarian power, at least in the sphere of politics and propaganda. Because humans are moral creatures(as opposed to animals), it’s difficult to persuade enough of them(especially if they’re civilized) to take part in something evil and murderous, even if the material rewards are great. Also, there’s surely a difference between Anglos gaining control over lands sparsely populated with savages(in North America and Australia) AND Germans conquering & wiping out huge populations in Russia(or Japanese conquering & brutalizing countless Chinese, a civilize people). Furthermore, whereas Anglo victory over savages was assured, the German invasion of Russia and Japanese invasion of China were reckless gambles. Also, they were bound to create lots of enemies for Germany and Japan. All throughout history, when a power was seen as overly arrogant and aggressive, all the other powers tended to form alliances against it. At any rate, a brazen statement of Will to Power is too raw and ‘pornographic’ to gain mass approval or mass support, especially in a world where most people don’t believe might-is-right. Sure, on a subconscious level, people do respond to Power and Charisma(which is why so many whites are enraptured with blacks in sports and pop music), but it is not enough to start a mass movement. People want Power or Might to serve something right and righteous. This is why Christianity and Islam had such a long run, whereas the likes of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Genghis Khan, though awesome in their times, have passed away from history. In the end, the prophet wins over the conqueror because the prophet offers a vision of something greater than mere power. It’s the same with Love. While lust is powerful, that alone can’t be the basis for everlasting love where a couple remain together even when beauty fades. It is because their love grows deeper and higher than mere ‘boing’. Spencer has no moral, let alone prophetic, vision. He just sounds like a football coach telling the kids to ‘win, win, win’. He could be the father of Emilio Estevez’s character in THE BREAKFAST CLUB.
Spencer’s power-mad-ism is essentially anti-humanist, the failing of Yukio Mishima as well, which is why his brand of Japanese nationalism(cum neo-imperialism) was ultimately useless. Look at any life, and it’s more than about power. Sure, any smart and ambitious man tries to make it in life. It’s like George Bailey in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE wants to build things. It’s like Michael Corleone wants to expand his family empire. But was George Bailey’s life meaningless because he failed to become a ‘great man’? Didn’t he find a deeper kind of truth in family and friends? And did Michael Corleone really win in the end? Sure, he bested his rivals and came out on top. Still, he lost his family and friends, surrounded only by his henchmen. Because the media and entertainment focus so much on wealth, power, and fame, we tend to overlook all other aspects of life that lend it meaning. (The media remember Marlon Brando as a great actor, but he totally failed as a human being. He was an awful parent whose son ended up in jail for murder and whose daughter committed suicide.) Notice that most movies hardly ever show anything about the family life of characters. Instead, the focus is on the ACTION or MASTERY that establishes their superiority over others. But even the greatest individuals were once babies who soiled diapers. And in time, even the most talented soon grow old and feeble. Life isn’t just about the peak of wealth, fame, and glory but the full story. An athlete may win the championship, but it’s a fleeting moment. Life is more than peak moments, and moments of glory pass away like fireworks.
A man can climb a mountain but must descend and make meaning of life on the human level. Even the greatest civilizations couldn’t sustain greatness or power for long. Greeks changed the world, to be sure, but most of Greek history was uneventful and un-influential. Does that mean the existence of Greek people for most of history part had no meaning? No, people always have meaning as long as they have family and friends, land and history. Greeks were powerless for centuries under Ottoman Rule, but their identity and culture bore the torch of customs and tradition. While greatness is something for all individuals and peoples to strive for, the fuller meaning of life comes from something other than power. If an athlete cared only about power, he might as well kill himself the minute he realizes he can’t win the championship belt again. The truth is he has meaning after leaving the sports. Indeed, if he’s a real man, he will realize the greater meaning is to found outside the ring. In RAGING BULL, Jake La Motta learns to be human only after he retires from boxing and is broken by a series of events. CONAN THE BARBARIAN is fun but that’s comic book fantasy. RAGING BULL is about reality.
This is why Nationalism needs Humanism, the greatest lesson for the world following World War II. ‘Aryan’ ubermensch in the Eastern Front realized they are human after all. Ultimately fragile in a hail of bombs and bullets. Japanese discovered there are no gods to protect them from the fury of US bombs and nukes. Also, German men came to understand what it means to be defeated and humiliated. They were helpless to stop the Soviet thugs from gang-raping their mothers, wives, and daughters. And Japanese found their sacred land conquered and occupied by Americans. The great humanist films that came out of the post-war period — ROME OPEN CITY, PAISAN, BICYCLE THIEVES, UMBERTO D., IKIRU, FIRES ON THE PLAIN, HUMAN CONDITION, FORBIDDEN GAMES, I VITELLONI, 400 BLOWS, and etc. — are a testament to the limitations of man and a lesson on how most people must seek meaning within their limitations. Every man must strive for more but as a human among fellow humans. And if the greater freedom he seeks for himself means greater tyranny for others, he must realize his path isn't righteous. Man is not god. As Winston Smith discovered in 1984, any man can be broken and made to love Big Brother. In time, humanism also taught us something about the tragic delusions of communism. Marxist-Leninists were so sure they had the correct formula for history that they thought any amount of sacrifice of human lives was worth serving the Grand Idea. So, in the name of the ‘right side of history’, so many intellectuals justified the bloodbaths of Stalin and Mao. Eric Hobsbawm was one of the leading historians of the 20th century and remained a communist all his life because he thought, despite the great costs in life, the Revolution would create a better future. Whether's one's ambition is to conquer or save the world, such conceits are based on the delusion of Man as the gods-of-history. Marxist-Leninist delusions, in emphasizing Humanity, failed to see human beings as individuals. People were firewood for the Utopian Furnace. Now, humanism doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for greatness. While most people are mediocre, there are individuals of great talent, and it was the West that allowed them the freedom to reach beyond their predecessors. Indeed, the secret of Western Power was not that the white race was collectively superior but that men of special talent had the freedom to achieve and the constructive support of ordinary folks. Most white folks were ordinary or mediocre. Most were not Beethovens, Shakespeares, Newtons, and Descartes. Still, the West evolved a system where the general population were given constructive roles to play in support of the ambitions of those of superior talent. After all, a university needs people to build it, manage it, maintain it, run the cafeteria, and etc. In any system, most people are mediocre or ordinary, but if they are given constructive roles governed by laws and rights, the system can work well and provide room for those with superior talent to shine. While the great individuals embody and express the peak glories of any system or civilization, the fact is much of the credit must also go to the unsung, unnamed, and faceless ordinary folks who kept the system running on so many levels. It’s like military campaigns call for great strategists and leaders, but in the end, they are nothing without the material support of masses of ordinary people who work in factories, transport material, and fill the ranks on the battlefield. Chris Nolan's DUNKIRK showed this side of the war effort. It was a tribute not to any single hero or Great Man but to the collective effort of a People. So, Power isn’t only about the Will or Greatness but about the contributions of ordinary peoples. It is humanism that makes us appreciate them instead of fixating only on GREAT men. In the end, Hitler’s Will failed because he didn’t have enough material support. He became over-confident and disregarded national limitations because he thought too highly of his own greatness and infallibility.
Anyway, in the end, the meaning of life isn’t measured by Power. It is measured in terms of decency and moral values. Granted, decency must be assured by power and security. It’s difficult to lead decent lives if a people are under tyranny or slavery. But why does one seek power? Just to show off one’s awesomeness like some comic book hero with evil laughter? No, a good man seeks power to create a better world. And a wise man is alert to the dangers that threaten a decent order. After all, in times of plenty, what often takes hold, especially among the young, is apathy, superficiality, indulgence, and/or degeneracy. Boomers who grew up with so much turned to vanity and narcissism, endless self-indulgence. Also, addicted to Pop Culture and PC self-righteousness(a kind of moral supremacism), the youth turn to a strange combo of mindless vanity and antsy puritanism, which is what we have now with the cancerous ‘culture wars’(that could be called culture warts). This is why decency isn’t enough. The rise of youth culture, with all its impatience and impetuosity, came to see decency and morality as ‘weak’ and ‘wussy’, especially as Negroes became the centerpiece of Western Pop expression with their jungle jive antics on the sports field and in gorillian rap culture.
Another problem with Power-madness is that it can easily lead to the Worship of the Other. After all, no race is superior in everything. While white folks have advantages vis-a-vis other races, they also have disadvantages. With National Humanism, aka Neo-Fascism, white folks can appreciate the advantages of other races while, at the same time, doing everything to secure a world for white folks. National Humanism puts the needs, prestige, and meaning of white folks above mere worship of power. So, even if blacks are better than whites in some things(like sports), National Humanists seek to secure white prestige in those areas at least in the White World. For example, if blacks can run faster than whites and win on the global level, white nations would still make sure that they will have white folks and have white heroes by excluding peoples who pose a threat to white pride and prowess. After all, the Inclusion-invasion of blacks into the white world leads to black guys beating white guys in sports, song, and sex; and then, with their manhood lost, white guys will just become sappy cucky-wucks vis-a-vis black guys who then proceed to conquer and colonize white wombs that produce mulattoes who become the future denizens of once-white lands. So, even if white athletes aren’t the best in the world, they would still remain the representative 'heroes' of the nation under neo-fascist National Humanism. But the logic of Power Madness would lead to white folks worshiping whatever happens to be the BEST in the world. It is this Power-Mad Nihilism that has led whites all over the world to favor the Negro over whites. If Power is all that counts, then it means white folks should worship Negro athletes(best in the world) and imitate black rappers(loudest in the world), and white women should go with Negro men(as they got the most muscle and biggest dongs). It’s like the time when Richard Spencer spoke with Charles Barkley, a black power-madder. Barkley’s black supremacist response to Spencer’s white supremacism was essentially, "We black guys are superior to your white guys, and your women will have our babies." In other words, Spencer's daughters won't be able to resist Rap & black athletes and will put out to superior black guys and have mulatto kids who look like Obama or Kaepernick. Spencer seemed flustered by this, but if he is into Power-Madness, he should welcome ACOWW or the Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. After all, black guys can beat up white guys. Black guys are more muscled than white guys. Black guys have stronger voices than white guys. Black guys got bigger dongs than white guys. So, if Spencer is all about power, power, power, then he should cuck out to blacks. He should be happy to surrender his daughters to black men like Barkley said. Spencer should welcome the 'Asianization' of white males. In the West, Asian boys lose manhood and lose their women to white guys who are deemed more attractive by Asian women. Women go with superior power. Then, it’s only logical that white women should go with tougher Negroes, and white guys should become, in relation to black guys, what Asian guys have become in relation to white guys(and increasingly black guys). If Spencer is ONLY about power, power, power, then he should have no objection to ACOWW. Now, Spencer can argue that whites are superior to blacks in intelligence and etc. but the fact is women react to something other than mere intelligence in mating rituals. And there are many kinds of power, and different kinds of power appeal to different peoples. (But it's safe to say the masses mostly care about sports and sexualized pop culture. For every white woman who reads about Western Philosophy, a thousand others follow Kim Kardashian and admire madonna the 'mudshark' as their idol.) After all, Spencer got many women because they find him attractive. Surely, there are many guys much smarter than him(or saner than him) who got less women. So, if Spencer is about power-mania, he should say, like so many white boxers who got beaten by blacks, that ‘black guys are the better men’ and relinquish white male rights to white females. This is the logic of power-mad-ism. If we take various breeds of dogs and put them together, the males of the stronger/bigger breeds will hump the females of all breeds. If we reduce mankind to the ‘pornography’ of power, white guys win over yellow/brown guys but lose to black guys. Now, suppose Spencer concedes that blacks are superior athletically but whites are superior as a collective, i.e. when white intelligence, white creativity, and white manpower all come together to form a united force, they can beat just about any people. True enough, but the problem is a people who are so crazed about power will eventually come to admire other forms of power. In time, even as white race conquers the black race(that is useless as a collective), whites will realize that blacks are outstanding as individual athletes and recruit them for races and fights... like whites in the American South did with the Negroes. It's like humans are smarter than horses but admire big, strong, fast-running horses. Humans have great admiration for horses even though they have collective power over them. Then, even if white folks have collective power over Negroes, many white folks(especially those addicted to leisure of sports and entertainment) will come to admire individual Negroes, and then Negroes will be prized by whites as Tough Guys, and in time, white women will lust after them. This happened with the Romans who were into power-madness. Greek Olympics only allowed Greek athletes. Greeks were too smart to allow non-Greeks to participate and kick Greek butt. But Roman gladiator fights were open to all. To be sure, captured slaves were forced to fight, but over time, the top winners were admired by all Romans for their victories. So, a bunch of big African and Germanic slaves could become top champions in the Coliseum. And then, Roman masses came to admire non-Roman slave fighters as the toughest warriors. Then, even Roman elite women were having sex with theses savages and barbarians, just like so many white women, even elite women, were putting out to Jack Johnson when he beat up white guys. This is what happens when power-madness takes over. White people, so obsessed with superiority and meritocracy in all fields, eventually came to admire OTHER races because of their greater success in areas of great entertainment value. As Patton said, Americans admire the fastest runner and the toughest boxer. Americans love winners and will not tolerate losers. So, when blacks began to win in sports, it was only a matter of time before American power-madness came to admire Negroes while sneering at white boys as pathetic losers. Such is the contempt inherent in Power-madness. The logic of power-madness admires the Other and despises One's Own IF power is what matters most of all.
White youth became enamored of black music, white women became crazy for black muscle and dong, and white moralists became enamored of black oratory(as the Negro boombox voice was mistaken as the voice of god hisself). So, paradoxically, Negromania, Judeomania, and Homomania are all manifestations of White Obsession with Power-madness. White folks became so fixated on superiority that they came to admire anyone and any people who demonstrated superiority, especially in areas of highest idolatrous value. Jews came to be worshiped for their wit and intelligence. Negroes for their brawn and funk. And homos for their flair, creativity, and displays of vanity(in a culture awash in narcissism). Now, there’s nothing wrong with admiring greatness in other peoples. White folks can admire fast-running Negroes, brilliant Jews, or superior individuals of other races. There have been great Hindu mathematicians. There have been Japanese Nobel Prize winners in science. But, at the end of the day, white folks must ask themselves, "What is of greater importance? Power as the highest good or the security of our domain?" In other words, even as white folks can acknowledge blacks can run faster and hit harder, they must be mindful of the fact that IF these faster/stronger blacks are allowed into the white domain, black guys will kick white butt and reduce white men into wussified white boys. And once white guys lose their manhood, white women will flock to black men as the Real Men and have mulatto babies who identify as black. And while white folks can admire Jewish intelligence, they must ask themselves what will happen if smarter Jews are allowed into white worlds. Now, if Jews identify as white and embrace white folks as fellow brethren, then Jewish genius can be a great plus to whites. But if Jews regard whites as enemies or inferior goy tards(to manipulate and control), then Jewish genius, though impressive, will be used to undermine and ultimately destroy white pride and power. As for homos, while their creativity is undeniable, white folks(or any folks for that matter) must really think hard about how much prestige they want to lend to homos who are naturally hissy, bitchy, and vain(and want everything).
This is why we must appreciate the blend of Hellenism and Hebraism in Western Culture, the formula that led to the longevity of the West in its unbroken rise to greatness. Hellenism stressed the importance of individual spark, brilliance, genius, and ambition. It emphasized boldness, drive, and adventure. It was about heroism. The problem with the culture of confidence is it often leads to egomania and recklessness. Also, overt vanity and narcissism can pave the way to decadence, especially as homos come to dominate such areas. The Ancient Greeks were far more accomplished than Ancient Hebrews. Ancient Greeks emphasized the thinkers, leaders, warriors, athletes, artists, and adventurers. In contrast, the Jewish community emphasized morality and spirituality centered around monotheism. The greatest good for the Jews was devotion to the one and only God and allegiance to Him via the Covenant. Because there was one God whose truth was conveyed by a handful of Prophets and a class of rabbis, there was less freedom of thought among the Jews. One could easily be accused of blasphemy and stoned to death. In contrast, because of their contentious gods and multiple truths, the Greeks were more freewheeling in their thoughts. The Greeks and later the Romans had certain key advantages over the Jews. But individualism can often lead to egotism over the ideal of the collective whole. Moses, the greatest figure in Judaism, always worked for the good of all Jews. He was the conduit between God and the Tribe. Also, he led his men to fight other tribes to secure a homeland for the Jews. It wasn’t for personal glory. In contrast, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and others like them acted as they themselves were gods and were driven by personal glory and vanity.
So, even though the pagan leaders were more awesome in their conquests, their achievements weren’t long-lasting because they were based on personal glory than on the idea of common good with the blessing of God. Judaism was better at teaching the timeless lesson of humility, patience, and higher purpose. Jews were taught that there is a Power greater than the power of arms, wealth, and trophies. There was the power of God, the true ruler of all that was, is, and shall be. Also, their God, the one true God, wasn’t about might-is-right but about might-and-right. So, in time, the Way of God would prevail over all the conquests and glories of vain men. After all, God chose humble and decent Abraham as the founding patriarch of the Chosen People. So, even in political defeat, Jews never felt totally defeated because they had God on their side. Also, they believed that goodness and righteousness will win in the end over mere brute power. Because pagan pride depended so much on victory, glory, and pride, pagan folks were far more likely to lose confidence in their civilization upon defeat and the smashing of their idols. In contrast, the Jewish God couldn’t be manifested in stone or bronze. He couldn't be destroyed by human hands. And God’s timeless glory wasn’t about winning a few battles here and there but about the righteousness of souls through the ages. So, even though Jews fought their share of battles and won some and lost some, even in their worst defeats, they still maintained their cultural integrity because they believed that God was on their side and that they might regain God’s favor IF they were to return to the righteous path. Jews understood that people are not mere animals who judge everything by brute strength. Nor are people mere gangsters who take pride in wealth, pleasure, and vanity. While all people are attracted to such things, there is also a moral and ‘spiritual’ side of us that wants to believe in the good, in the righteous. There are many occasions in which we could steal something and get away with it. But many of us don’t steal even when we can because we want self-respect. Of course, many Negroes don’t know such emotions, but non-Negroes do have a righteous side to their being. It’s like what the Joel McCrea character says in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY: "I want to enter my house justified."
This is something Richard Spencer can’t understand because he’s all about raw worship of will and power. He has the worldview of a gangster-bully-thug, but he masks the ugliness with pretentious yammering about Nietzsche and other philosophers. Such Big Ideas give sheen to his tawdry view of the world so devoid of morality, ethics, and respect for the National Volk. Also, it’s pathetic because he is so down-and-out and without power. If Spencer was some kingpin gangster or tyrant talking big about power, at the very least we could acknowledge his awesomeness(even if in the name of the bad); it’s like Darth Vader is a bad guy but a magnificent villain. But what is Spencer? The guy can’t even keep the respect of his wife and can’t even hold the loyalty of those around him, and yet, he talks big like he’s Master of the Universe.
It was through Christianity that the formula of righteous survival passed from the Jews to the pagan folks. The various great pagan civilizations had seen spectacular rises but also calamitous falls, often leading to total fading of identity and culture. Think of all the great tribes and civilizations of ancient times, and most have vanished. Where are the Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, and many others. And today’s so-called Libyans and Egyptians have little cultural connection to their ancient forbears. In many cases, it was the European imperialists who labeled the various lands and peoples of the Middle East and North Africa based on archaeological discovery. Prior to European domination, most of these people would have regarded themselves as various Arab clans and tribes. Indeed, most peoples in the Middle East and North Africa had virtually forgotten everything about their distant past. They mainly identified as Muslims because Islam, like Christianity, had spread the formula of timeless humility and righteousness among the Arabs and neighboring peoples. The Italian civilization that rose from the ashes of the Roman Empire was something new. And most of Greek history has been about Christianity than about the pagan past. Indeed, the Byzantine Empire, though closer to the Hellenic cradle of Classical Culture, mostly suppressed pagan themes in favor of Orthodox Christianity. Oddly, it was in Italy, where Classical Culture had been razed by barbarian invasions, that found renewed interest in the Forgotten Ancients as the Middle Ages gave way to what came to be known as the Renaissance. It was in the West that a creative and constructive combination of Hellenism and Hebraism(via Christianity) really took hold. History teaches us that individual freedom and ambition can lead to great achievements. But it can also make a people fixate excessively on power, wealth, and vanity. Over time, the civilization overheats with the cult of ‘greatness’. People become obsessed with power, wealth, adventure, pleasure, thrills, and glory. As fish rots from the head, the excessive ways of the elites affect the masses as well. Eventually, the civilization grows unmoored as the result of all this excess of power-lust, gluttony, lust, and greed. On the other hand, history teaches us that overt moralism and spiritual dogma can be repressive and stifling. While morality and spirituality provide a civilization with core values and a sense of higher truth and deeper good, they also make for a society governed by theocrats, moralizers, priestly caste, and witch-burners. The overt religiosity of the Middle Ages held back many discoveries because anyone could easily be burned at the stake for heresy. And ancient Jews achieved far less than other great peoples because any Jew could easily be accused of blasphemy and stoned to death. Among pagans, a wrong was considered a human wrong. Among Jews, a wrong could be an offense against God Himself. Thus, the offender didn’t merely violate man’s laws but God’s laws. Thus, it led to a kind of moral paranoia and creative paralysis. Freedom and ambition can lead to great things but can also lead to hubris, recklessness, and excess. Thus, society can rot from top to bottom. Morality and spirituality can provide people with deep meaning and timeless sense of core values, but they can also suppress and stifle much that is bold, brilliant, and adventurous. Greeks and Romans rose to spectacular greatness, but their pagan cultures eventually grew demented and decadent. In contrast, the Ancient Jews achieved less but had a powerful and deep sense of holiness and rightness. Both sides had something valuable but was lacking in something critical.
It was with the rise of Christian Europe(at least in the West) that a kind of Reeses Candy Bar dynamics came into play. Just like the ‘accidental’ mix of chocolate and peanut butter made Reeses candy bar a great success, the blend of Pagan-Hellenic Glory and Christo-Hebraic Humility made for the longevity of the West. Following the Renaissance, the West gained sufficient ‘paganist’ freedom to allow the individual to seek new ways and adventures while, at the same time, restraining excessive tendencies with a culture of God-fearing morality. Thus, individuals could make great strides while also being restrained from excess by the spiritual community. There was the sense that no matter how a great an individual, he was not God and must be reminded of his humble place in a world really governed by God. It’s like a man walking along a cliff edge. The ‘conservative’ side of him wants to cling to the rocks. The ‘liberal’ side of him wants to walk further. If his ‘conservative’ side totally takes over, he will hold onto the rocks so tightly that he won’t be able to move. He will be frozen in fear in his mania for self-preservation. But if his ‘liberal’ side totally takes over, he will toss caution to the winds and prance along the edge and then even jump off with the idea that he can fly. Moralism tends to be conservative, and too much of it can hold society back. Even when the moralism is leftist, as with communism, the result is ultimately conservative. Communist denunciation of greed suppressed individual liberty and enterprise. Thus, communist nations became static under the weight of their moral-ideological dogma. In contrast, individualism tends to be liberal, and it’s open to new ways and possibilities. But when people achieve the basic necessities of life, their use of liberty often turns shallow, stupid, and decadent. Even degenerate. And liberal thinkers often prefer pipe-dreams to reality. They think their ‘brilliant’ proposals can teach us how to ‘fly’. Also, excess prosperity created by free enterprise leads to people taking things for granted. Everything, even trivialities, are turned into 'rights'. Thus, liberalism paradoxically leads to repression and quasi-conservative defense of degeneracy. Look at the mindless utopianism among Western Liberal intellectuals who think the project of Eurafrica will be a great success. They are so full of excitement for the New that they throw caution to the winds. This is why we, as individuals or collective, need a sane balance of conservatism and liberalism, of moralism and individualism, of holding onto the rocks and walking along the cliff edge. We need to take steps forward but also hold onto rocks and watch our steps. We need a Left-Right than an 'Alt-Right'.
But Spencer, like the globalists, is so obsessed with fantasies of ‘will’ and ‘power’ that he thinks he can fly. His career has been a series of jumping off the cliff. He is, all said and done, a globalist. The only difference is he wants Aryans than Semites to mess with the world and turn everything upside down. When he can’t even keep his family together with his infidelity and antics, maybe he should look in the mirror and gain some Wisdom about Power. Spencer, having been spoiled in his formative years, thinks too much of himself. He’s used to having the toys, holding the imaginary whip-hand. He’s like the son of a rancher raised to give orders to the men on the range. Not due to real individual merit but by birthright. Spencer is smart but not that smart. Spencer is educated but not a thinker. He has charm but lacks charisma. He leads but without responsibility. And he's without self-awareness and has yet to apologize for his many failures and mistakes. As with so many SJW types, his vanity has led to grand self-delusion. He’s trans-human in that he’s fooled himself into believing that he has somehow transitioned into Nietzschean Superman or Comic-book Batman. Despite his college education and readings in various philosophies, his real core is spoiled-brattish-ness, a sense of entitlement to own ‘all the toys’ of the world. He projects his individual vanity and egomania onto the entire white race. Since he wants all the toys, the white race must have all the toys. He’s so obsessed with more and more that he’s blind to the truth of enough, enough. Because Anglos got a head-start and landed on sparsely populated lands, they got to claim some of the best land mass in the world. North America and Australia, just like Russians got to grab Siberia. Instead of appreciating this good fortune and preserving it for posterity, Spencer wants endless world wars and empire-building because it’s supposedly the Darth-Vaderian will of the Aryans to rule everything and travel to the stars. Spencer’s foolishness is bad enough in private life. It is a poor model on the global scale. The morality of monogamy says a man should find someone to love and devote himself to the family he creates with her. It is like ‘romantic nationalism’. Be true to your family while respecting the right of other men to have their own women/families. But Spencer’s attitude on sexual matters is like that of trashy celebrities and Negroes whose communities have been torn apart by loose sexual behavior. Supposedly, Spencer is some superior stud, therefore rules of monogamy are too boring for him. So, he’s repeatedly cheated on his wife and even lost friends and associates by making moves on their women. What creates havoc in personal life creates even bigger havoc for the world. The elites of a nation should be faithful and devoted to their own people instead of being politically promiscuous in trying to take care of others. Whether through outward-colonization or inward-colonization, the white elites got addicted to World Rule. But history has shown that outward-colonization works only when a people can conquer mostly empty lands and build a new order in which the conquering people become the solid majority. Anglos, great and powerful as they were, failed in outward-colonizations in heavily populated parts of the world. In the long run, elites must be true to their own people, like a man should be true to his wife and children. Spencer says he cares about his kids, but if he really did care, why did he fool around and alienate his wife to the point where she filed for divorce? Spencer is too selfish to lead anything. And just when white masses are tired of foreign wars & globalist madness and want a real national elite to lead, represent, and protect them, Spencer’s idea of the New White Vanguard is ultimately more endless wars and imperialism. He just wants to replace Neo-conism with Anglo-conism. He sounds like the impetuous son in KAGEMUSHA who, instead of protecting the domain, risks everything and, in the end, loses it all. It’s a fact of history that conquering and ruling over others can, in time, strengthen the enemy. West’s move on East Asia eventually led it to wake up and modernize. White America’s use of black slaves eventually led to the rise of black domination in sports & pop culture and the cuckerization of white males. The future of the US would have been much sounder IF whites hadn’t sought domination over blacks. Whites should have picked their own cotton. And of course, white use of cheap brown labor in California led to the brown demographic takeover of that once overwhelmingly white state. Sure, white elites will continue to have power over the brown peons, but the demographic momentum will belong to the browns. And as white elites have come to see the brown peons as their main manpower, they are more responsive to brown demands than to the needs of white people.
In the end, Spencer is a shallow creature. I made excuses for him in the past despite criticisms, but he’s too shallow and stupid to be a thinker or leader of any great movement. He comes across like the closet-homo psychopath in THE ROPE(directed by Alfred Hitchcock). In a way, Spencer’s supremacism is really a crutch than a sword. He needs to blather on and on like a preppy Sith Lord once in awhile to boost his own ego and feel big about himself. But it’s just tiresome pop nihilism of comic book villains with the evil laughter. Spencer is more Darth Helmet than Darth Vader. He needs to put away his toys.
