John Derbyshire on Vox Day's Definition of the ALT RIGHT. Is or Isn't Derbyshire part of the Movement?

Check the Link below for John Derbyshire's evaluation of Alt Right principles, at least according to Vox Day who has his own special take on the ideology and movement.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/derb-at-the-mencken-club-am-i-alt-right

Vox Day is a goof and not to be taken seriously. All said and done, he’s a plus to the movement but a rather shallow and snippy character. And he sometimes goes for low-hanging fruits like Andrew Anglin whose only value is as class clown.

Vox Day: The Alt Right is of the political right… Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.

There's a problem with the above formulation. Even though people who call themselves ‘socialists’ are not Alt Right, Alt Right is open to socialism as component of economic nationalism. Alt Right must be neo-fascist or social-democratic in accepting both socialism and capitalism. Indeed, the capitalism vs socialism dichotomy is rather useless for our purposes. When 'unfettered' capitalists had free rein in the 19th century to create their own fiefdoms and when communists called for abolition of private property & radical tyranny, one could speak of capitalists vs socialists. However, esp following WWII, both Europe and US have adopted economic policies that combine elements of capitalism and socialism. Even US Conservatives who claim to love free enterprise will not vote for politicians who call for ending social security and other government programs.
And even American Liberals who call themselves ‘socialists’ want to live in nations with booming capitalist economies. Just consider. If self-described 'socialists' are truly socialist, why don't they choose to be like Amish folks or Zionist Kibbitzim? Why not get together and work on communes where everything is shared equally? But so-called socialists in US and EU don’t act this way.  They prize their individual liberties(mainly for hedonism and consumerism) and private properties.
They always try to move to the most affluent urban areas and live off capitalists. They write books and plays in the hopes that the affluent class will buy them. As ‘artists’, they seek rich patrons to sponsor and fund their 'creative' projects. As academics, they teach at universities funded by rich donors who majored in business and high-tech. Consider the ton of money Harvard and Yale have thanks to donors at Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. These donors made their money in capitalism, not socialism.
Or, if these ‘socialists’ are into artisanal work, they make fancy products and exclusively cater to the vanity of rich folks. Artisanal beer, Artisanal candy, Artisanal candles, etc. These folks are ‘socialist’ in the sense that Europeans used to be ‘Christian’. The label makes them sound noble, caring, and into ‘social justice’, but they would never want to live in a radical socialist nation. They love to feed on capitalist success. Your average ‘socialist’ moves to glitzy cities like San Fran or NY. Most 'socialists' in the West are really just hipsters or socialites pretending to be edgy with radical politics. In fact, they totally really on trickle-down capitalism of companies like Starbucks and Microsoft. Seattle has Microsoft workers flush with money, and 'socialists' try to get some of it by offering yoga lessons or some bogus advice.

In the 60s, some ‘socialist’ dreamers experimented with communes, but it didn’t pan out too well. Unlike Amish who are disciplined, orderly, humble, and virtuous — I guess Mormons are like free-market materialist Amish — , the hippie ‘socialists’ were into hedonism, drugs, orgies, and etc. They were more into bumming off others than working for the common good. It’s like the pothead commune in EASY RIDER where the main activities are smoking dope, skinny-dipping, and growing their hair long than getting up at the break of dawn and doing chores like milking cows and churning butter. Look what the hippie ‘socialists’ did to Woodstock. If not for the wage-slave people like the Portosan man, the place would have been covered with shi*.



Anyway, Alt Right seeks to move beyond the ‘capitalism vs socialism’ dichotomy. While socialism can be anti-right, so can capitalism. The core of rightism is nationalism and identity in race and culture. Capitalists will easily betray their own race and nation for more profits or status. To a capitalist, profits and 'reputation' trump any other consideration. Anything for profits and privilege.

Worse, once a society turns hedonist and shameless, ethos of capitalism is defined by the Vice Industry that feeds on people’s weakness for instant pleasure in food, trash culture, sex, and etc. Shameless and hedonistic capitalism is the basis of globalist control of the populace as 'sheepigs'.
True Power of autonomy and independence derives from self-control. If you can't say NO to the pusher offering crack or meth, he owns your senses that define your soul. And if he controls your soul, he controls your body.
Those who lose control of themselves also lose control of everything around them. It’s like, once American Indians surrendered to the pleasures of firewater, they lost pride and will. And Chinese on opium were lost in lala-land while their families and nation were being auctioned off to imperialists. White people are now lost because so many of them are addicted to the opiate of pop culture and drugs(legal and illegal), most of which is controlled by Jewish globalists.

Capitalism defined by Culture of Vice is about excessive appetites, indulgences, and therapies. It says pig out, hump all over, laugh like tard at OW MY BALLS(see IDIOCRACY), play dumb video games, and worship comic book super heroes. And if you make a mess of your life, don't seek to regain self-control. Just see a therapist and become addicted to never-ending Kafkaesque advice that do little good because it doesn't slap you in the face and say GROW UP, FOOL!

Capitalism of Vice promotes infantilism, and this is reflected in the political culture of celebrity, vanity, and therapy. So, there is babyish PC that divides the world into goodies and baddies. And progs cry and wail like babies and call people ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ and ‘homophobic’ and chant slogans like ‘black lives matter’. And then, there are all these therapies that, instead of telling people to get real and grow up, indulge them in their self-aggrandizing baby-emotions…. like General Silvestra who indulged that lowlife black ‘hate hoaxer’ who was responsible for the bogus KKK vandalism.

Indeed, isn't it ironic that the very people who push this EXTREMISM in appetites and ideology are the ones who accuse Alt Right and any basic patriots as ‘far right’ and ‘extreme’? Alt Right is calling for self-control over appetites. It’s not calling for globalist imperialism or war-mongering. It’s calling for the right of each Western/European nation to survive for what it is. How is that extreme?
In contrast, globalists call for More Wars and More Intervention even after such ventures have destroyed much of the Middle East and led to useless ‘new cold war’ with Russia. Globalists also say the native peoples of US and EU must be replaced by nasty non-white ingrates. Yet, that is considered ‘normal’ while basic Nationalism 101 that is pro-peace and pro-borders is denounced as ‘far right’ and ‘extremist’. What kind of crazy world are we living in? Consider Francis Fukuyama, aka George Soros’ dog. 'Fukyomama' is convinced that wars and mass invasions are justified because they hasten the ‘end of history’ when it’s really hastening the End of Humanity.

Vox Day: The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA

Alt Right is that but it is also an alternative to old-style far right of white racial politics and white supremacism as represented by organizations like KKK and Neo-Nazis. It is also an alternative to the grim and dour racial apocalyptic views of men like William Pierce.
KKK was too hick. Neo-Nazis were too deranged and demented. And men like Pierce came across as odd, to say the least. On the one hand, men like Pierce were very bourgeois, but their views were nutty or insane.

And then, there were serious men like William Shockley who didn’t crank out nutty visions like TURNER DIARIES. But Alt Right differs from them as well. The problem with men like Shockley was they thought people could be persuaded with rational arguments and facts alone. But any socio-political movement must have vision, passion, and the element of the prophetic. Shockley never had it. Jared Taylor and his kind have a broader vision, but they too are focused on rational discussion. Alt Right understands that cautious rational arguments are not enough. People want to be fueled by shared passion and collective will. Rational ideas are about True or False, not about Live or Die. A people must FEEL a surge of emotions that makes them willing to fight and die for a cause, indeed as if their lives are incomplete or meaningless unless they struggle to achieve their vision. (Nationalism is the ideal vision since every people can have their own nation and respect the nations of others, like when the French colonialists returned to their beloved France while Algerians and Vietnamese regained national autonomy over their own turfs.)
And this is why the Alt Right is anti-stuffy and not so bourgeois in its attitude and approach. It is looser, even bohemian, and Richard Spencer certainly has edgy qualities. Also, Alt Right understands that even race-rationalists like Shockley(and perhaps even James Watson) are motivated by something more than facts and logic. They are pro-white because they are white and feel comfortable being white and want to preserve white civilization. It’s not just about IQ. Would Shockley have been okay if blacks were to gain IQ parity with whites and then humped tons of white women to make mulatto babies? My guess is NO.
So, it’s a vision of OUR PEOPLE and OUR CULTURE and OUR LAND as an aesthetic(genetic as opposed to generic) expression. Alt Right is more honest about the roots of the movement. It’s not mainly about rational discussion of IQ. It’s about Race and Culture. In this respect, George Hawley is right in his wussy-boy book Making Sense of the Alt Right. Hee-Hawley is too much of a Pee-Wee-Herman to be a proud white man. He has characteristics of CucKen Burns and looks like a dork. And by ‘racism’, he doesn’t mean race-ism(race + ism = belief in the reality of races & racial differences and/or need for racial consciousness) but ‘nasty nah nah racism-wacism’.
Still, he is right to understand that Racial Identity is at the core of Alt Right. Alt Right has a sense of racial and cultural familial bonds. And it is for this reason that Alt Right understands that nationalism must be a kind of ethno-socialism. After all, Zionism is a nationalism premised on racial-socialism. Zionism says that the richest Jews must regard even poor Jews in Israel(and around the world) as fellow brethren. So, rich Jews in Israel must favor poor Jews over rich gentiles. He may do business with rich gentiles, but all said and done, even a poor Jew is more his brother than a rich gentile is. Indeed, Jewish-Americanism is a form of racial socialism. After all, why did Jews push the US government to 'save' Soviet Jews when there were plenty of gentile groups far worse off in the USSR and around the world? Because Jews, first and foremost, cared about fellow Jews. And even now, despite all the money they have, Jews make a fuss about there still being poor Jews.

Now, if Jews are totally beyond race, rich Jews should identify mainly with rich gentiles. But even as Jews tell rich gentiles to betray and abandon their own kind(such as 'white trash' exploited by merchants of filth like Jerry Springer), rich Jews never stopped caring for less fortunate Jews, like those in USSR or Romania. Rich Jews bribed Ceausescu to let Romania’s Jews to emigrate to Israel. This is the basis of Jewish Power. Racial-Socialism or Nationalism among all Jews. Jews fear that if white gentiles were to gain(or regain) a similar mindset(like when white elite New Dealers cared about poor whites like the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH), they might represent, serve, and lead the white masses than serve rich Jews. This is why Jews push libertarianism on whites. It serves as a wedge between rich successful whites(& rich-wanna-be whites) and the white have-lesses.
Jews do push a kind of socialism on whites, but it’s the ‘anti-racist’ kind that forbids rich whites to identify with and care about less fortunate whites. Rather, rich whites and their children(attending elite PC universities) are admonished to channel their civic sympathy toward  non-whites… like Bill Gates pouring billions of dollars into programs for blacks(and some other non-whites) but not even spending a penny on whites. Racial-socialism is good enough for Jews but never good for whites according to PC that's been programmed by Jews.

This is what the Alt Right opposes, and this is why it is detested. To Jewish globalists, Unite the Right sounds like Unite the White. This is why Spencer calls on Trump to pass Single Payer. All this ‘muh free enterprise’ has only helped to drive a wedge between white have-lots and white have-lesses.

That said, another reason for Alt Right's emergence is it is the ONLY voice willing to speak honestly about the Power. Mainstream Media of both ‘right’ and ‘left’ are all owned by the Jewish Globalist Establishment. Now, there are many alternative voices, organizations, and etc. Alt-Right doesn’t own the ‘alternative’ label, which has a long pedigree. There are alternative voices on the Left, Libertarianism, white nationalism, anarchism, feminism, and etc. Esp in the age of the internet, there are tons of alternative voices with so many bloggers and cloggers.

So, why has the Alt Right stood out from the rest of alternative media and voices? Because it is the ONLY ‘movement’ that really doesn’t give a crap about PC. Now, I’m defining PC in a broader way. Not just globo-proggy PC(even though that dominates current discourse) but far-right PC. KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust-Deniers, and etc. have their own thick-skulled PC. Though their PC is ‘politically incorrect’ by rules of Mainstream PC, it also calls for mental straitjackets and iron dogma. For the white supremacist types, Hitler did no wrong, or it would have been better if Germans won. Or, they believe Stalin intended to invade first, and Hitler only attacked to preempt the Soviets. Or everything Jewish is evil or suspect. Or the Shoah is one big lie and the only Jews who died was due to starvation under duress of war.

What white supremacists and white submissivists(who follow proggy PC) have in common is this penchant for dogmatism. Anyone who has tried to discuss reality with a communist, BLM moron, homomaniac, radical feminist, or libertarian knows it’s like talking to a brick wall. It’s like Stefan Molyneux the baldie losing his last few hairs while trying to talk logic with a communist.
And we can't expect much from Evangelicals for whom everything is hallelujah and glory be and such childish stuff. They are sheeple. Even when Evangelicals oppose homo agenda, it’s not based on truth, morality, or logic but on the Bible, as if modern society can be organized around what was written 1000s of yrs ago. Still, the fact that the strongest opposition to Homomania has been in the Conservative Christian community indicates reason and logic aren't the primary motivators of Political Will. Most secular people who oppose Homomania on rational grounds lack the righteous fire of faith to stand up and say NO.

Now, one would expect far-left commies and far-right white supremacists(for whom supremacism is a crutch to compensate for their 'loser' status) to be thick-skulled and rigid. In contrast, we might expect liberals and moderate conservatives to be open-minded, intellectually honest, and respectful of free speech and etc. But it isn't so. PC permeates every aspect of the Current Discourse, which is more like Disdain and Dismissal than an open conversation among many sides.
Moderate respectable conservatives will claim to champion liberty, constitution, and free speech(along with traditional values) but then run scared when confronted with honest discussion of race and Jewish power. Today, these Conservatives don’t even have the spine to say NO to homomania. Even Charles Murray caved and bent over for 'gay marriage'. And these Conservatives hardly oppose censorship of voices that dare speak truth to Jewish power. Mark Steyn talks big about Muslims but never about Zionists and their nasty actions in West Bank. He won't mention that Jews, more than Muslims, have been the primary agents of shutting down free speech.
As for liberals, it'd be more accurate to call them Illiberals. To be sure, on many issues and subjects(unrelated to the sensitive or hot button issues of the day), they are still bona fide liberals in the best sense of the word. But when anything triggers and disturbs the shibboleths of Proggy PC, the liberal minds close the shutters and turn illiberal. They become like frenzied bees with hive mentality. They lose all sense of principles and become zealous in defend the poisoned honey of their sacro-ideology.

Liberals espouse Compassion Supremacism or Sensitivity-Supremacism that says certain groups deserve more love, care, praise, and protection than others do. Even though Liberals will pretend to denounce all forms of ‘bigotry’, they don't much care about hostility directed at Muslims, Chinese, Iranians, Russians, or Mexicans. They get really triggered only when the negativity is directed at the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, while Liberals are open-minded and curious about many subjects(at least compared to the average Conservative who's into 'muh gun' and 'muh Constitution'), their response to any perceived derision of the Holy Three is swift and vehement either in flight-or-fight mode. They will either duck & hide like gophers bolting into holes, OR bark & bite like a pack of guard dogs. How does the Rule of the Holy Three work? Take the issue of Culture and Work Ethic. Suppose someone says the problem with Russia is the lack of work ethic compared to, say, Germans and Japanese. Now, keep in mind that Russians are not part of the Holy Three. Liberals may agree or disagree on the issue of Russian Work Ethic, but they will nevertheless listen to the argument with an open mind. But suppose someone says something similar about blacks. Suddenly, the Liberal will either try to run out of the room or hiss & scream that you're a ‘racist’.
Or, suppose you say the problem with China(not one of the Holy Three) is culture of corruption, and therefore, any Western businessman seeking to do business in China should keep his guard up and be very cautious. Again, the Liberal may agree or disagree, but he will be open to discussion. But if you say Jews have become overly corrupt and abusive of their power, and therefore, we need to be more critical of Jewish reach & influence, the Liberal(esp if Jewish) will have conniptions, foam at the mouth, and demand that the discussion is OVER. This is why Liberals have become useless on certain key issues. They've been mentally programmed in such a way that their nerves simply can't tolerate certain ideas or views. No matter how committed to free speech they claim to be, their ideals and principles are overridden by The Taboo. (But then, Conservatives aren't much better, especially when it comes to Jews, blacks, and increasingly homos. Tough Guy Conservatives will talk big about Iranians, North Koreans, and Palestinians but wet their pants when confronted with the fact of Jewish power being the main enemy of the white race.) Also, PC won’t allow honest discussion of Shoah. While 'Holocaust'-Deniers are either crazy, demented, or obsessively contrarian(some people love being the odd-man-out, like believing in flat earth or faked Apollo landing), not everyone who questions certain aspects of Shoah are ‘deniers’. David Cole is not a denier, but he’s been so labeled because he refused to conform to the Narrative of the sacred 6 million and extensive gassing at Auschwitz. Too many Jewish Liberals will label as ‘denier’ anyone who dares to raise questions about what has become the High School Textbook Narrative. Some will label as ‘deniers’ even those who accept the Official Narrative but try to understand WHY the Nazis did what they did as an extreme reaction to radical excesses of Jews and the times(that sought scapegoats of one form or another all across the political spectrum). Ernest Nolte has been so labeled.

Anyway, there are 'white supremacists' who can't move beyond Heil Hitler, and as such, they can't be true members of Alt Right. 'White supremacists' of the Neo-Nazi and KKK kind are truly a pathetic sight. It may be bad form for the superior to brag of his abilities, but it's downright comical for the inferior to do so. It'd be like an out-of-shape boxer pretending he's champion of the world.
Even supposing that the white race is indeed generally superior to other races, imagine if whites with superior ability don't make a big fuss over it while whites with inferior ability make a big deal of the collective superiority of the white race. And that's the problem with Neo-Nazi types. Even if they're right that the white race is generally more talented and capable than other races, individual whites with real talent tend to be modest whereas Neo-Nazi whites with no talent shamelessly lay claim of pride to the achievements of whites of talent(who despise Neo-Nazi types). Perhaps, whites with superior ability feel personal pride, and that's enough to stoke their egos. In contrast, whites with inferior ability, having no claim to personal pride, can savor greatness only via collective identity. It's like the spectacle in sports where, so often, the fans get more excited than the players. Players have pride of personal glory. In contrast, the only way the fans can feel pride is by collective identification with the players since they have no personal glory of their own. Ironically then, cucky white fans of black-dominated football and Neo-Nazis into white supremacism have something in common. Both can lay claim to greatness and supremacy only by collective identification. Since cucky 'slow white boys' can't compete with blacks in football and basketball, they can taste athletic greatness only by cheering for and identifying with black players who win the trophy and hump the white girls with jungle fever. Likewise, since Neo-Nazi types tend to be lower in IQ and lacking in creativity, the only way they can feel pride is by racial identification. They lay collective claim to the genius and brilliance of whites with talent, despite the fact that most talented whites are on the Liberal side of the spectrum.

Anyway, for most people from the far-left commies to globalist liberals to far-libertarians to Conservatism Inc., the Iron Taboo of the Holy Three is the highest law of the land. They simply cannot speak honestly about Jewish Power. The far-left may criticize or denounce Zionism per se but is loathe to connect the dots between Zionism and Jewish Supremacist power in the US. Libertarians claim to support total freedom but turn knee-jerk politically correct on issues pertaining to blacks and homos. And Conservatism Inc. denounces the Left without pointing out that the globalist Left is largely funded and led by Jews. Conservatism Inc. won’t even address the fact that Homomania is a Jewish proxy agenda. And even though Conservatives do notice that blacks disproportionately commit more crimes, they will not state the obvious that blacks are more prone to be violent because they are naturally more muscular and more aggressive.
As for 'white supremacist' and Neo-Nazi(aka 14/88) types, they will address the Jewish Question but with their own brand of PC that totally vilifies Jews(as if Jews were always wrong and white gentiles, especially Germans, were always innocent). And when it comes to blacks, 'white supremacist' types tend to subscribe to the Caste Football theory that black dominance in sports is just a Social Construct created by 'racism' against white players.

This is where Alt Right is different. You don’t have to be Nazi-tard to think like an Alt-Rightist(though, to be sure, I prefer the Left-Right of National-Humanist Neo-Fascism that is clearly superior to Alt Rightism). On so many subjects and issues that go neglected or ignored due to cuckery, timidity, and cowardice, the Alt Right is willing to speak freely: Jewish Power, Black thuggery, and Homo degeneracy.
Furthermore, Alt Right positions tend to be hard but also supple in their facts and logic, thus generally avoiding the pratfall of dogmatism. Consider the matter of Homomania that is strongly opposed by the Alt Right. If Evangelical opposition to the 'gay agenda' is a matter of theological dogma, the Alt Right opposes the homo agenda(of making Homomania the New Normal) on rational and moral grounds while also accepting the science on homosexuality, i.e. that some people are born homo, it isn't their ‘fault’, and they should be allowed to be homo in their own private spaces. And if homos have talent, it should be acknowledged and admired. If Alt Right had been given the conservative role in the homo debate, it would have been much more interesting. But when the media and powers-that-be were going all-homo, what did we get from the establishment Right? Mostly silence from Conservatism Inc. that was so afraid of alienating Jews(as even Neocons were pushing Homomania) and ‘Muh Bible’ platitudes from Evangelicals as if social policy should be decided by Ancient Biblical Text.

This is why Alt Right can make a difference, and therefore, Alt Right must never lose sight of its special niche in the current political environment. If the Alt Right can coalesce more into a real movement, it must be mindful not to insist on new dogmas and taboos that will only blunt the edge and lower its potency as the most honest and courageous ideology on the political landscape. The fact is even radical anti-racists have been provoked, threatened, and stimulated by the Alt Right because the Alt Right and only the Alt Right is willing to disregard PC shibboleths that strangulate the entire spectrum from Far Left to Conservatism Inc. (And the Alt Right can make its case without resorting to tiresome 'far right' 'white supremacist' cliches of 'blame Jews for everything, including the weather' and 'muh Fuhrer'.)
Western European Marxists and Frankfurt School garnered respect, albeit reluctantly, even from elements of the Right. Integrity has its own rewards. While the Soviet Left turned dogmatic and bureaucratic, the European Neo-Marxists presented newer perspectives and critiques of modernity, materialism, capitalism, individualism, and Soviet communism(and why it went wrong). And even Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and Gore Vidal had partial admirers on the Right because they dissected the American Empire in ways overlooked or suppressed by mainstream media or hardline leftism.
Still, even Alt-Left figures tended to be bound by Taboos. Chomsky was critical of Zionism but didn’t connect it with Jewish American Power, nor did he address the ethnic character of US media monopoly. After all, if US media were monopolized by Mexican-Americans or Muslim-Americans, the direction of US foreign policy would surely be different.

Due to WWII and Shoah-guilt as New Religion of the Secular West, the West was loathe to speak honestly about Jewish Power. Also, due to Black Slavery narrative and anti-imperialism — and blacks as the colorful and commanding face of ‘social justice’ — , blacks became objects of semi-worship, culminating in the Magic Mountain Negro in GREEN MILE. And as pop culture turned the West into a hedonistic cesspool of narcissism and excess, it wasn’t long before homos rode on that wave to become the neo-angels of globalism. Especially with the lavish support of Jewish Media, homos spun their self-created disaster — AIDS epidemic — into their own ‘holocaust’.

And then, the media and academia turned into endless parade of celebrating Jews, blacks, and homos. Indeed, Americanism(which also infects the EU) is now about little else but praising Jews, blacks, and homos. Ideology must bow down to the ‘iconology’ of the Holy Three. You can say you disagree with or even disdain the underpinning principles of America’s Founding, and that’s perfectly fine. But if you say anything that runs counter to the spirit of the Holy Three, you are done for. You must worship MLK. You must wave the Homo flag. You must feel guilty about Shoah even though you had nothing to do with it.

Alt Right is an iconoclastic weapon against the Holy Three. Its anti-taboo polemic can be effective because it doesn’t play by the dogmatic White Supremacist playbook that discredits its criticism of Jewish Power with a radical craziness of its own. Sounding like a pathological Nazi only vindicates the Jewish supremacist insistence that critics of Jews are all vile unhinged lunatics. If anything, the Neo-Nazis are the gift that keeps on giving to the Progs. It’s no wonder that so many Jews playacted as cartoon Nazis. It’s no wonder that Deep State operatives infiltrated Neo-Nazi movements and encouraged even more extremism so as to discredit all forms of White Consciousness. Have someone claim to be for white interests and then wave the Nazi flag. According to PC, any kind of white identity or white interests is NAZI or KKK, an automatic moral disqualification. And the white supremacist morons obliged such narrative with their retarded gestures, dumb narratives, and beer-belly ubermensch ‘larping’.
Even as proggy PC detested the Neo-Nazi-KKK morons, it saw propaganda value in white supremacists making total fools of themselves. It’s like the Globo Media found the Westboro church invaluable in making opposition to Homomania seem deranged(like the mother in CARRIE) and unpatriotic, as the 'church' gained notoriety by protesting military funerals. According to the PC narrative, any pro-white person must be ‘nazi’ and anyone who opposes the homo agenda must be a crazy Christian lunatic harassing the families of fallen soldiers.

But Alt Right doesn't play to this script. It has cogently exposed and laid out the real Power Dynamic in the West. The ripple effect has been that even anti-Alt-Right people are more willing to discuss certain issues. The Overton window has certainly shifted, and most of the credit should go to the Alt Right.

Vox Day: The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

Derbyshire: "No problem with that. We should, however, bear in mind what a knotty thing nationalism can be. There is a case to be made—a conservative case—for big, old, long-established nations resisting disaggregation. Does Catalan nationalism trump Spanish nationalism?"

The answer to Derbyshire’s question is Localism. Let Spanish and Catalans arrive at what is best for them. Non-Spanish and Non-Catalans might offer their advice and opinions, but it should be handled as local affair between Catalans and the Spaniards

Vox Day: The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian.

Actually, it’s better to say Alt Right is honestly anti-equalitarian. Let’s face it. NO ONE believes in equality. Everyone with any sense knows that Jews are smarter than Gypsies, West Africans can outrun Hindus, and Germans are, on average, taller than Mexicans.

Alt Right is just honest about what everyone knows already. I mean do 'liberal' Jews really believe that Bolivian Indians could become just as good in finance as the Jews are? Do 'liberal' blacks really believe that Chinese will soon win 100m sprints?

Vox Day: The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption

Derbyshire: "It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to dictionary.com; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s."

Vox Day is a sci-fi writer and them fellers love to come up with 'neat' ideas. He’s just being sciencefictionoid with terminology.

Derbyshire:   "a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision. Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life."

True enough, but I think Vox Day was talking about Social Sciences. After all, theories on atoms and stars have no bearing on matters of politics and society. But scientific matters relating to humans have huge relevance and implications. And there has been too much 'scientistry' — scientific sophistry — in the field. Scientistry is like quack dentistry that pulls out the wrong tooth. So, even though the black tooth must be removed to stop the pain, white ones are yanked out. It’s Clouseauean Dentistry.



Derbyshire: "Again, not bad as a first approximation, but this ignores a lot of feedback loops. Has politics not affected culture this past 72 years in North Korea? Did not North Korea and South Korea have the same culture a hundred years ago?"

True, but if South Korea were to reunite with any nation, wouldn’t it be easier with North Korea than with Japan even though South Korea and Japan are economically and politically similar?
Or look at Israel. Jewish immigrants to Zion came from capitalist nations, communist nations, Muslim-majority nations, Christian-majority nations, and etc. Many spoke different languages and few knew Hebrew. There were religious Jews, secular Jews, and etc. But they made it work because they were bound by identity as the basis.
Now, imagine the creation of a new nation based solely on creed. Suppose German Christians, African Christians, Chinese Christians, Mexican Christians, Arab Christians, and etc all came together to form a nation based on faith in Jesus. Would it work out as well as Israel? Or imagine a new nation founded on shared ideology of capitalism. Suppose French capitalists, Swedish capitalists, Nigerian capitalists, Turkish capitalist, Japanese capitalists, Indonesian capitalists, Pakistani capitalists, and etc all formed a nation. How long would it last? Thus far, US and Canada have held together despite diversity because there was a Core Majority and Core Narrative that had served as a glue for so long. But as they fray with More Diversity and white loss of confidence, can these nations remain together or function based on shared credos of ‘muh constitution’, ‘muh liberty’, or 'muh diversity'?

Vox Day: The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Derbyshire: "As several commenters pointed out, the Iroquois and the Sioux might have something to say about that. Bitching about historical injustices is such an SJW thing, though, I can’t bring myself to care. I’m fine with Point 10."

Indians don’t count. They were savages and had no civilization and had no means to resist white invaders. Also, the world had yet to be fully navigated and explored back then. Today, the world is so very different. Mankind has explored, mapped out, and claimed every inch of territory. Also, the Age of Empire ended after WWII with non-whites telling whites to go home.
So, universal nationalism, or nationalism for every people, is possible. Every part of the world has been CLAIMED by a particular people and culture. And this condition must be defended and formulated as the fundamental political principle for the world. After all, the premier international organization is called United Nations, not United Empires or United Economies.
And yet, this common sense view is demeaned as the ‘far right’ by the Far-Jew Globalist Media. The real extremist forces are the far-globalists, far-imperialists, far-Zionists, far-profiteers(greed is their only creed), far-thugs(black criminals and lunatics), far-sluts(what has become of womenfolk), far-invaders(neo-colonialism with massive third world movements). Why should peoples today be invading and colonizing other nations when all the world have already been claimed? Also, the agreement after WWII was for the End of Empire and Imperialism. So, why must we now have ‘reverse-imperialism’ whereby non-whites get to demographically swamp white nations?

Vox Day: The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

Derbyshire: "Again, there are nits to be picked. Diversity per se is neither good nor bad. Numbers are of the essence. I’m a salt-in-the-stew diversitarian. I want to live in a society with a big fat racial and ethnic supermajority: somewhere north of ninety percent."

True enough, but by ‘diversity’, Vox Day surely means diversity as cancer than condition.
Diversity as condition is a fact in any nation. Even the most homogeneous nations have some diversity, the presence of non-nationals and foreigners, some of whom are permanently settled. And those people can be tolerated as co-existing folks. Also, look closely enough and even a homogeneous people can be categorized as diverse in dialect, local customs, attitudes, and etc. Not all Greeks are alike and indeed vary region to region.

But by Diversity in today’s parlance, it means Diversity as a cancer. Diversity as condition is like a tattoo or a scar. Good or bad, it will not expand. Diversity as Diversinoma is like skin cancer that starts as a a mere speck but never stops growing. PC and globalism say this is the only kind of Diversity that is good and NECESSARY. This is obviously a fatal disease for any racial-cultural civilization, but this is pushed by globalist quacks as the cure for national malaise. It’s like Barbara Specter saying that, “In order for Europe to survive, it must go into multicultural mode.” Huh? If Europe is swamped by non-Europeans, it is no longer Europe. But cunning witches like Specter manipulate the earnest naive good-will of Nordics who tend to be such easy suckers because they were raised on Holocaust Guilt and the dogma that white homogeneity = Nazism.

Vox Day: The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

Derbyshire: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

It depends on what one means by 'Free Trade'. Surely, the Brits embarked on free trade long ago but didn’t allow massive invasions of non-whites into Britain. Also, the leftist Scottish National Party is more pro-immigration. And Stalin moved plenty of people around in his empire.

Still, what Vox means by ‘free trade’ in the 21st century is globalism. This is different from free trade in the past that meant commerce among sovereign nations with national governments that represented their own peoples. Today, 'free trade' is the favored policy of globalist corporations that feel NO sense of allegiance to their own nations and peoples. So, ‘free trade’ now means free movement of capital and peoples for economic opportunity, investment, exploitation, colonization. It is a form of anarchy.

Also, a kind of secret agreement has been forged between rich and poor nations under globalism. It's as follows: Rich nations can invade or invest in poor nations, but if First World industrialists gain access to Third World, Third World folks must have access to First World.. to work and toil and send remittances back home. It’s like US companies gained access to Mexico, but Mexican masses gained access to gringo-land.

Vox Day: The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses

Derbyshire: "Hmm. That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or '-oid'). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. What do the 'unique strengths' of the Bushmen, or of Australia’s aborigines, avail them in the world we actually live in?"

Bushmen and Austro-Aborigines are outliers. They are few in number and don’t count. But when it comes to the major races, there are indeed advantages and disadvantages. While Japanese can make good gadgets and run an orderly society, they are short dorks and have no iconic value. So, even though they make all these electronic devices, people prefer to see OTHER races on Japanese-made gadgets. Sony made a lot of TV and walkmans, and Japanese were good at making such stuff. But it was Negro athletes and Jewish personalities who dominated global TV. So, even though Negroes have little industrial value — they can’t run an economy — , they have much entertainment value, and that means billions around the world will be watching Negro runners and footballers.
Look at China. Over billion people who work hard to build a modern nation, but they’re addicted to NBA Negroes. And look at all the 'Blapanese'. They are almost all the products of black fathers and Japanese mothers. If Japan that has so few Negroes is going this way with 'jungaru feebah', imagine what is happening to EU! Sure, all those Negroes coming from Africa have little industrial value. They be jiving and messing things up. But blacks got more rhythm and funk and bigger dongs. And white folks find black music, black muscle, and black meat very pleasurable and entertaining. So, blacks have superior 'hedonic' value. As whites are addicted to Negropium, one can say blacks do have serious advantages over the white race.

Derbyshire is a math-geek and judges people's worth by science and intellect. But most of humanity is pretty vulgar, trashy, crass, hedonistic, and infantile. And they want fun, fun, fun. And since Negroes be flipping and jiving and humping more than others, non-blacks have come under the iconic-idolatrous spell of the 'groids'. Bongo, the power of Negro-ness, does have a decisive advantage in the modern world. Capitalism and West used to be about work ethic, virtue, and restraint. But with over-surplus of food, clothing, and production, the West no longer worries about enough-to-eat or essentials of survival. They care mostly about fun, fantasy, and pleasure. Vice industry has overtaken virtue industry. In PLACES IN THE SUN, the Negroes were willing to pick cotton for corn meal. But today, Negresses got fat asses from welfare and ‘twerk’ their butts as if having sex with bad boys, and white kids grow up to this music and dance as ‘western values’.

The ‘Progressive’ Contradiction on Immigrants, Welfare, and Character - Leftism values in Immigrants the Very Virtues It Destroys in Americans

We often hear from ‘progressives’ that new immigrants are better than existing Americans — especially the working class whites, ‘white trash’, children born to immigrants, and of course implicitly blacks — because immigrants are hungrier, willing to work harder, more stoic, and more self-sacrificing for the sake of the family. Supposedly, these immigrants have more character. And by immigrants, we mean those fresh-off-the-boat. After all, the children of immigrants become Americanized all too fast, lose the fire in the belly that their parents had, and become as useless as other ‘loser’ Americans. According to this view, the winner-Americans(elites and upper-middle class) still have value because they are ‘creative’ and make lots of money and add to the economy.

But the lower 60% of Americans born here are pretty useless. They grew up with too much welfare, safety nets, free stuff(education, benefits, and government aid); they have no appreciation for America because they take everything for granted. They are spoiled. Even the poor are spoiled, sloppy, lazy, and rotten in America. Even if they don’t have much, they know they can rely on the system to provide them with stuff to live as couch potatoes. They are like animal that got used to being fed. To them, America is just one big dump that provides them with leftovers to get fat on.

And if it’s not government and welfare, it’s American culture that fills them with vanity, narcissism, and self-indulgence. They are no good. They don’t have what the Joads had in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. They just want to do the least amount of work for the most gibs they can squeeze out of the system. And they are prone to hire lawyers to sue anything and anyone to get more gibs. And this goes for a lot of whites as well as for blacks and established immigrants whose kids have already started to go bad. It's also true of US soldiers who will squeeze the system for all it's worth to get free stuff and more benefits.

In contrast, the freshly arrived immigrants, legal or illegal, have a real appreciation for America. They come from poorer nations with much less wealth. Some of these nations have no social safety-nets to speak of. So, people learned to be self-reliant. They are hungry and willing to do any kind of work to get make a living. And being more family-oriented, father and mother are likely to stick together and do more for their children than just living for individual aggrandizement.
Unlike fat Americans who take things for granted and know how to game the system to get free stuff, these immigrants roll up their sleeves and do jobs that Americans are not willing to do. Indeed, comparing illegal Mexicans in the US with Puerto Ricans partly confirms the validity of such view. Puerto Ricans have automatic American citizenship, and that means they can feed off the system in PR or the US. In contrast, illegal Mexicans have fewer protections, and therefore, they must work to make ends meet.

But here’s a contradiction in the Leftist Worldview. Leftism seems to suggest that the very agendas and policies that they pursue have a corrosive, corrupting, and degrading influence on the people. Leftism calls for more welfare, more free stuff, more handouts, more give-aways, and more everything for not just the underclass but even for the middle class. They say the US must become more social-democratic and be generous with welfare like Scandinavian nations. Leftism says this is necessary and good for the people.
BUT, if that’s true, how come Americans who have access to welfare and other benefits are unwilling to work at many jobs? How come the US has to import hungrier immigrants, legal or illegal, who are more motivated precisely because they come from nations without generous benefits and safety-nets? Leftism idealizes and even idolizes such people as salt of the earth, hard workers, honest toilers, and so on. And yet, if such people are so noble & admirable in their work ethic and if their virtues are the product of hardship & struggle due to lack of welfare and social safety-nets, then the only logical conclusion is that welfare and social-safety-nets(agendas pushed by the Left) have an erosive effect on virtues such as sobriety, thrift, determination, commitment, humility, and diligence.
Indeed, compare blacks when there was little or no welfare to blacks since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs and Nixon’s expansions of them that made it possible for entire generations of blacks to grow up on welfare and handouts. Blacks got slack, and companies preferred to hire immigrants, often from poor nations without social safety nets and generous welfare.

So, how does one resolve this contradiction within Leftism? Take someone like big fat gross Michael Moore. He even attacked Billy Boy Clinton’s welfare reform policies in the 1990s that tried to return blacks, white underclass, and legal Hispanics to the work-force. It placed incentives on welfare so that people would have to do some kind of work. Fat Moore and so many ‘progressives’ denounced it as inhuman, tyrannical, heartless, cold-blooded, neo-conservative & neo-liberal, quasi-Republican, exploitative, and etc. In other words, trying to make the welfare class get back into the workforce was sooooooooo very terrible! In other words, this kind of leftism says that welfare dependency is a human right and, if anything, the lower 50% of the US public should be showered with more free stuff and more benefits. They should not be expected to return to the work force or try to cultivate certain virtues like sobriety, diligence, and thrift to get back on their feet.

And yet, does it make sense to believe that the underclass will be better off morally or economically if they become so dependent on welfare and handouts? Indeed, even the Left seems, at least on some level, unsure and confused of their own claims. And this is most evident in their defense of immigration. The Left praises immigrants(legal and illegal) from Third World nations as having more work ethic, more energy, more zeal, and more willingness to give it their all... as opposed to the American underclass that seems hopeless on every level: In their attitude to education, work, family, culture, and etc.
And of course, we hear pro-immigration rhetoric from Conservatism Inc. as well. It tells us that immigrants are more ‘culturally conservative’ and more appreciative of what America has to offer. But this would indicate that America is a very corrupting place. If new immigrants are better than established Americans and already-settled-immigrants, it means that the process of Americanization turns people into atomized, materialistic, lazy, narcissistic, decadent, crass, and trashy individuals. If America can only carry on with New Blood because old blood is weak and diseased, then it means Americanism will eventually rot the bodies and souls of all those who come here. If Conservatives really believe this, shouldn’t they diagnose why Americanism is so diseased that those already here are no-good or worthless and must rely on transfusions of New Blood of immigrants to keep the economy alive?
The worldview of people like David Brooks and William Kristol suggests that the US is essentially vampiric. Brooks and Kristol despise white working class and white underclass as worthless. Though they don’t call out on blacks, they don’t have much love for them either. They seem to believe that, since many Americans are worthless as human material, they should just be allowed to decay and die on welfare & opioids and be replaced with the New Blood of immigrants. The elites, the only people who are still vibrantly in the globalist game of innovation and enterprise, must suck on the blood of New People since Old People’s blood is poisoned or diseased.

But if this is so, shouldn’t we ask, WHY DID AMERICAN BLOOD BECOME SO DISEASED? Doesn’t it have something to do with degenerate pop culture(pushed by Jews, homos, and Negroes), infantile PC babytalk, and too much welfare? Now, the American Right used to warn against the dangers of excessive welfare. Indeed, even the New Dealers worried about what safety-nets might do to the character of Americans. FDR was no welfare-handout looney. He strove to provide relief to suffering Americans but wanted to keep intact the noble work ethic of most Americans, white but even among blacks. This was why the New Deal didn’t offer free stuff for teenage girls who got pregnant with some trashy dude. And Neocons in the 60s and 70s in both the Democratic and Republican parties voiced concerns about what kind of effect the Great Society might have on the American underclass, especially among blacks. But the American elites soon gave up on blacks as anything except as government workers. Most of the New Workers were to come from docile and diligent immigrants, especially from Mexico and Asia. And in time, the elites even gave up on the white working class. And when Billy Boy Clinton revamped the Democratic Party as a globalist ‘free trade’ party than the party of Big Labor, American politics was about GOP and Democrats doing little else but jockeying for more donations from Wall Street, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, and etc. And as GOP’s conservatism went from social/cultural to purely economic, the almighty dollar was all that mattered. There was a time when the GOP would have been a bit ashamed to rely on someone like the utterly sleazy Sheldon Adelson who made his fortune in gambling. But no more. With libertarianism as the new ideology of the GOP, all that mattered was profits. Even Christianity turned into, "Jesus will make you rich."

Anyway, if people like David Brooks really feel that many Americans are so worthless that the US needs more New People, why are they so reluctant to spell out clearly and honestly why the US went from a nation of sobriety, responsibility, and work ethic to a nation of excess, indulgence, and piggery? Granted, Brooks, more than others, have hinted at the social and cultural decay of the US. So have chunkhead Ross Douthat and that guy at the American Conservative, Rod Dreher. But Brooks being Jewish and Douthat & Dreher being semi-cuck dweebs, they dare not NAME THE JEW as the main corrupting force of the True American Way.

As for the Left, it’s just pathologically mendacious or downright delusional. At least the Classic Left had a certain consistency. It valued work ethic and virtues such as diligence, thrift, sobriety, and morality. Back then, the Left called for more state intervention to improve working conditions and to make life more tolerable for the toiling masses. Folk songs were about people sweating in coal mines, on farms, on train tracks, in factories, and etc. They were not about some welfare queen who be ‘twerking’ her ass for youtube audience. Left called for more social benefits for workers who were contributing so much to society.
But since the 1960s and Great Society, especially with the boomer elites having been raised in a world of excess, indulgence, and vanity, the New Leftism came to be all about self-actualization, self-indulgence, self-aggrandizement. People deserved all sorts of benefits and welfare as a ‘right’ just for the hell of it. No reason was necessary. In communist nations, the idea was workers deserve benefits and safety-nets because they worked so hard to produce stuff. In the post-60s America and Europe, the idea was people deserve free stuff because they just do... even if they are unwilling to study or work or take any responsibility for their own lives. Partly, such attitude was just the sign of the times of post-WWII economy that never seemed to stop growing. Middle class affluence projected its attitudes onto all of America. Since middle class kids grew up taking things for granted in a world of plenty, why shouldn’t the same ‘right’ apply to everyone in America? Taking-things-for-granted became a new kind of ‘positive right’. So, never mind such outdated notions as moral hazard.

Such mentality took hold from Wall Street billionaires to Mean Street thugs and whores. Wall Street could use finance like a casino, and if thing blew up, no need to worry. They could just take it for granted that the system would bail them out. And if the masses acted excessive and messed up their lives, just look to the state to take care of them. From top to bottom and from right to left, the notion of moral responsibility became dirty words.
The elites are into total decadence and degeneracy. Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are filled with sociopaths and sickos. Ivy League colleges promote LGBTQ nonsense as the highest value. The underclass have Rap, trashy TV, and violent video-games as their culture. It’s all so soul-murdering and soul-dead.
The Left believes morality is so old-fashioned, and all problems can only be solved with ideology, such as anti-white-male-bashing, and more soulless statist programs. The Right believes the Marketplace will fix all problems if we just let it do its magic. Libertarians believe morality isn’t necessary. Just let the markets do its thing, and the ‘rational’ agency of individuals will kick into gear and fix all problems. Save-Indians-with-Casinos is the libertarian template for All Americans.

Anyway, how do we resolve this Leftist Contradiction of Welfare and Virtue? The Left loves to virtue-signal about how it cares so very much about the bottom 50% of Americans. Indeed, virtue-signaling among themselves than virtue-instilling or virtue-cultivating among the populace is what the current so-called Left is all about. For there to be true virtue, the people must be criticized and admonished as well as defended and helped. It’s like you cannot instill virtue in kids just by spoiling them, indulging them, and calling for more toys and games for them. You have to balance the fun/free stuff with a sense that they must also make an effort and grow more responsible. But the rotten Left just indulge blacks and certain favored ‘victim groups’(some of whom are rich and privileged) instead of being critical in a constructive way. What good did white Liberals do by indulging the "hands up, don’t shoot" fantasies of blacks in Ferguson, MO that led to BLM, more lies, and more violence? It’s one thing to denounce real acts of police brutality but quite another to indulge Black America, mired in crime and degeneracy, with the fantasy that is always blameless and automatically noble because of their skin color and loud hollers.

But on some level, the Left must know that its way has been corrupting because it is totally supportive of immigrants on the basis that the latter are more virtuous, more hard-working, more self-sacrificing(for their family members), more adult, and more stoic. And less self-indulgent, less spoiled, less pampered, less infantile, less whiny, and less entitled. Indeed, so many on the Left outsource virtue to the immigrants and would-be-immigrants.

If it’s true that Leftist Way makes for greater virtue, then nations that were most transformed by post-WWII welfare state — EU and the US — should have the people with the best virtues. But we are constantly told by the Left that the spoiled, bratty, whiny, and entitled peoples of the US and EU must be replaced with people from poorer nations because these immigrants, having grown up without so many goodies and freebies, are hungrier and harder; they are made of tougher stuff of character, work ethic, and responsibility. And the Left point to illegals in the US who do the kind of work that so many blacks, whites, and settled browns(already spoiled) aren’t willing to do. Using this logic, virtue is the product of hardship, and therefore, the Leftist fulfillment of the Welfare State led to the erosion of virtue among so many Americans who grew lax and lazy in taking too much for granted... like the grasshopper(versus the ant) or the hare(versus the diligent tortoise).

Does this mean that there are only two options? Poverty and virtue OR Affluence and vice? Or, is there another way? There is in the neo-fascist socialism that is more like the New Deal, National Socialism, and the Singapore Model. New Deal wasn’t about free handouts. It was aid to people willing to work hard. And while Nazism did end up committing great crimes and thus discredited itself, its core economic ideology had much of value. Its welfare policies were both conditional and thematic. It was conditional in the sense that people were expected to contribute to the system as well as take from it. Also, its socialism was founded on noble themes of serving and strengthening German-hood. So, national healthcare carried the theme of Germans caring for all fellow Germans as part of the national family. And aid to women as mothers was about collective national support for more healthy German babies.
In contrast, social democracy in an individualistic society is purely materialistic and fosters the mindset of "What’s in it for me?" Or, it can go PC & pro-diversity and deviate into "Social-Democracy for Sweden must be for the whole world", a notion as destructive as Nazi plan to conquer all of Russia. Whether an order tries to conquer others with hate or conquer others with love, it will fall in the end due to lack of understanding of limits. Nazis got swallowed up by Russian terrain, Russian climate, and Russian soldiers. And Sweden, by playing Jesus healing the sick, will get swallowed(and raped) by the African and Muslim masses.

Sadly, we don’t have Neo-Fascist socialism today. Instead, what passes for ‘socialism’ is some fat white bitch with green hair and tattoos on her ass at some PC college pontificating about what a noble soul she is because she calls for more freebies for everyone and for more immigration because... immigrants are the salt of the earth who will do jobs that Americans won’t do. But don’t expect idiots like that to notice any contradiction in their logic.

Btw, while it was true that immigrants in the past were often more hard-working out of desperation and respect for the host nation, that isn’t really the case anymore around the world. Immigrants, migrants, refugees, and invaders in the EU know how soft and weak the Europeans have become. They know there are plenty of globo-proggy lawyers, activists, and politicians in all those nations that will side with New People over Native People. So, they have no respect for the host population where men are all cucked and the women are whores with jungle fever. Indeed, BBC is now casting even white historical heroes with black actors. So, if immigrants in the past came with awe and respect for the White World, they now come with contempt for free stuff and to demand, "Where the white women at?" They notice that white politicians are all whores for Zion and that white folks worship blacks as the superior demi-god-race that dominate sports, pop music, and sex. And PC instantly teaches non-white kids to see white males as worthless 'racists' and wussy cucks.

Also, the West is far more willing to provide all sorts of benefits and even ‘rights’ to the invaders. Indeed, even Africans who willfully strand themselves off the coast of Libya are picked up by European boats and set free to roam all around Europe like pack animals.
While people might respect magnanimity backed with pride and strength, they feel utter contempt for good will supported by nothing but sappy & naive good will. This is especially true for people from cutthroat Muslim nations and savage African nations. No ‘refugee’ respects a cucky Germany that holds up ‘Welcome’ signs for invaders, most of whom weren’t even from Syria.

Vietnam War as Metaphor for Civil War in the West - Why Globalists Need Immigrants as Mercenaries against White National Liberators

If one side in a civil war cannot win without massive foreign support, it is a sign of fatal weakness.

Take the Vietnam War.
All North Vietnamese soldiers were Vietnamese.
In contrast, South Vietnam relied on massive US troop presence and even South Korean troops to prop up its regime and system. North Vietnam had the decisive advantage. Its military was manned by proud patriots. South Vietnam was decadent and under neo-imperialist hegemony. It lacked conviction and cared only for pleasure & profits, the bulk of it going to the Chinese minority. So, not many in the South were willing to fight and die for what the system stood for. The South relied on (what were essentially)mercenary forces from the US and South Korea.

US soldiers had no idea why they were in South Vietnam. They were told something about stopping evil communism and all that. But Americans didn’t care about the Vietnamese(who, in turn, didn’t care much about Americans) and grew cynical. They had low morale and had to be bribed with R&R to keep fighting. They were given generous rations to drink, party, and bang whores.
And S. Koreans served as a mercenary force that received equal pay as the Americans. But without US money, South Korea had no reason or will to fight. In contrast, North Vietnamese were fighting for nation and pride. They had a sense of value beyond money and materialism.

North had the will, cohesion, and conviction on its own. Even though it received extensive aid from USSR and China, it did all its own fighting. In contrast, the South had no will and no pride. It could only be propped up by outside mercenary forces. On its own, South was doomed, and indeed the North soon prevailed over the South once the US left.

Similar dynamics is at play in the crisis now engulfing the West. There is a civil war of sorts between globalist whites and nationalist whites. In some white nations, the nationalist whites have an advantage over the globalist whites. Nationalist whites tend to have a sense of roots and identity. They feel a powerful connection to the land beneath their feet. (This is evident in Poland and Hungary.) They are more likely to have a sense of core morality. They are more likely to have national, racial, and cultural pride. As such, they have a sense of meaning, direction, and power in being what they are and being with others like themselves.
In contrast, globalist whites(despite their education and affluence) tend to be decadent, demoralized(except in the virtue-signaling of self-loathing, what with their moral pride being predicated upon racial suicide), directionless, rootless, and spineless(again, except in denouncing their own race). With such negativity, they are bound to comprise the minority of whites in any healthy nation where whites have woken up to what’s really at stake. Besides, most people aren’t ethno-masochists.

The reason why some white nations abnormally have more globalist whites than nationalist whites is because the elite institutions are controlled by globalist Jews and their cuck-collaborators who spread PC and Homo-?egro pop culture to whites from cradle.
But if white national consciousness were given a chance, it is bound to grow and expand because people like to feel good about their own kind. It’s like many Vietnamese had been resigned to French imperialism, BUT once the nationalist flame got going, it could hardly be contained and eventually spread like a wildfire.

Just like the South Vietnamese regime felt it had no chance without foreign mercenaries, globalist whites(who are really unwitting shills of Jewish globalists) are beginning to feel that they have no chance without foreign mercenaries of Diversity or non-white ‘immigrants’. These are immigrant-mercenaries or ‘immercenaries’ in the sense that their ONLY commitment to the West is materialistic. They have no concern for western identity, culture, or history. They just come to the West for money and materialism. For those goodies, they are willing to destroy nationalist whites… just like South Korean mercenaries were willing to kill tons of Vietnamese patriots for $$$ in the Vietnam War.

If not for Immercenaries, Virginia would still be a Red State. It was non-white immercenaries who flipped California into a blue state. Indeed, many states would be Republican if not for the Immercenary Factor. (To be sure, GOP has been mostly useless as all politicians in the US are controlled by Jews.)

Granted, there is one crucial difference between the US and Divided Vietnam during the war. The nationalist Viets had a solid base in the North. So, the Viet Cong soldiers fighting in the South could rely on solid support from the North that was wholly independent of US imperialism.
In contrast, all of the US is like South Vietnam. All of it is occupied by the GLOB. All the federal & state governments, all the institutions, all the industries. So, White National Liberationists(a more accurate term than ‘white nationalists’) are like Viet Cong but without the backing of a solid base of power. In North Vietnam, all the institutions were controlled by patriots. So, the Viet Cong could at least rely on hardcore nationalist North Vietnam in their war with South Vietnam then under neo-imperialist US hegemony.
In contrast, the Alt Right and Nationalist Whites have no such backing. Some see Russia as the support system of nationalist whites, but Russia is non-interventionist(despite all the Jewish hysteria and cooked-up paranoia) and, being an imperial-nation in its own right, not so keen on ethno-nationalism that might upset Muslim minorities.

Still, once true nationalism replaces cuck-conservatism, White National Liberationists will be more passionate and committed than the globalist whites whose main passions are ridiculous homo-worship, Negro-worship, servility to Zionists, and racial self-hatred.
In the end, a people who love their own kind have advantage over those who hate their own kind. This is why globalist whites everywhere fear that they cannot win in the long run against nationalist whites. They can win ONLY with non-white immigrants as mercenaries who side with globalist whites PURELY for $$$ and materialism. After all, what is the main reason why immigrants come to the US? Principles? Ideals? No, they come for $$$.

If the only means of politics will continue to be elections, the globalist whites may well prevail because immercenaries, as ‘new citizens’ eager for $$$, will keep coming and vote for globalism. All of America and even EU could end up like California.
But if it comes to a shooting war, nationalist whites will be like the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. They will have something to live for, kill for, die for. They won’t be fighting for money.
In contrast, the immercenaries will take up arms only for money. As for globalist whites, what is their great cause? Racial suicide. Is that something that people are willing to die for? Suicidalists may welcome their own demise, but they are not willing to die for it.

Why does Transhumanism Promote Homomania, Trans-gender-mania, and Freakdom? - Transhumanism Promotes Freakery to Legitimize Frankenstein Science, BUT the End Result Will be Aesthetic Convergence than Divergence

Transhumanism hopes to merge biology with technology. Man and machine.

Transhumanists know many people will be freaked out by the prospect of bio-engineering and bio-mecha fusion. After all, it all sounds so monstrous and grotesque, an institutionalization and normalization of Frankenstein Science. Therefore, transhumanists believe that the masses have to be made less resistant to radical futurism for humanity into transhumanity.

That is why transhumanists push stuff like homomania, tranny lunacy, and 50 genders. They want to make us get used to the idea that humanity is infinitely fluid & malleable and could be(and should be ) molded into anything anyone desires. THAT is why transhumanists made an alliance with gender-bender community.

As the elites(especially those in high-tech) are geeks and nerds who grew up on science-fiction as religion and utopianism, they have a futurist-warped view of dream and destiny.

They want to evolve into ‘gods’. It’s like that lunatic Michio Kaku the Cuckoo talking about humans becoming godlike one day and even traveling through time. It would entail using bio-engineering to extend life to 500 yrs or maybe for eternity. It means increasing human IQ to 1000. It means merging brains with computers. It means having the internet and stuff inside our brains and bodies.

So, as machines become more like man, man will become more like machines. While some people are excited by such prospects, many(especially those who tend to be natural conservatives or natural humanists) will recoil in horror. Therefore, transhumanists seek to de-legitimize conservative or humanist convictions by promoting homomania as the New Normal.

--------------------

Could one argue that transhumanism is a weird form of race-ism?

‘Anti-racism’ says that all races are the same and that evolution effectively halted for mankind 10,000 yrs ago. Following this logic, all races are alike except for skin color, and furthermore, the very idea of ‘race’ has no validity whatsoever and is nothing but a fantasy ‘social construct’ cooked up by white supremacist cranks in the 19th century. That’s all there is to it, there is nothing more to discuss, and everyone should just accept the iron law of human immutability.
Humans must be immutable since 10,000 yrs couldn’t make any further dent in evolution to create meaningful divergences among homo sapiens. In other words, it isn’t possible for the human species to evolve into different races even if it wanted to. Just like nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, nothing of any significance could evolve among humans since 10,000 yrs ago. ‘Anti-racists’ have been pushing this iron immutability of mankind as a good thing, i.e. we should give up on noticing group differences because all human groups/races are essentially alike, must be essentially alike, and have no choice but to be essentially alike since evolution just ground to a halt 10,000 yrs ago. If anyone does notice group or racial differences, he is either hallucinating or misreading the data OR the differences, while real, are too slight and superficial to have any impact on the future of humanity.

If the anti-‘racist’ dogma of human immutability(since 10,000 yrs ago) is ideal, then how could transhumanism be a good thing among ‘progressives’? After all, transhumanism envisions the means to create super-beings via genetic engineering. Transhumanist community wants to create a new kind of people who are taller, stronger, smarter, sexier, and longer-lived with future technology. It is obsessed with the prospect. Then, how come ‘progressive’ ‘anti-racists’ have no problem with transhumanism? And if the human DNA has been genetically immutable despite 10,000 yrs of divergent evolutionary pressures, how is it possible that it can suddenly be altered profoundly with a few tweaking in the laboratory? (Progs say 10,000 yrs of evolution couldn’t alter man’s nature BUT a man can become a woman in 1 day by putting on wig and declaring that his penis and testicles are ‘female’ organs.)

If progressive ‘anti-racism’ tolerates or accepts transhumanism, it will have to face up to some serious implications. In accepting transhumanism, progressivism will have done the following:

1. It will have demonstrated that humans are indeed mutable. They can be genetically and fundamentally changed, altered, modified, and boosted in all sorts of new/different ways. That being the case, how can anyone insist on the immutability of the human species in the past 10,000 yrs? Some argue humans haven’t changed much in the past 60,000 yrs.

2. It will have demonstrated that it’s a good idea to create a new class, caste, or race of people who are far superior to the existing races of people. Transhumanists may not call the New Humans a ‘new race’, but that’s exactly what they can become. This goes against the Progressive ideology of equality, though, to be sure, via the agenda of transhumanism, the course of progressivism is coming full circle and returning to its roots of eugenics and racial improvement. After all, the original progressivism wasn’t about progressing into a world of equal mediocrity but about progressing into a world of superiority by weeding our mediocre and inferior traits.

If transhumanists find a way to create a new crop of people who are super-strong, super-intelligent, and super-beautiful(like the giant albinos in the beginning of PROMETHEUS) and if this new breed choose to mate one another and form their own separate community, how would that not constitute the creation-emergence of a new race, indeed one that will tower over us to be regarded and even discarded as the inferior race?

Because the New Breed will be demonstrably superior to us original humans, it will mean that reality of racial differences will become starker than ever. How perverse that the elites who decry notion of racial differences are so hellbent on creating superior races... though they will surely employ all sorts of semantic games to mask what they’re really up to.

It’s like Martine Rosenblatt parades around as a victim — Jewish, homo-tranny-lesbian, married to manly Negress, — , but his/her/its real ambition is to become superior to everyone else and gain god-like power over humanity.

--------------------

Are we facing the end of humanism with the gradual but certain dawn of transhumanism?

Nazism sought to create the perfect hero, and communism sought to create the ideal worker. But perfectionist radicalization of ideals can be dangerous, and both Nazism and communism did incalculable harm to mankind.

In contrast, humanism reminds us to be what we are and accept what we are, warts and all.
Accept the real than obsess over the ideal, be it from the left or the right.

But with the explosion of freedom and abundance, the ‘real’ got boring to a lot of people, especially to the elites. Our consumer culture feeds on vanity and narcissism. So, everyone wants to be ideal than real, and people’s ideals are defined by their eccentricities. If the vulgar masses are satisfied with pop culture idolatry and celebrity culture, the elites want more than fantasy. They want the actual means to live forever and mutate into bird-man and god-man.

In certain respects, trans-genderism has been peddled as a kind of humanism, i.e. it’s about how we should be tolerant and accepting of trans-gender people for what they are than forcing them to conform to our ideal of what is proper and normal.
But upon closer inspection, it’s really a form of anti-humanism because so-called trans-gender people won’t accept what they really are — men or women with screwy bio-chemistry — and demand extreme medical procedures and semantic convolutions in order to be ‘transitioned’ into their impossible ‘ideals’. It is a form of transhumanism that rejects the natural-born-self as boring, unsatisfying, & restrictive and strives for(and even demands)the ‘ideal’ of what one wishes oneself to be... like Michael Jackson turning himself into something like a white cartoon woman.

The mentalities behind Elliott Rogers(the psycho-nut who killed innocents) and most trans-gender people aren’t much different. They are anti-humanist and obsessed with their own self-deluded ‘ideals’. Rogers was miffed that the world didn’t see him the way he saw himself: The coolest and handsomest dude that ever lived. And trans-gender people are angry that many people still refuse to see them as the divas they want to be. (If the grossly fat transvestite Divine at least understood the ridiculousness of his fantasy and camped it up, his counterparts today, with the full backing of the Establishment, are utterly lacking in irony & humor and demand that they be regarded as empresses of glamour.) Both Rodgers and trans-gender people cannot accept themselves as what they really are. They want to be something else, and worse, they demand that we flatter and confirm their self-delusions. It’s ironic that people who can’t tolerate their natural-born-selves demand that we not only tolerate but celebrate their false-imagined selves.

There is some of this in ‘cuckold’ culture as well. White men cannot accept their ‘inadequacies’ and so they sexually live through black men invited to have sex with their wives. Watching black men getting it on with their white wives, they vicariously identify with both the black male and white female as conqueror and conquered. Trans-marriage-ism?

At any rate, humanism is in sad decline. It’s seen as too humdrum in our Age of Excess.
Zeligism went from neurosis to the new normal.

--------------------

The first decoding of the DNA was prohibitively expensive. But now it’s cheap and available to any person for $200.

In the present, bio-engineering is still in its nascent stage, and available procedures are super-expensive. In the future, all manners of genetic-alteration may be possible, and they may be widely affordable(or even considered a ‘human right’), especially with the aid of A.I.

If civilization survives, future babies could be made this way:

Imagine a computerized glass panel. Would-be-father presses his thumb on a part of the glass that reads his imprinted DNA, and then the would-be-mother does the same.
And then the A.I. program combines the genetic codes of the ‘father’ and ‘mother’ and offers various possible combination of those codes. (After all, same man and same woman have different kids every time they procreate.) And then, the computer offers ‘bio-photo-shopping’ so that the basic choice-kid can be altered with additions of optional outside genes. So, if the man wants the kid to look more like Sean Connery, the kid will be Connerized with additional traits(to be provided by the A.I.). Thus, the father’s looks are ‘improved’ by Connerization. And if the kid is to be a girl, the computer can spice up her genes for the Patricia Neal look in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. The kid will be Nealized. (For the negress babies, their looks can be improved with additions of Diana Ross or Rihanna synthetic genes.) Also, the basic IQ can be boosted with Newtonization and Einsteinization.

And then the result will be allowed to grow in an aquarium and turn into a baby, to be milked by artificial robot nanny.

Currently, with so many freaks in transhumanism, the impression is that genetic-technology will lead to divergence: People turning into grotesque freaks and mutants in the future. But actually, if given the choice, most people will choose the Narrow Ideal. I mean most guys, if given a choice between having a son that looks like Sean Connery or Johnny Rotten, is gonna go with Connery. Most women, if given a choice between having a girl who looks like Patricia Neal or Jeanine Garofalo, is gonna go with Neal(or Donna Reed, so wonderful in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE).

So, it will be the great convergence than the great divergence. Currently, the trans-gender and transhumanist communities are filled with freaks, uglies, dogulas, frankenstepforders, and the like because we don’t have the technology to REALLY change people. The options are cosmetic, surgical, or bio-chemical. But no amount of dress & make-up, surgery, or hormone injections can really change someone. So, most men who want to be women and vice versa just look like perverse freaks. And most transhumanists who want to be like future androids just look like dorks at a STAR TREK convention. There is the impression that transhumanism is all about being ‘different’ and freaky.

But suppose in the future there really is a means to fundamentally change a person in the way he wishes to be. Suppose Bruce Jenner not only wants to be a woman but can walk inside a box and then walk out as a full-blown woman in every way. Today, he looks stupid because he looks like a man who wants to look like Claudia Cardinale or Raquel Welch. But suppose he could really be changed into a gorgeous woman. Then, he would no longer look like a freak but like a truly gorgeous woman. The reason why so many people look like freaks in the trans-gender and transhumanist world is due to the discrepancy between what they are and what they really want to be. Since there is, as yet, no effective way to realize their dreams, they end up looking like freaks, like botch-up jobs. Every ultra-freak is unique as a failure of fantasy. But in fact, ultra-freaks don’t want to be freaks. They are ultra-freaks because of the farce of trying so hard to be what they can’t be. But the more they try to become their ideal fantasies, the more freaky they look because of the sheer desperation of warping reality into fantasy. It’s like Michael Jackson got increasingly hideous as he tried to perfect himself. Often with ultra-freaks, we are not seeing their desired but their disastrous persona that failed to live up to their dream because no technology as yet exists to grant their wishes. While perfection and success have only one summit, imperfection and failure are strewn all over the slopes and valleys. Because, as yet, trans-genderism and transhumanism have led to so many laughable failures, we are fooled into believing that such divergences are the aims of the ultra-freaks in the movement. But in fact, most ultra-freaks want to be transformed into perfection, and if the transhumanist moment really arrives, there will be the great convergence since almost no woman will want to look like Lena Dunham or Divine if she can look like Ashley Greene, and almost no man will want to look like Michael Moore or Mack Beggs.

Race Denial Is No Long Tenable - Ideology Is Downstream from Iconography

Following WWII and the demise of Nazism(and revelations of its horrors) and prior to the explosion of race problems in America(and now in Europe as well), one could forgive the sincere belief among intellectuals, social scientists, and politicians that race is essentially a ‘social construct’ and, once equality was assured under the law, all races could achieve more or less the same. If intellectuals were wrong about race reality and racial differences back then, it was more out of naivete or idealism than dogma, cowardice, or some pernicious agenda.

But after several decades of social experimentation, it should be clear to any honest person that racial differences are all-too-real and account for the persistent problems of race, especially pertaining to blacks. But because of the pervasiveness of PC as status symbol(as political incorrectness will invariably lead to blacklisting or demotion in the choicest careers), iconography of holy relics(as Jews, Negroes, and Homos are now objects of mandatory reverence), and radical violence as forms of intimidation(as heretics & dissidents face real danger of being physically assaulted by Antifa thugs, BLM lunatics, or screeching campus fanatics), most academics and media people are FORCED to be dishonest, FORCED to ‘not know’ what they, in the heart of hearts, know.

We can forgive a white liberal in the 1940s, 1950s, and even in the 1960s for believing that black conditions would be vastly improved with new laws and federal programs because, after all, blacks(along with other non-white races) had been denied equal opportunity in America. But after several decades of undeniable proof of black advantage in muscle power, black impulsiveness, black aggressiveness, and black psychopathy that tends toward obsessive egotism & narcissism, one has to be willfully disingenuous or just plain delusional to insist that the racial problems in this country owe to the legacy of slavery and ‘Jim Crow’.

It’s no longer about Jim Crow but ‘Radio Raheem’(the obnoxious thug of Spike Lee’s worthless DO THE RIGHT THING), the kind of moron who is all too common in black communities across America. The problem is too many Negroes who act like ‘nogs’ and carry this ‘groid’ gene that makes them tougher, more aggressive, more impulsive, and more psychopathic. After decades of black rampage against other races(and among themselves), this fact should be plain as day, but the tyranny of political correctness prohibits honest discussion of race that locates the black problem as rooted in genetics. As a result, we are left with praising everything black(as if even Problem Blacks are really just misguided and misunderstood victims of the System)and blaming anything white as explanation for the failures of the black community.

PC is an excuse-making machine that blames external white forces for all that stinks in the black community. (This is all the more disingenuous because it is the problematic nature of blacks that is hyped and sensationalized as ‘cool’ and ‘badass’. So, the very white progs who insist something must be done about black gangsta culture of mayhem and murder also promote it as ‘authentic’ and something worthy of emulation.) The idiot critic Andrew O’Hehir at Salon surmised(or pontificated) that Detroit’s decline owed to envious white racism’s punishment of Motown. Apparently, white folks decided Detroit must go down because Smokey Robinson wrote too many groovy songs.

To be sure, conservatives are hardly better on the Race Issue; they also play by the PC songbook in their own way. So, we are told that Detroit was ruined by Liberalism, socialism, and the Democratic Party. Apparently, it had nothing to do with race, specifically the naturally destructive tendency among blacks. If so, why are some white-majority cities under Democratic rule among the richest in America? Why is San Francisco and Manhattan, two very Liberal cities, overflowing with wealth and privilege despite their ‘big government’ policies?

Or consider how Ann Coulter blames lowly black behavior on the Democratic Party, as if blacks would have acted better under Republicans. So, how are blacks acting in Republican Alabama or Texas? Or channeling Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter muses that blacks learned how to be violent from Scotch-Irish hillbillies, a notion that would imply that Black Africa was an Edenic paradise of peace and harmony when, in fact, it was inhabited by spear-chucking savages from time immemorial. Why is there so much nonsense about blacks?

Political Correctness isn’t just about ideas & issues but also about idols & icons. In a way, the power of idolatry & iconography is more crucial to the sway of PC. After all, even as the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ differ in their explanations & proposals of the Black Problem, both sides are agreed that blacks, along with Jews and even homos, must be treated as a preternaturally noble and holy people, a Magic People. Despite differences in ideology, the American ‘right’ and American ‘left’ are agreed on the icons. It’s like the conflict between Catholics and Protestants or between Sunnis and Shias. Despite doctrinal differences, they worship the same gods or icons. So, ‘iconology’ > ideology. While ideology offers explanations, ‘iconology’ determines what or whom should be worshiped. There is a reason why Jews, homos, and Negroes have special iconic power in the US. Part of the reason is obvious: Jews control the media and decide which people should get favorable attention and adoration. But it’s also because Jews, homos, and blacks have special talents. Jews are especially good with intellectualism, science, business, and humor. So, they are admired as people of superior skills whose achievements continue to do wonders for all humanity. Jews also promoted the Cult of Shoah. As for homos, they are naturally fanciful, flamboyant, & narcissistic, and in our Age of Vanity & Hedonism, those qualities count for a lot. As for Negroes, they dominate sports, pop music, and sexual symbolism. For many whites, nothing is worthier of worship than the black ‘twerking’ booty and the black dong. Andrew Breitbart once said "Politics is downstream from culture." Sometimes, ideology is downstream from iconography. People are captivated by something first on the sensory level and then seek rational or ideological explanations to justify their fixation. It’s like the John Hurt’s closeted homo character in LOVE AND DEATH IN LONG ISLAND who is so enthralled by the iconic sexuality of some second-rate actor that his mind follows his heart and balls.

The Real Problem Plaguing Free Speech Is Not about Left vs Right but about ETHNO-MONOPOLY of the Media and Internet platforms by Jewish Globalist Supremacists

Why should the current reality of internet censorship and war on free speech be surprising? Because the US Constitution guarantees the First Amendment protection of Free Speech, the current elites cannot criminalize certain ideas, viewpoints, and expressions like in European nations and Canada that have no Constitutional protection of free speech. In those nations, the elites only need to pressure their whore politicians to follow suit, and then, laws are passed to forbid a whole array of speech. It began with banning ‘Holocaust Denial’ but has morphed over the years into fines and even jail time for saying insulting things about Muslims or homos.

In the US, the elites haven’t yet found a way to nullify the First Amendment. Since the state guarantees protection of free speech, the elites and PC commissars look for corporate ways to limit speech. In some cases, we have Jewish elites owning entire industries and firing or refusing to hire anyone who goes against their narrative. So, the subject of Nakba, the systematic massive pogroms against Palestinians in 1948, has effectively been banned in Hollywood. It’s not illegal to express one’s wish to make a movie about Nakba, but anyone doing so will be effectively silenced in American movie industry. So, despite Constitutional guarantee of Free Speech, honest discussion of Nakba or even the term ‘Nakba’ are defacto banned anywhere near Tinsel Town. Because Jewish Zionists own all the movie industries, they get to decide what kinds of pitches and scripts are okay and which are not. Some years ago, the Sony-Columbia leaks revealed that Jewish Hollywood insiders were emailing one another about how to ban Penelope Cruz from further roles in Hollywood for her grave sin of expressing sympathy for Palestinians being slaughtered in Gaza.

But then, not all industries are owned by Jews, right? Some are owned by conservatives and libertarians, right? So, why can’t they allow the kind of free speech that challenges the Jewish Narrative? It’s because Jews control the media that shape public perceptions on every industry, every institution, and everyone. So, if a conservative business were to donate to a certain cause or protect certain views & opinions that run counter to Jewish supremacist interests, the Jewish-run media will all coordinate attacks to morally smear and discredit that industry or institution. For example, when Hollywood favors Zionists over Muslims and shows zero regard for Palestinians, the Jewish-run media never complain or raise a fuss. But suppose some prominent company donated a measly $10 to some Alt Right organization. The entire Jewish media apparatus will tie that company to ‘white supremacism’, ‘racism’, ‘Nazism’, and etc., and then the company could face severe backlash due to bad publicity cooked up by Jews. Also, all these industries and institutions rely on loans and investments via Wall Street that also happen to be dominated by Jews. So, if a company or institution is associated, even just slightly, with any cause or movement that had been made a pariah by nonstop Jewish attacks, it can suffer grave consequences in loss of customers and loss of financing.

Because Jews control the media, they control the Narrative and the Template. And that means they can attack and smear even conservative or gentile-controlled industries. Imagine what Jewish media would do to a baking company that was deemed unfriendly to self-indulgent homo freaks who demand homo-wedding cakes. The media will use terms like ‘homophobic’ that has been drummed into countless Americans to have the same effect as ‘witch’ in the Middle Ages.
So, Jews control speech in industries and institutions owned by themselves, but they also control industries and institutions owned by conservatives and gentiles because they control the power of media that can make or break any people with hysteria, denunciation, opprobrium, and shaming. Just consider what the media have been able to do with the utterly bogus Russia-Hacking fantasy. Jews, being hysterical and neurotic, have no sense of honor or principles. They will say and do anything to get their way. Deep down inside, despite their high intelligence and depth of knowledge, they have the personality of hagglers and con-artists.

So, if we are to understand anything about the current order, we need to tell ourselves it’s not about ‘left’ vs ‘right’ or ‘conservatism’ vs ‘liberalism’. If indeed those are true principles, how did the Left go from Mayday to Gayday(supported by Wall Street and super-capitalist oligarchs)? And how did Conservatives go from white racial pride to the present cuckservative state? All these labels in the Current Order are too malleable and fluid to have much meaning. As both Liberalism Inc and Conservatism Inc are controlled by big donors, official scribes, and whore politicians, their alleged values and supposed principles are always playing the game of changing-the-goal-posts. The very Liberals who foam at the mouth FOR something today would have been foaming at the mouth AGAINST it decades ago.
So, why did those principles or values change? Because the elites altered the meaning of ‘liberalism’ in accordance to their shifting interests. At one time, the Jewish-led Liberalism was totally for Free Speech. But once Jews attained top power in the US, they used PC to brainwash young people that Free Speech must be curtailed because ‘hate speech’ is bad. (Of course, Jews get to decide what is ‘hate speech’, which is why Zionists can get away with saying anything whereas BDS movement faces being criminalized all across America.) And there was a time when feminism was totally anti-porn and against ‘objectification’ of women. So, why did so much of feminism become so pro-porn and pro-sluttiness? Jews changed the goal-posts.
Same goes for Conservatives. At one time, most Conservatives favored non-intervention. So, how did so many conservatives become pro-war during Bush II years? Because Neocons took over and put out the official line that it’s unpatriotic to oppose the Iraq War. So, all of a sudden, Ron Paul and Patrick Buchanan were deemed unpatriotic. And apparently, Buchanan was no longer ‘conservative’ and only a ‘populist’.

So, to understand what is really going on, look less to labels such as ‘left’ and ‘right’ and look to the Tribe that holds the most power. The current crisis of Free Speech in America is all about the ethno-monopoly of the media, internet platforms, finance, academia, whore politicians, and legal institutions by Jews. Jews control big media. Jews own all big internet platforms or exert pressure on them via Wall Street finance. Twitter sucks up to ADL and Cloudfare banned service to Daily Stormer because they wanted more financial investment from Wall Street.
Also, Jewish control of finance and commerce can shut down people from doing business. Paypal has near-monopoly in online transactions, but it denies service to a host of people and organizations hated by Zionists and Jewish imperialists. Jared Taylor has been kicked off Twitter and has been banned from using Paypal. His organization, American Renaissance, couldn’t find a place to hold conferences because Jewish supremacists applied severe pressure on hotels not to allow Taylor’s organization. Jews harass and attack White National Liberationists like they do with Palestinian National Liberationists because gentile nationalism is a threat to Jewish Supremacism as the one and only true national identity that denounces all other identities and nationalities as ‘false’ and ‘made up’. It’s the Jewish Matrix of Power. Jews don’t hold one or two cards or even most of the cards. They hold ALL of the cards. When Jews pull dirty stunts, there is no major force that will stand up to them as counterbalance.
Now, imagine if a venue denied service to an AIPAC rally for representing Jewish tyranny over Palestinians and horrible Jewish Wars for Israel that destroyed millions of Muslim and Arab lives. Imagine how the Jewish-run media would react. It would denounce the venue owners as ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘Nazis’. Imagine what all the politicians would do? As lowlife whores whose careers were made on Jewish political donations, every single one of them will come forth in support of AIPAC and denounce the venue owners. And then, Wall Street will no longer offer loans to the venue owners while offering generous loans to their competitors.
Will the venue owners at least get some support from the academia? Forget about it. Most academics are mere scribes who rose up the ranks as teacher’s pets of Jewish Professors who filled their minds with PC. With Jews controlling so many top institutions, most academics know that they will never be promoted or be granted tenure if they do anything to anger Jews. Norman Finkelstein is a Jew with impeccable credentials, but he couldn’t get a gig even at a second-tier university like Depaul because of Jewish pressure.

Jewish Power is so pervasive that Jews can even get away with violating Constitutional Rights. Consider what happened in Charlottesville in August of 2017. The Alt Right and allies went through every legal procedure to secure their right of assembly and speech at Lee Park. They were impeccable with every detail(unlike Antifa mobs who attacked random people and trashed Berkeley in opposition to Milo’s appearance), and they got backing even from the ACLU on grounds of free speech. Alt Right came to the park peacefully. So, what happened? The Jewish mayor and his political pet, the black police chief, violated the Constitution and used police force to shut down the rally. And then, the police willfully pushed the Alt Right and allies into the streets filled with Antifa types and a melee ensued. The state violated and trampled on Constitutional principles, but they got away with it. Why? The media are controlled by Jews and ran a totally BS narrative. And all politicians, total whores of Zion, praised the mayor and the antifa scum who initiated the violence. And even though Alt Right was the victim at Charlottesville — Selma for Alt Right — , their websites were shut down, they were kicked off platforms, and they were denied financial services. And the ACLU, even though it had stood for principles, vowed never to defend Alt Right again because Jewish donors warned its funding would dry up. Even though the Jewish mayor and police chief should be arrested and tried for abuse of state power, they’ve faced zero negative consequences. In contrast, Richard Spencer has not only been hit with tons of frivolous lawsuits but NOT A SINGLE lawyer will defend him. They are that afraid of Jewish power. Prior to the Charlottesville, Spencer was working out at a gym in Washington D.C. and was accosted by a hideous Jewish harridan. Even though he was hassled by some Jewish hag, HE was denied entry to the gym thereafter. But then, these lowlife Jews even cheered the sucker-punching of Spencer and called for a fatwa pogrom on all ‘Nazis’ to be attacked randomly in the streets. These Jews are so lowdown and scuzzy that they even tried to extort money from Richard Spencer’s mother who plays no part in his movement. If anyone ever wondered why ‘antisemitism’ was so widespread and longstanding, we only need to consider Jewish hypocrisy, nastiness, and vileness that are evident all around.

When Jews, who comprise only 2% of the US population, own all the big media, own most of Wall Street, control most of the courts, own all the whore politicians, own virtually all internet platforms — Facebook/Instagram, Google/Youtube, Twitter, etc. — directly or indirectly, and elite academia, that is a lot of power for such a small minority. Jews have placed us inside a maze where there’s no way out since they control all the entrances and exits. Via control of online finance, Jews made it difficult for Alt Right people to raise money. Via control of platforms, Jews are shutting down alternative voices on Facebook and Youtube. And even though Jared Taylor didn’t violate any terms of agreement, he got kicked out of Twitter. And he can’t even use Paypal.
Now take someone like Alan Dershowitz or Abe Foxman who are lowlifes and disgusting Jewish supremacists who not only support Zionist tyranny over Palestinians and Wars for Israel but exert pressure on US government to force ALL OF US to support Zionist terror and tyranny. Imagine if Twitter removed one of their accounts. You bet the media would go crazy and denounce Twitter as ‘antisemitic’. And Jews in Wall Street will threaten Twitter with no more loans or investment.
Or imagine if one of them were denied service by Paypal for supporting the Zionist supremacist terrorist state of Israel. (Since Paypal is owned by Zionist imperialist supremacists, there is no danger of that, of course.) You bet Congressmen would make big speeches about how a wonderful noble Jew’s rights have been violated. You bet magazines, newspapers, and TV will run endless reports on the grave injustice. But Jared Taylor’s removal from Twitter and denial of service by Paypal. There is total silence, indeed even from the Conservative and Libertarian communities that purport to stand up for free speech.

Because Jews own or control all the big industries or institutions, we are like rats caught inside a cage on fire with no means of escape. Jewish power is utterly corrupt. Many people, including myself, once thought Jews were motivated by some degree of principle and idealism because, in the past, they supported ACLU and even defended loathsome Neo-Nazis. But it turns out Jews only pretended to care about free speech in the past because so many of them were pornographers or radicals(leftist or Zionist) and feared being shut down or censored by conservatives. But now that they have near-total control of all major industries and institutions, they fear free speech because free speech naturally tend to fixate on The Power. I mean who wants to waste time speaking truth to Eskimos or Hawaiians who have no power? In the past, Jews spoke truth to Wasp power because Wasps were then the ruling elites. Since Jews got the most power, it’s only natural that free speech should be used to speak truth to Jewish power. That is why Jews now brainwash young ones with PC to believe ‘hate speech’(always to be defined by Jews) is not free speech.

Jews at Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter claim to work with ADL and SPLC to clamp down on ‘hate’, but ADL is a Zionist Hate Organization that is into Nakba Denial, supports the Occupation of and Apartheid in West Bank, and pressures the US to threaten war on Iran, a nation with no nukes in contrast to Israel that has 300 illegal ones. SPLC is essentially a Jewish-funded organization. It’s a hysteria-mafia that takes money from Jews to scaremonger about mythical neo-nazis and fairytale KKK. Most of what it reports are Hate Hoaxes, and it totally ignores all the acts of violence and thuggery carried out by blacks and illegal aliens. It mostly goes after white Americans and Christian conservatives, two people hated most by Jewish globalist imperialists. ADL and SPLC pretend to be independent organizations, and they are able to get away with the charade because they are protected by the utterly corrupt Jewish-run media. Indeed,the Jew-run media report the
'findings' of ADL and SPLC as if they're holy writ not to be questioned. Imagine that. Jews fund ADL and $PLC, and ADL and SPLC say what Jews want to hear, and then the Jewish-controlled media uncritically and unquestioningly run with the 'findings'. It's like a Jew using three sockpuppets to create the illusion of autonomy among separate organizations.

Now, think of the incestuous relationship among Jewish centers of power. Jews control all the big media. Jews provide most funds for SPLC and all the money for ADL. Both are effectively tools of Jewish supremacist power. They defame anyone or any group hated by Jews as potential rivals or critics of Jewish supremacist power. They totally serve a tribal agenda and work in tandem with Big Media that, contrary to its professed impartiality and objectivity, are totally owned and operated by Jews and filled in their ranks with either Jewish managers and journalists or with gentile ones who’ve proven their worth as good little teacher’s pets of the Jews. So, when ADL and SPLC works with Twitter, Facebook, or Google, it’s just tribal power plus tribal power plus tribal power. And it’s not about ‘leftism’ or ‘rightism’ but about tribal supremacism.

Now, just think. Suppose Hindu-Americans or Chinese-Americans owned Google, Facebook, Twitter, all Big Media, all whore politicians, all elite academia, Wall Street, and the top courts. Would no one see any problem with this? Should such a small minority have so much power, especially if they are utterly corrupt, supremacist, arrogant, and contemptuous of other groups? If Chinese-Americans or Hindu-Americans(or even Mormon-Americans) had such power, I think there would be serious discussion of the unhealthy concentration of wealth and power by such a small group whose loyalties, by the way, may not be with fellow Americans but with China or India.
And yet, there is no discussion of Jewish ethno-monopolistic power in America, especially when Jews are now using every dirty trick in the book to suppress, silence, and blacklist anyone who dares speak truth to Jewish Power?

In a nutshell, Monopoly Capitalism leads to Monopoly Intellectualism, esp if the monopolization of industries is controlled by a single ethnic group.

In the end, free speech is secondary to Power Speech. Even if every American has equal speech rights as an individual, most voices will go unheard. If, out of a thousand people, everyone has the same right to speech but ONLY ONE PERSON has control of the megaphone, only one voice will have Power Speech that drowns out all other voices.

Not only is there a corporate monopoly of the media but there is an ethno-monopoly as well. It is especially tragic because the US is the lone superpower with the means to make or break any nation. So, if Jews in Deep State want to destroy a nation and push for war, they can rely on their Jewish brethren in the Big Media to spread war propaganda as happened in the buildup to the Iraq War when even New York Times were beating the drums for war. And of course, Jews at NYT and other publications gave cover for Obama’s war crime in Libya, support of terrorists in Syria, and collusion with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine.

The Mass Media has long been monopolized, especially ethno-monopolized. The internet allowed some degree of alternative voices, but Jewish Platform Monopoly by Google, Facebook, and Twitter means entire voices will soon be shut out or shadowbanned. Also, financial services like Paypal deny service to men like Jared Taylor who never committed a crime while criminal thugs of ADL, BLM, and Antifa get to use the service all they want.
And of late, it seems the Jewish-monopoly Media exist mainly to stir up ‘Russia Hysteria’ to spread fear and paranoia so that alternative news and voices will be smeared as puppets of Putin as New Hitler.

Some say this is ‘leftist’ or ‘cultural marxist’, but isn’t it odd that Monopoly Intellectualism also targets the BDS Movement, trying to criminalize it nation-wide? BDS has long been associated with the Left, but even Democratic Party big shots side with Sheldon Adelson and Neocons when it comes to issue of Palestinian rights. Hmm, gee, I wonder why that is?

The dogma of PC and cult of Homomania also further Monopoly Intellectualism because so many scholars and media people were raised from cradle with the notion of Holy Homo. It’s their neo-religion, and it was propagated by the cabal of Jewish academia, Jewish media, Jewish finance, Jewish entertainment, Jewish control of courts, and Jewish purchase of whore politicians.