Destructive Of These Ends

The people who rule over us don’t care what we think, they don’t care what we do, they don’t care how we vote, they don’t care, at all really.

They do whatever they want, which is basically what their oligarch masters tell them to do. There was a study published a few years back by two professors, one out of Princeton and the other out of Northwestern, showing that public opinion had almost no measurable impact on public policy, that only the opinions of powerful elites mattered, that America was not really a democracy at all, but an oligarchy. Can anybody really deny that at this point?

We put Trump in office. We elected a renegade candidate. We achieved what many thought impossible. The entire establishment opposed him, the corporate overclass opposed him, the lying press opposed him, but we elected him anyway. And yet fascinatingly, incredibly, public policy hasn’t really budged even a tick with him in office. What do we actually have to show for it? I mean, is there anything, anything at all? A Muslim ban that isn’t even close to an actual Muslim ban? A budget-busting mega-bill that pays for walls in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Tunisia, but allocates not one cent for a wall along our own southern border? How many millions in aid dollars to China, a nation with a booming economy and a GDP that surpassed ours a year or two ago? A massive tax giveaway to the rich, written by banksters and oligarchs? John Bolton and the resurrection of the Bush regime? Nothing meaningful has changed. Nothing meaningful at all. It’s sheer black pill.

The level of detachment, of complete insulation and disregard for the will of the people in Washington, is astounding. The imperial government in Washington is a juggernaut, its course seemingly unalterable. We peons are just along for the ride, looking out the window in horror at the hellscape our overlords are driving us into. The Founding Fathers would have been shooting at these psychopathic Cultural Marxist sons of bitches on Capitol Hill decades ago. The British Crown gave Americans better representation.

This is is a government in dereliction of nearly all its core duties. It won’t secure the border, it doesn’t even enforce the law against its ideological allies anymore, and does anybody actually think the surveillance state was erected to keep us safe at this point? The U.S. Government, at virtually all levels, is more interested in punishing dissent than wrongdoing. It doesn’t govern, it controls. It exists to perpetuate itself. That is the only reason this government exists. And if it didn’t exist, America would break up into a thousand pieces, because we are no longer a people with natural bonds. We’re just a bunch of disparate peoples jammed together by naked government force.

I wonder sometimes if there is something inherently wrong with democracy, if it is just prone to co-optation by moneyed interests, if it invariably devolves into a kind of race to the bottom in every respect, killing civic virtue and self-reliance along the way. Pat Buchanan has been devoting his recent columns to analyzing the inherent flaws of democracy, wondering aloud if Western democracies are perhaps destined to fall. I don’t have any firm position on the subject, for what it is worth. What I do know about democracy is that it works much better, indeed it really only works, on the more local level, or at least on a smaller scale, in contexts where one’s voice can really make a difference. It works best in its original form, as a direct, personal and truly participatory democracy, as the Greeks practiced it. Nations as large and diverse as ours simply shouldn’t be democracies, and probably can’t be functioning, representative democracies, if they can be functioning states at all.

The degrees of separation between the common man and the halls of Congress are nearly infinite. Our leaders don’t care to know what we think or what we want, but even if they did care to, I’m not so sure they could know. There are so many globalist parasites, foreign lobbyist groups, domestic lobbyist groups, special interests, military contractors, Deep State entities, civil rights activists (white haters), and swamp creatures of every morphology whispering lunacy into their ears, standing between us and them, that I’m not sure there is any hope for us ordinary folk to reach our supposed moral and intellectual betters. And make no mistake about it, that is precisely how they view our relationship, as one between masters and slaves.

In fact, it was precisely this kind of relationship that Jefferson was referring to when he wrote that now famous phrase, “all men are created equal”. He didn’t mean all men were actually equal in talent or worth or intellect, that’s absurd. He meant that no race, no people, no tribe, on account of their supposed superiority, gets to rule over another without their consent. That is what he meant. He was saying, “you are not our masters and you don’t get to decide our fate for us, you arrogant English prigs”. He was not saying, “blacks are just as smart as whites”.

The problem is, if a people want to thrive, to prosper, to persist as a people, they need representation, they need a government of their own to serve them. That is what renders governments legitimate. We don’t have that as Americans any longer and we sure as hell don’t have that as white Americans. That should be obvious to all sensible people at this point. A government this insulated, this unswayed by popular will and popular elections, has no claim whatsoever to legitimacy. And this is to say nothing of the fact that Western governments are literally waging a war against their own white racial majorities, all in the name of diversity. So, not only are our governments trying to ruin us and liquidate us, we essentially have no legal means to alter their course at the present! It is not a pretty predicament we find ourselves in as Americans.

This is why the white ethnostate is no pipe-dream. This is why the white ethnostate is so vital, as a vision, as a goal. Americans are past the point of fed up, as they should be. The unconscionable but now conventional (mis)behavior of the parasites in Washington is a daily red pill for most Americans. Americans are ready to disgorge this criminal, corrupt government, which makes the 15th Century Vatican look scrupulous by comparison. They just need a spark and some guidance, and though I don’t know what it will take to get there, get there we shall, by whatever means necessary.

We can do better than this for ourselves, my white brothers and sisters. Much better. We do not need to accept our current vassalized and debased state. We do not need to accept living under the yoke of Cultural Marxist psychopaths who hate us, who hate our history, who have absolutely no regard for our interests or our existence. Our fate is in our hands. We decide it, not the tyrannical left-wing lunatics in Washington (those left-wing lunatics with both D’s and R’s next to their names) who always think they know better than us, but never really do. The American experiment has surely failed, but the white race shall not. We shall triumph. We shall secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. Hail victory!


  • Donald Trump has improved on the Reagan playbook of appealing to legitimate concerns of whites who are not rich in order to get the political power to make the rich richer.

    I vote Democrat, but I cannot recommend the Democrat Party to a white blue collar worker who shares my concern about black crime, illegal immigration, and affirmative action. Since the Republican Party was formed in 1854 it has been dominated by rich businessmen. Since the War in Vietnam the Democrat Party has come to be dominated by well educated, well paid bi-coastal professionals.

    The Democrat Party I really like is the party that existed from the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963 – thirty years in all. I think the civil rights legislation was well intended, but I am disappointed with the black response.

    When I was a child and teenager I made excuses for blacks. when I was a young adult I got tired of making excuses. Now I am tired of hearing excuses for those people.

    • 1) Democrat Party is dominated by rich businessmen too. Indeed, virtually all rich businessmen in America are Cultural Marxists. The vast majority of them are Dems. There is a tiny sliver of the Cultural Marxist oligarchy dedicated to zany, free market fetishists, but on all the major social, racial & moral issues they are left-wingers as well. Of course, when it comes to parting with their own money & power, those elite leftists are funny. Communists were the same way. All Marxist systems devolve into kleptocratic oligarchies of sorts, just particularly brutal ones.
      2) I also have a pretty positive opinion of JFK. I have a less positive opinion of FDR, but I do have a positive opinion of Grover Cleveland and Andrew Jackson as well. I am no Republican myself. In a lot of ways & in his own way, Trump is as much a Democrat as a Republican.
      3) I actually voted for Koster (D) over Greitens (R) in the last election, on the same day I voted for Trump. Greitens just gave me a bad feeling. My instincts are usually right when it comes to people. And naturally, they were right again in this instance. Greitens has been mired in scandals ever since. Indeed he is on trial right now!
      Good to see you floating around in the comments section again, John.
      -E Spraguer

  • Outstanding article with great talking points. For the purpose of debate and the only aspect of the AltRight I have not embraced is the Ethnostate. In my opinion this is not the solution, certainly not as White Americans. We cannot on one hand throw stones at “big government”, in favor of “EVEN BIGGER GOVERNMENT” just for the sake of segregating ourselves. Please do not question my pride of being, and goals of protecting my White European heritage, that is number 1.

    The world has become too small, too interconnected, due to technology and social media for an Ethnostate to be plausible.

    Our forefathers did not sacrifice everything so that we can devolve ourselves into communism, or even socialism. It’s not a win for us.

    In my opinion we start our winning in our own homes, our families, and our communities. We need to take pride in our appearance, our demeanor, etc.

    Take back what’s ours through DEMOGRAPHY, and reminding minorities of “their place” in the national hierarchy.

    We need to continue discussions especially in the public eye, we need to create more social clubs of like minded prideful white men. We need to lead by example so that our children, and grandchildren exude the same pride.

    The trickle down effect of starting within our homes, families, and communities is how we win. How we will take back what our families before us fought and died for.

    Fight everything! Question everything, and challenge these parasites and stop rolling over to social Marxism.

    We will win, we will NEVER be replaced.

    Hail Victory!.

    • Nah fools. Can’t go back now that you’re only 8% of the world and biggest consumers of contraceptive methods.
      The game was lost in 1920.

    • 1) If we remain under the tyranny of this government, we are likely to be replaced.
      2) There are monoethnic nations all around the world. Most all of Eastern Europe & East Asia is comprised of essentially monoethnic nations.
      If Israel can survive, so can we. We can found a monoethnic nation that defines citizenship ethnically/racially.
      3) There are too many laws & systemic controls preventing us from really asserting ourselves as a dominant racial group. They are all in place specifically to dispossess us & harm us.
      We need our own state.

    • All Good Points……..

      The Ethnostate is a Vision………

      An Ideal…….

      An Archetype……..

      There is NOTHING Wrong with a Nation of just White People……….

      NOTHING at all……….

      And that’s the Point………

      Which many in the AltRight still don’t Understand………..

      It’s Competely Normal for White People to Live around Other White People in a White Only Nation……….

      We as Western Whites have been Brainwashed into thinking this is Regressive, Racist, and Backwards……..

      The AltRight Narrative of the Ethnostate in the Present is to Erode the Anti-White Mainstream Narrative that has Brainwashed the Vast Majority of White People…….

      Even People in the AltRight see it as a Foreign Concept due to the Level of Brainwashing………

  • Excellent article, Mr. Spraguer. You are thinking in precisely the right direction, in my opinion—the direction indicated by a sober analysis of the situation, which you have superbly outlined.

    The natural question, which you touch on, is what kind of government we should be aiming for, given the astounding failure of the “order” under which we presently live. I hold that our aim should not be democracy: although I agree with you that democracy works best on the local level, and that it has some role to play there, democracy should exist only beneath the tutelage and rule of a higher form of government.

    You say that “it works best in its original form, as a direct, personal and truly participatory democracy, as the Greeks practiced it,” meaning, I presume, Athenian democracy around the time of Pericles. Let us not forget, however, that this same system was considered one of the worst forms of government by both Plato and Aristotle, who lived beneath it and knew it first hand; that even in its extremely brief life it was interrupted by the rule of oppressive and bloody tyrants; that it was the same regime to execute Socrates, exile Aristotle, and condemn Alcibiades, leading to disaster in Sicily and the ultimate victory of Sparta over Athens.

    • I’m quite fond of democracy, especially direct democracy.
      I think democracy needs restrictions/limits placed upon it, however.
      I think this was likely the problem with the Greek/Athenian versions, namely that they were an early & crude form of democracy & there were insufficient limits on how far democratic will extended (rights it could infringe upon, etc.).
      But that’s what constitutions are for, separation of powers, etc.
      Furthermore, I mean, if not democracy, then what? Lot of shitty options, if you ask me.
      But yes, we could certainly debate various “mixed” forms of government.
      That said, I continue to believe that the major problems America, & the West more generally, faces, are not due to, & are not the result of, too much democracy, but too little democracy. Too many unelected bureaucrats making decisions (EU, DC), too much media manipulation (lugenpresse), too little speech (Big Tech, Political Correctness), too many unaccountable government agencies & entities (Deep State, etc.).
      America got on just fine for the first 200 years or so of its existence. The problems we face now are the result of many, many factors, & honestly, I’m not even sure democracy is one of them.
      Biggest problems: speech restrictions, bad legal precedent, insane expansion of federal power, diversity itself, ethnic warfare against whites, corporate control over government, widespread corruption, an indolent & apathetic citizenry, low-IQ underclasses, Cultural Marxism / false moralities, etc.
      Where does “democracy” fit in there? I think you see my point.

      • I surely see your point, Mr. Spraguer—and yet dispute it. To my view, democracy fits in intimately to a great many of the problems you list. To name but a few:

        Speech restrictions — Speech which clearly, persuasively, and deeply challenges the underpinnings of democracy, is naturally opposed by the democratic regime sooner or later. Democracy indeed restricts speech as much as any regime—only much more insidiously, as it covers these restrictions with the rhetoric, not of the censor (who admits to silencing speech in protection of order or morality), but of the demagogue (who claims he is in fact protecting freedom of speech, and censoring nothing).

        Expansion of federal power — For any number of reasons, the mass of men is incapable of understanding the patient subtleties involved in true legislation; they want action and results, and they want it now. Over time, this necessarily works in democracy toward accumulating power in the figure of the executive, that great democratic actor.

        Diversity itself — This is a natural and inevitable corollary of the idea of human equality, which is a foundational premise of all forms of democracy. One might differentiate between “equality before the law” and “equality as such” here, but everywhere the first has ever been established, the second has sooner or later followed.

        Corporate control over government — This arises in any regime which denies or underestimates the innate idea of human excellence, as democracy perforce does. Such a regime naturally substitutes money for merit: the very rich gravitate toward rule, and rule gravitates toward the very rich. This has been a recognized feature of democracy since antiquity.

        Widespread corruption — Democracy necessarily favors the monstrously vain, the unscrupulously self-serving, the born liar, the power-craving—in short, the most mendacious, ambitious, and ruthless of human creatures, who are willing to overstep every moral bound and destroy any human being in order to rise but a step further. Democracy is the one regime under which Lord Acton’s “power corrupts” is actually largely true.

        I am far from accusing democracy of every problem under the sun, or claiming that if we could just eliminate democracy, we should resolve all our woes. I recognize that there are a great many other factors at play in our present plight. But I hold with the ancients on this, and particularly with Plato: democracy is the second to worst form of government, and is the form most likely to lead to the worst simply: tyranny. We, who might have the chance in our lifetimes to see a new regime arise, must not build it in such a way that it will lead us ineluctably to the same crisis from which we are presently attempting with all our force to escape. We must not waste our chance, should ever it come.

        I might pose my criticism in the form of a question for you, Mr. Spraguer. We find ourselves today beneath a shockingly corrupt behemoth. Do you believe we could have avoided all this through better defined checks and balances?

        • 1) Free speech can be protected through a constitution & extreme rules for amending it. The US arguably has the most protective regime for free speech in the entire world. Virtually every threat to & limitation on free speech in America is not via the democratic process but via market actors & the press!!!
          2) “Sure” as to complexity issue. Which is why when it comes to certain types of legislation you need a legislature. But on the big issues, which only require simple answers like “should we devote money to a wall” or “should we bail out Goldman Sachs” I’m more than confident your average idiot in the street is as or more qualified than your average parasite in Washington to decide policy. You could even have a referendum override system or veto system when it comes to certain policies.
          3) Arguably the primary source of virtually all of our woes is diversity. All we need is a racial standard for citizenship written into the constitution, & voila, 3/4 of our problems disappear overnight. I think there are a number of logical steps from some generic form of equality to celebrating muh diversity. Shoot, America was a democratic republic for nearly 200 years before we started fellating diversity & racial equality. Sure, democracy kind of presumes a generic equality, but it can be delimited in a variety of ways. *Who gets to be equal* is a question for the law. There will be no 14th Amendment in the ethnostate & if there is, it will not protect racial minorities.
          4) Corruption plagues all governments. What, you think there is less corruption in dictatorial regimes? Totalitarian ones? In South America? Sub-Saharan Africa? The Middle East? Meh. At least with democracy you have a means to root it out. And again, especially with more local, direct forms of democracy, corruption, & especially corrupt leaders, can be rooted out far more efficiently.
          5) Again, much like with free speech, the corporate-control-over-government problem is more of a “capitalism” problem than a “democracy” problem. Capitalism is often hostile to democracy & corrupting of it. Best solution for those issues, however, is extreme transparency rules, along with structural changes like instituting at least a limited form of proportional representation democracy. This allows smaller parties to flourish & so indirectly attacks government capture.
          Corporate control also has to do with centralized power, a militarized federal government with many secret departments & appendages, etc. With smaller, less powerful governments, you have fewer issues of this nature.
          6) I can’t answer your question. The reasons we are in the shape we are in are manifold. That said, I don’t think this addresses the essential issue (democracy). I do think that if certain laws weren’t in place and if certain major events in American history went the other way, we might have been able to avoid our current predicament. A racial requirement for citizenship might also have helped us avoid a lot of the problems we currently face. But this does not so much undermine democracy itself as much as it undermines the American system of governance & major events in American history which shaped our current system of governance. A lot of democracies in the world don’t really have the problems we have. Certainly not to the same degree.

          • Some excellent points, Mr. Spraguer. Permit me to clarify a few of my positions.

            When I speak of a regime, I am not speaking of a government; I am speaking of something similar to what we call a “culture,” though the regime includes the forms of government as well. I do not mean to say that American law, or democratic law as such, necessarily censors speech—though it does. But I agree that the primary danger to freedom (including freedom of speech) in democracy is organic. The press and the oligarchs may well be the greatest threat: my point is that these powers thrive in the climate produced by democracy, and are permitted their interventions by the very constitutional protections which should be defending the citizenry.

            Which leads to an important point. The law is worth only so much as the men who live beneath it. Democracies tend—and this is borne out by every practical example we have at our disposal—to stray from their founding constitutions, or worse yet to employ those constitutions as a front for essentially unjust activities. (As but a strikingly obvious example, consider what is happening in South Africa.) Democracies pay lip-service to law even while they spit in its face.

            Another clarification: I reject the dichotomy democracy/despotism. The vast majority of European regimes throughout history have been neither the one nor the other. Aristocracy belongs to neither category; monarchy belongs to neither category. It is obvious (I hope) that I prefer American-style democracy to African-style dictatorship; that does not mean I must hold democracy to be the most workable regime. In my last response, I agreed with Plato that tyranny is the worst of all possible regimes; but democracy might be the penultimate. There are two other forms standing above them which are ignored by practically all present political discourse. It is toward those forms that I believe we should be aiming.

            Do you really believe that we have the means, in our present democracies, to “root out” corruption? The analysis you provide in this very article would seem to indicate precisely the contrary: Democracy is but a front for hidden powers and agendas; each election cycle is merely a distraction and an attempt to convince the people that they still have control. Half the time we do not even know the names of the men who oppress us. I do not think we are necessarily more free, in certain respects, than those who live beneath an openly oppresive regime; we are perhaps in a worse position than they, because it is harder for us to perceive our slavery.

            You will dispute this, I think, by saying that we do not really live in a true democracy. You say “Capitalism is often hostile to democracy & corrupting of it.” It is indeed often argued that this or that feature of contemporary society cannot be the product of democracy simply because it is prejudicial of democracy, where democracy is understood as some kind of abstract, ideal society in which the people gets, somehow or other, to determine its own destiny. The trouble is that this abstraction does not exist, and has never existed, save for the briefest periods of time, generally following a transition from a non-democratic order—meaning, in that moment in which most of the citizens of a democracy are themselves the sons of a non-democratic order. Democracy leads to the abuse of wealth and power (in our day capitalism, corporatism, oligarchy, globalism, etc.), and always has; and if the abuse of wealth and power in consequence works toward the destruction of democracy, that is only greater proof that democracy is inherently unstable and self-abolishing.

            Pray tell, what democracies in our present moment are not beset by problems which are, if not identical, then certainly parallel, to those in America?

          • 1) I am a strong supporter of direct democracy & participatory democracy *on a smaller scale* (think city-states, corporations, cantons, states, etc.). On a larger scale, certainly in a nation as large & diverse as ours, I’m open to interesting & novel ideas as to governance.
            2) All governments stray from their constitutions & the proper boundaries of their power over time. All of them. Not at all unique to democracies. Why it is often up to the people to place them back within their proper bounds by violence/force. Only very rarely does this occur by some means other than force.
            3) You are correct, I do not believe most “Western democracies” are really democracies at all, or they only are to a very limited extent. I talked about some of the ways to attack the corrupting influence of moneyed interests on democracies: transparency, civic virtue, proportional representation to facilitate party turnover & to prevent what we have, which is a two party duopoly, etc. It should be noted, however, that all regimes are subject to corruption by moneyed interests, not merely democratic ones. You are correct about hidden interests having control, not the people, & no, I do not think we have the means to root out corruption generally. But again, a lot of this is the scale of the elections, limited turnover, the two party system, etc. The plurality system on all levels is a problem. We need third parties. The impersonal nature of indirect democracy done on a large-scale is a problem. Why we can’t root out corruption, etc. The size, power & centralization of federal power is also a problem. Why we have so many entities desperate to co-opt the government.
            4) Yes, certain types of monarchies & oligarchies can be non-despotic, like when there are democratic legislatures to rival them, or when the law places limits on their power, etc. Still, it’s hard to see how removing public accountability would make governments or government positions more prone to good governance. It seems to me that this is an invitation to abuse, much like with secret courts (like FISA).
            5) It’s a lot easier to argue against something than for something. I mean, which form of government do you think is superior to democracy? Put your ideas out there & we can debate them. I have an open mind, & I am quite open to novel ideas about government organization. What would your ideal government look like? I’m interested to know.
            6) I actually think a lot of the damage done to democracy was not so much a function of democracy as it was a function of particular technological developments specific to the 20th Century. For 50 years, the television was the primary source of information for virtually all Americans. The outsized power of that very narrow medium created a tremendous opportunity for corporate/oligarch capture. 30 years ago America did not really have a functioning democracy at all. With speech as restricted as it was during the TV era, the American mind was under the complete domination of the engineers of consent in the news media. The internet essentially broke that monopoly. Now those same players are sort of flailing to get it back. But again, I don’t think those informational threats to democracy were a necessary consequence of democracy, & again, I think they were somewhat unique to a particular place and time.
            7) I really don’t think the nations that occupy Eastern Europe & East Asia for the most part have the same problems Western countries increasingly do. I actually think American democracy was much higher functioning 100 years ago, before diversity & the mass media.
            Take Iceland as an example: highly homogeneous, smaller scale democracy, but highly democratic, ample participation. Shoot, they jail bankers. Doesn’t have the same problems because it’s 98% white Icelandic.

          • Once again, some excellent points, Mr. Spraguer. I address them as you have laid them out:

            1.) It is possible we agree more than might seem: to say it again, I concur that democracy in a restricted form and on a local level is both just and desirable—but only so long as it is governed, regulated, and limited by a non-democratic form of government above.

            2.) If this is as you say, then what is the special value of a constitution?

            3.) All regimes are subject to moneyed interests—this is true—but some much more than others. For definite and identifiable reasons, money is adulated in democracy more than in any other system, and for that reason wields more power. In the aristocracies of old, the ruling class in general was contemptuous of mere money; that is even almost a sign of healthy aristocracies. There were mores in place within those regimes to stay off the unhealthy influence of money, and money itself exerted far less influence in them than it does today.

            4.) Public accountability—and really, I do not know how one can speak of such a thing, at least in America for the past fifty years or so—is worth a thousand times less than a sense of public duty in the rulers. The sense of public duty cannot be instilled in democratic rulers, because they are motivated in almost all cases by greed for money and for power, which they seek to achieve through their extraordinary talents at deception.

            5.) You could not be more right: let me propose, rather than merely critiquing. I would wish to see a return to aristocracies, and preferably to hereditary aristocracies, in which rights and duties are strictly proportionate. Ideally, there would be some kind of mechanism in such a regime to permit individuals of worth occasionally to rise to rule, and unworthy individuals of the aristocracy occasionally to be demoded; that is complicated, however, and the fundamental thing is that there be a solid basis of blood-based rule. In our day, of course, one cannot simply return to such an order, for countless reasons: the Enlightenment and its democratic meddling have eliminated almost all trace of the old aristocratic families. We are in need of a return then to a strict hierarchy which might one day produce a new aristocracy. That is extraordinarily dangerous; it is part of the absurdity, rottenness, and extremity of our time that any attempt we might make to reinstate a just form of government runs the risk of issuing in a monstrously unjust one. But that risk is preferable to the /certainty/ of a /worse/ monstrosity, which is guaranteed by our present course.

            6.) Where you see preventable historical accidents which have led to the corruption of democracy, I see only the peculiar manifestations of an inherent democratic corruptibility. You say: had we but avoided /these/ problems, our democracy would yet be intact. I say: had we avoided these problems, /others/ would have arisen, as grave if not more grave, because the regime itself makes them inevitable. I agree with your analysis regarding the media—save that I am hardly certain that the internet will save us. It has given us a chance, yes; but the populism it gives rise to can be manipulated and turned against us, or turned toward essentially frivolous ends, as the recent Italian election shows. Everything depends on how we fight it out. One way or another, the inordinate power that the radio, the television, and the internet possess in our day is due to nothing else than the extraordinary folly of giving the aggregate of average human beings the vote.

            7.) I will readily grant you Iceland. The success of democracy in Iceland owes itself I believe to three almost unreproducible peculiarities (these are mirrored, to some extent, in Japan, but in no other major country of which I am aware): 1.) its very limited population; 2.) the utter homogeneity of that population both racially /and ethnically/; 3.) its extreme geographical and political isolation. That, combined with favorable traits or customs in the people itself, has made for the success of democracy here; but these are all conditions which exist together, and can exist together, almost nowhere else in the world.

            As for the other nations you mention, I agree that democracy is working well enough in several of them for now. But caution is warranted here. If the democracy of these nations appears to mirror the success of other Western democracies in the last century, that is no accident; these nations presently find themselves at an analogous point in the natural life cycle of democracies, as it were. These are all young democracies, and most of the men who govern them, as well as very many of those who vote in them, came of age under radically non-democratic regimes; /they are not democrats in their souls./ Within the next twenty to forty years, that generation will die out, and these democracies will come into their own as democracies. At such a time I predict we will see the same kind of rank corruption and loose degeneracy we see elsewhere in the West.

            When I am proved wrong about this, I will happily cede you the point. As that is very long to wait, however, I am more than willing in the meantime to pursue our very stimulating dispute.

          • 1) I’m not convinced it’s possible for anyone to be proved wrong on subjects such as these.
            2) An aristocracy, but how? I mean who decides who is “the best”? Capitalists also support an “aristocracy”, but their version of “the best” is the richest (oligarchy), the religious have their version of the best, the most pious (theocracy, usually run by the biggest pedophiles), etc. etc. etc. I prefer other restraints on democracy, usually bottom-up restraints. For example, referendums & constitutions, especially those that create a peaceable means for separation/secession for states & regions. I see that as a huge flaw in our Republic, that we don’t have a means of peaceable separation codified in law.
            3) If a non-democratic over-government (a “government above” in your words) is necessary then I choose a 3-person consul system. The top individual in the consul system must be a member of the party with the most representation in parliament (we have a proportional representation system, like I said). Everyone within the parliament gets to vote for 1 individual in the first round. The top 7 are selected after the first round based upon who receives the most votes. In the 2nd round, only members of the largest party in parliament get to vote. They get to vote against candidates, rather than for them. Those two candidates with the most “against” votes are removed from the running (this basically solves the problem of other parties trying to hijack/subvert the process by getting their own people, plants or hybrid candidates as it were, elected, undermining the integrity of the system), leaving 5 candidates. The 5 candidates with the highest remaining get to run in a national election. The winner gets to be top-consul. This person (top-consul) gets one special power, namely the power over foreign affairs (war, commander in chief), but otherwise is indistinguishable from the other consuls. The other two consuls are simply chosen by the 2nd & 3rd largest parties in Parliament directly. On all domestic issues, any one of these consuls gets veto power over national legislation. Although I am open to a majority of consuls being for a bill being sufficient for certain things, like spending bills, not emergency spending outlays or bills however. This consul system would probably be enough to stop refugee invasions, bailouts, & perpetual war. It would be a great way to stop particularly pernicious, destructive legislation & acts.
            4) I don’t have a strong position as to hereditary aristocracies & I certainly agree with your position on “public duty”, but I’m just not so convinced that other forms of government don’t suffer from the same “public duty” issues. I mean, are hereditary aristocracies really headed by much more altruistic & noble folk? I’m not so sure. Having leaders chosen from within the parliament might solve some of this, again, but only partially so. I’m not sure it’s a completely solvable issue. Anyhow, for what it is worth, this system I laid out is *sort of* how the American Republic started out. We had like a “king caucus” type system early on, where presidential candidates were nominated by Congress, but it was eventually abolished. Still, something like this is feasible.
            5) I don’t think Japan, Taiwan, Hungary, Poland & South Korea are headed down the road we are on. In the first place, they are learning from our mistakes. In the second place, they don’t have the subversive elements in their societies that we do. Indeed, a lot of these nations basically began as democracies at the same time Germany did, at the same time Italy did, etc. for all intents & purposes. What’s going on in the Anglosphere & other parts of the West isn’t really about democracy, but something else altogether. Corrupt corporations co-opting government, subversive minorities, a complete collapse of racial pride (Cultural Marxism), subjugation via high-technology, control via MSM, etc. However, you are correct, time will tell. Perhaps these nations will begin to rot from within as well, due to democratic forms of governance. That said, I doubt it. At least for the foreseeable future that is.

          • Once again, I address your points as you lay them forth:

            1) Perhaps you are right; I am in no position to make claims as to the potential limits of our knowledge. But even so, one or the other of us might be swayed, and both of us might improve our understanding, thanks to our dispute. That seems quite sufficient to me.

            2) You have stated the common argument against aristocracy: “Who decides who is best?” But this is a democratic protest against aristocracy—meaning, it is an argument which presupposes a non-aristocratic system. It is a great problem in /our/ day, I readily admit: but only because democratic systems have so totally replaced the old aristocratic systems. The old aristocracies were not built on anyone’s “deciding” who should rule, for the simple reason that they were hereditary. These aristocracies cultivated standards of excellence in almost all cases; and those standards of excellence worked as a natural filter to the sons of aristocrats for the determination of who was most fit to rule. Were there epochs in which these standards failed? Were there cases in which nepotism made way for unworthy men to rule? Were there instances of even entire aristocratic orders growing old, decrepit, frivolous, corrupt? Absolutely. But to my eyes, on historical review, it clearly appears that the men who ruled in the old aristocracies were /on the whole superior/ to those who rule throughout our democratic West.

            Now, even if all of this were granted to me—which of course it will not be, and perhaps for good reasons—the question becomes, how do we attempt to reinstate orders of this kind? Here, your objection is absolutely valid: it seems impossible in our day even to decide who will decide who should rule. But this demostrates at best that we are living in a fallen epoch; it does not touch the matter of hereditary aristocracy at any deep point.

            (Your idea of legal peacable separation, incidentally, is very interesting, Mr. Spraguer; I am only leaving it aside so as to focus on the pith of our argument. Perhaps we will have occasion to discuss it more in the future…)

            3) Admittedly an interesting system, Mr. Spaguer; I agree that this would resolve a great many of our present difficulties. I like the fact that the consuls are selected from out of parliament; it reminds me of our erstwhile Senatorial system in the United States, which the seventeenth amendment so unhappily abolished. I much favor republics (mixed regimes), such as the one you present, to democracy, particularly insofar as they favor their aristocratic elements, as yours clearly does. I think you might agree that we too often elide over the differences between democracy and republic in our day, despite the fact that the Founders themselves took it to be a difference of vital importance. The question of whether republics do not tend as such to transform into democracies is another and subtler problem, and I won’t address it here, as it seems to me we have more than enough to discuss.

            4) We surely agree on this point: a system of government which never suffers from corruption, and never includes egotistical and dangerous men amongst its rulers, is not possible in this world. Then we can also agree that the pertinent question is, which system suffers /least/ from these problems? I also readily admit that a rotten aristocracy is worse, on the whole, than a rotten democracy, with this single caveat: that a rotten aristocracy can in many cases be rejuvenated from within, while a rotten democracy almost always collapses into the most detestable forms of tyranny. (Hence the particular terror of our present moment.) To put my argument for aristocracy briefly (I will have more to say about this in point 5): democracies rely on constitutional or legal mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power; but a smooth operator can always find a way of making those same mechanisms work to his advantage, particularly insofar as the government is filled with power-hungry or money-hungry individuals, as democratic government always tends to be. Aristocracies, meanwhile, rely on organic constraints power, which are much more powerful, being as they are internal rather than external to the human being. By organic constraints, I mean such things as the feelings of duty and responsibility which characterize aristocratic families; the strict mores which accompany the very existence of aristocracy; the natural contempt for wealth which aristocrats tend everywhere to display; the weight which the judgement of the aristocratic class as a whole can exert on an individual who has gone astray; etc.

            5a) (I break 5 into two points.) I sincerely doubt whether the governments of the Asiatic peoples can be compared to our own; those peoples themselves are too different from us. To note only a single essential point, Asiatic peoples tend on the whole to be less ambitious, and democracies are generally ruined by human ambition. As for Hungary and Poland, I can only repeat that whatever they might be learning from us now could well be forgotten in even a single generation. That is the nature of democracy; it has a short memory. But this is largely repeating what I have already said, and I think we agree that it is a question which only the coming decades can resolve.

            I must protest one point you make, as I believe it is important. You say that “a lot of these nations basically began as democracies at the same time Germany did.” You must be speaking of the Asiatic examples; Hungary and Poland are behind Germany and Italy by almost half a century, and, to say it again, the men who are presently ruling in those countries were born under totalitarian systems, and spent their formative years beneath those systems; they are not democratic in their souls. Widespread corruption seized the Italian government, for instance, in the nineties; I do not believe it was a coincidence that the individuals responsible for this were in general men who had spent their youths, and in many cases almost their entire lives, living beneath a democratic regime. I might state as a general principle that a country cannot be considered thoroughly democratic until the first generation of democracy-born or democracy-educated men comes to rule.

            5b) You say: “What’s going on in the Anglosphere & other parts of the West isn’t really about democracy, but something else altogether. Corrupt corporations co-opting government, subversive minorities, a complete collapse of racial pride (Cultural Marxism), subjugation via high-technology, control via MSM, etc.” I can only repeat that I do not see /how/ we can suppose any of these things unrelated to democracy. Democracy as a regime—not only as a government, but as a way of looking at the world and understanding human beings—has made /all/ of these things possible. Not one of these malign forces could ever have influenced any society which did not believe, democratically, in the absolute or even merely legal equality of human beings.

          • 2: Well, most rules/systems of decision like this involve human input & thus are sort of semi-democratic. But I wasn’t exactly meaning to appeal to democracy qua democracy. I was simply probing to better understand the nature of this “aristocracy” & the mechanisms for determining/selecting leaders. My point anyhow, is that there is no “hereditary aristocracy” in existence today. Such aristocracies historically developed over centuries & were typically a function of wealth, land ownership, etc. which formed the basis of political power. Indeed, don’t we sort of already have that in America in a limited sense? Not sure it’s working so well. But anyhow, if we are to have such a system, how does it develop? How do we get there from here? What is your proposal for how such an aristocracy shall be selected? I mean, some selection process is sort of necessary, even if the selection process is informal & based upon wealth acquisition or something. My point is, wealth acquisition *is* a selection process (wealth acquisition –> political power –> hereditary aristocracy over multiple generations). It’s not a simple democratic one, but it’s a selection process. So, what should this selection process be, & more importantly, how do we get to that system from where we are now?
            4: Feelings of duty, noblesse oblige, & like internal constraints are not at all specific to non-democratic forms of government. Shoot, plenty of Western nations have had tremendous democratic leaders: noble, virtuous, magnanimous, brilliant, etc. If Western leaders are currently lacking in virtue it is in part because our people are lacking in virtue & demand little of our leaders. The virtue of the people precedes the virtue of the leaders.
            5a: Yes, Eastern Europe was behind the Iron Curtain until the late 80s or so. But so was East Germany, remember. So, Germany as a complete, intact democratic state, is actually rather young as well. My main point, however, was that many Western democracies are not really so old as democracies, & many of the nations I had mentioned (Taiwan, S Korea, Japan) are just as old (as Italy, Germany, older than Spain). Again, the problem doesn’t seem to be democracy itself but other cultural phenomena, eating away at Western civilization.
            “Asiatic peoples are less ambitious”. Really? I doubt that. Ambition is a strongly selected for human characteristic. I’m going to need a citation for that claim. Furthermore, the effect/nature of ambition is context-specific. Democratic leaders who are ambitious can only sell their own people out when the people are rewarding them for doing so. Thus the Cultural Marxist mind virus precedes the bad governance.
            As to exchange 5b:
            I’m still not convinced many of these developments are A) a necessary consequence of democratic governance or B) in any sense intimately related to democratic governance.
            Of course, it should be noted that the US & much of the West are hardly democratic anyhow, and on a further note, I do not think the lack of democracy in much of the West is a function or the result of democracy in prior eras either.

          • 2. I would dispute that the heredity aristocracies of old were built principally on wealth. They were generally, in their origin of origins, formed by the rise of a warrior class; they were then developed and refined over many centuries, until this priceless heritage was squandered by the Enlightnement. The present system, which one might call “aristocracy” only in the same loose way that one might refer to England as a “monarchy,” has indeed been built on a selection process through wealth acquisition, which very well may be the worst “meritocracy” imaginable. But this travesty has been made possible only because we have freed the economy from political control—a development which occurred historically in parallel with the emergence of democracy, in accord with a theoretical and spiritual kinship between the two orders.

            As to how we should proceed—I see no way around the establishment of a new hierarchy in government, based on radically different values than those which presently govern our societies. The inter-war period of the last century gives example of the kinds of evolution I would hope for, though of course any form to emerge today can only be analogous to older forms, and cannot base itself on historical circumstances which do not pertain to it. It is possible that hierarchy today can only be accomplished in the wake of a breakdown of the present system. Beyond the fact that we are reliant on fortune in the development of such a regime, to attempt such a thing is also very hazardous, and the resulting “aristocracy” is almost certain to be deeply imperfect at first. More, the collapse of the present system might well result in tyranny. Despite these perils, I simply do not believe that there is any alternative, given how far we have fallen.

            4. You are right to indicate that the constraints I have identified (feelings of duty, noblesse oblige, etc.) are not the monopoly of non-specific forms of government. I am speaking in generalities, as I believe one must in discussions of the nature of various regimes. Here is the difference I see: these constraints are accidental to democracy, but characteristic of aristocracy, just as human excellence in our leaders is occasional in democracy, but common in aristocracy. As for the question of the virtue of our people, I could not agree more that it has badly declined, and that this has made possible a parallel decline in our rulers. But once more I must defer to the ancients here: democracies do not crave virtue, but gold. The decay of our virtue is connected intimately with the nature of our regime.

            5a. My statement regarding Asiatic peoples was ambiguous, and you are right to call me out on it. Asiatic peoples are very ambitious in the sense of wishing to fulfil their given roles with excellence, or to excel in accordance with existing standards. Western people are ambitious in a different and potentially more dangerous (also potentially more illustrious) sense: they are ambitious in desiring to overcome or break through barriers. I cannot furnish you any citation for my claims on these differences, if you mean some kind of scientific study, because I am frankly skeptical of the ability of science to get to the root of human things. I prefer natural perception to scientific research here.

            5b. Let me attempt to indicate the connection between the problems you have noted and the democratic order. I will restrain myself to only two of these, so as to flesh the matter out more completely:

            a.) Subversive minorities: By throwing political matters back onto the vote, democracy is an invitation to every human being to concieve of political matters in accordance with his own best interest, and to vote accordingly. (Ideally, each human being could be educated to consider the good of the whole over and above his limited well-being, but it seems to me impossible to believe that this can really be accomplished.) But each human being is a fragment, and his single vote is meaningless; he is drawn then as naturally as the iron filing to the magnet to seek out that larger group which can second his interest. If he is not so fortunate as to pertain to the majority in his interests, he will inevitably join a minority. This minority as minority is weak with respect to the majority; it must then seek its good in whatever ways it can (financial influence, lobbying, propaganda, abuse of academic positions, etc. etc.)—and because it is weak, it will sooner or later be naturally tempted to resort to subversion. The Founders understood this as the problem of factions; they believed this problem to be essential to democratic orders. They hoped to avoid it through republican institutions. Whatever might be said of that (I am skeptical of its effectiveness), a republic represents the establishment of /non-democratic checks/ on democracy. I know you agree with this necessity, but it is important to state that a regime like this represents, to the extent it is republican, a non-democratic order.

            b. Subjugation via high-technology: Democracies depend on the vote, not of exceptional men, who are few, but of average men, who are many. Average men do not enjoy superior intelligence; they generally do not reach any high level of education; they are commonly workers and thus lack the time to inform themselves deeply or in detail on current events. In short, they lack the means and the capacity to comprehend what is really happening in the world, particularly in larger countries which tend to be of extraordinary complication in our day. But at the same time, they cannot vote without having an idea of how to vote. They will inevitably get their “information” in a simplified and digestible form from mainstream sources. These sources can easily be co-opted by secret powers to manipulate precisely the average consumer into voting for this or that interest, politician, etc. Democracy is as such a game of manipulating numbers until a majority has been attained; the problem of technological control of the masses thus grows out of nothing if not the democratic soil.

            I will agree that the US and the West are not democratic today, in the sense that they do not represent any ideal form of democracy. But since, to say it again, that ideal form has only ever existed briefly or in extremely rare and specific contexts, I do not see the value in comparing reality to the “ideal” here, as if the ideal could somehow be implemented, given only adequate political will. In truth, we are living in this very day under the /reality/ of democratic forms.

          • 1) Yeah, different aristocracies developed in different ways. Some certainly had their origins in elite warrior classes. But you still haven’t clearly articulated what this aristocracy would look like, what process of selection would be instituted for electing/forming/instituting this aristocracy & how we would get there from here.
            2) I love argument B regarding technology & the pursuit of control over information in democracies, & while I don’t think those bad trends & incentives are specific to democracies, there is no question that democracy makes the problem more acute, because democracies at least ostensibly require input and consent from the populace. That said, this is also why a good Constitution in a democracy must take free speech & free information very, very seriously, so as to try to limit the corrupting & limiting influence of power & wealth on information.
            3) I don’t think we’re living under the /reality/ of democratic norms or forms at all. I think we’re living under a largely totalitarian Cultural Marxist overclass. The “democracy” element is at best tertiary, because what is called “democracy” in America & much of the West doesn’t really impose or produce a meaningful constraint on the way we are ruled, because we don’t have a democracy that is really functioning in America. We get a false choice, election after election. Oligarchs pick our two choices (who are indistinguishable on the integral issues) & we are led to believe we are choosing, when we’re really not. Which is sort of why policy never changes, year after year, decade after decade.
            4) I’m still not at all convinced on the noblesse oblige issue. Whatever shortfall democracies suffer from regarding civic virtue (internal constraints), they more than make up for via external constraints on government conduct (which aristocracies notoriously lack). The major problems Western nations face today are not a function of too much democracy, but a severe shortage of it, especially over the last 4-5 decades. What we currently have is a non-elite, amoral, parasitic bankster aristocracy of out-ethnics, combined with almost no meaningful democratic constraints or controls on leadership. In other words, we have bad aristocrats (who basically hate us), and no means to remove them. I think if we had more democracy (which is to say a functioning democracy), our governments would be far, far more accountable to the people & better run.
            5) Yeah, diversity is a disaster for a democracy. It’s also a disaster for meritocracy, for social stability, for social trust, etc. Democracies work best in religiously, racially & culturally homogeneous societies. Part of the reason I have called for the peaceful dissolution of the American Republic. Today we are excessively racially & ideologically diverse. We are in a sense a bipolar nation, with no identity and no major axis. This is part of why people are so damned dissatisfied with the state of the union & their own lives. We don’t even live in a country. We live in two countries under one government, & the countries are in a constant cold civil war. It’s miserable. Ordinary folks are constantly caught in the crossfire, walking on eggshells, etc.

          • Btw, I screwed up one part. The declaration of war alone, not conducting it, just declaring it, could be vetoed by any one consul.

        • If you Write, Excellently……..

          But, have No Idea of how to Use Tools to Fix your House, Car, or Machinery……..

          And when you Walk out your Front Door………

          Alpha Males chuckle under their breath at your Soylent Physique……….

          There is NO Excellency in that……….

          None at all……

          You are an Excellent Writer……….

          I’m not so sure about the Other Part……….

          • 1) I’m 225 of solid muscle. I lift 5 days a week. Heavy.
            2) I’m quite good with tools. I’m actually very handy. I have a pretty strong intuitive & functional intellect, plus great spatial relations.
            3) You are correct though that I am less adept when it comes to certain complex machines like cars. Mostly due to lack of work/experience with them.

          • You are the Ideal AltRight Male…….

            Highly Intelligent, Physically Robust, and Socially Intelligent…….

            A Gift to the AltRight…….

            Which is why you have Plenty of Followers…….

          • I am not sure if this was addressed to me or Mr. Spraguer. For my part, I rather agree with you, Nova Morium. Indeed, I live in a house I built with my own hands from ground to roof; nor is it the first. I cultivate and care for a hectaire of olive trees, and I do so without the use of electrical tools. My strength—which I would not know how to measure by any other utilitarian standard—is sufficient to these labors.

            As for what Alpha Males may or may not think of me when I step out of my front door—which I carpentered board for board—that is their concern, not mine.

          • Thank you for Sharing that…….

            You’ve gained a LOT of Respect here for that Simple Post…….

          • It was but my response to your eminently just question, Nova Morium. Not every one among us can have the physique of a Hercules, just as not every one among us can have the wit of an Odysseus: but we all of us can, and should, strive to improve ourselves in both of these domains. Our ideal should be as the ancient ideal: Mens sana in corpore sano, a healthy mind in a healthy body.

            You are a hundred times right to press us in that direction, Nova Morium, and I salute you for it.

  • I don’t know what happened to’s Russia correspondent “Vincent Law.” His articles haven’t appeared since the redesign. “Emmanuel Spraguer” strikes a similar tone and style in his writing though. (I thought Spencer said he was going to do away with pseudonyms.) Anyhow, this is an excellent text that strikes at the heart of our miserable, nightmarish situation. Ethnostates are possible in three regions: Appalachia (West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee), Prairie Belt (Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma), and Mountain West (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah). We should already begin settling these states.

    • I miss Vince. He was great on the podcasts, too. It was interesting to hear the perspective of someone who actually lived in Russia. The only thing that made me dislike him was when he wrote that article about whites should all get on government handouts….but I’ve forgiven him. Come back, Vince.

      • It’s to avoid being labeled as Russian collaborators. You know due to the Alternative Right endorsing Trump and the media always talking about muh collusion.

        The system wants to replace you. Using the social security system you built so what’s wrong about using it ? If you down take a handout then Ali and Tyron will take it and get 10 kids each. Starve the system by not paying taxes and by taking welfare.
        Better poor and free in a homogenous society than rich and alienated in a multicultural hell.

        • That’s a good point about the Russia collusion thing, I had not considered that. But I think you’re wrong about welfare. If our people have no money then we have no real political power. And what kind of a disaster of a white woman is going to marry some schmo who lives in a section 8 hellhole and is living off the gub’mint? I dont want to even think about want to visualize what kind of woman would settle for that lowly existence.

          • Your people have no political representation already. You taxes pay for bubakar’s kids.
            Why care about women ?
            Living off the grid and being a free self sustaining man is honorable I would prefer a woman who can see that over a prostitute who wants money in the big multicultural city.

      • Check out Roy Batty DS…..

        I’m just wondering where you grew up…….

        Urban or Suburban……..

        Because you’re a Fag 100%……..

  • Expelling the non-whites will be almost impossible under current conditions. First, an exclusive white territory must be created and inhabited in an isolated place. This territory must be out of the influence of non-white globalists and lobbies. By building a 100% White nation this would serve as a spearhead to save the white race and stop the Kalergi Plan (genocide of the white race)..

  • Isn’t “democracy” the whole problem? It is like letting the kindergarteners run the class instead of the teacher. In the natural world group structures are hierarchical. Wolves live in packs with leaders. Democracy is probably not the ideal form of government.

    • The Founding Fathers set up American democracy without the faintest notion that the current nightmare of the present-day U.S. was in the cards. If they were alive today, they would be the biggest enemies of democracy.

      • They already were enemies of democracy. Whenever did they speak of it, save in warning and censure? They wanted a republic, which is a mixed form of government.

        Naturally, the question as to whether a republic does not necessary degenerate sooner or later into a democracy is another.

      • Honestly, they would definitely be in favor of dissolving the government.
        Don’t think they would be enemies of democracy, however.
        Indeed, what we have now could hardly be described as “democracy”.
        The Federal Government needs to be stripped of all power.
        I think we should start there.

  • As most of us know, the goys of are going through a bit of a rough patch right now (Conte now being charged with a felony as a result of his MSU peacekeeping, Bristow’s exit, what happened at MSU and the falling through of the other Michigan planned events, etc.). The good news is that they’ve got a payment processor – at least at this moment they do. If you’ve been waiting for a good time to donate, now is definitely a good time.

    • Bad Idea…..

      Identity Europa ditched Maker Support……

      Claimed they were taking in Funds from Donors but not Funneling them to Intended Targets……..

      As for Bristow……

      I donated a Big Sum to the Cuck who in less than a Month became a Leftist who claimed to stand for Transgenders and Minorities while denying the Alt-Right…..

      In the Future, I’ll be ignoring Desperate White Suburban Pleadings for Funds…….

      They can go get a Job like the rest of us…….

      It’s not my Job to financially support Grown Men……..

      In my mind, a Significant Portion of all the Infighting comes from too many People trying to Leech Funds …….

      If People were only doing this for their Love of their Fellow White People…….

      The Infighting would be a Small Fraction of what it is now……….

    • Heads up, AltRight…….

      This Dude is SHADY………..

      Attacked me on Another Thread claiming I didn’t donate money to…..

      Now, has twice posted Advertisements for donating to Maker Support………

      Beyond SHADY……..

      • I don’t need money, I’ve got plenty. I’d be willing to throw a few bucks your way, though, so you can put it towards buying yourself a life. HAHAHAHAHA!!

        I’m now done with you forever, you’re a complete dork and nothing but a drain on all that is good. Good luck to you, dumbshit.

        • You sound like a Girl…….


          Pure Suburban Faggotry on the Nth Level………


          And if you have so much Money……….

          Then Donate it……

          Stop Talking about it and Donate it……….

          What are you Waiting for, Fag??

    • I’d greatly appreciate some input here from one of the admins. From what I understand, MakerSupport is now the OFFICIAL (and only) payment processor of this website. You can verify that yourself by going to the top of the page and clicking on ‘Altright Plus.’ I’ve not heard any allegations of misappropriations of funds, but if you have evidence then post it because I’m sure the admins would like to be made aware of it.

      And I attacked you because you spam these comment sections and you constantly brag about how much $ you’ve donated (we all know you’re a liar). In reality you are nothing but a cheap, annoying crack-smoking crackpot.

      If you click the link I provided you’ll see that NPI is now surviving on a whopping $470/month. Spencer/Conte/Evan almost NEVER ask for money because they’re not doing this for money. Yet Greg, in his interview on Cantwell’s podcast a few days after MSU, said that he has “effectively ZERO income.” These men devote their lives to this movement, then dirtbags like you have the nerve to tell them to ‘get a job.’ You represent the absolute lowest that this movement has to offer.

      I refuse to engage on any level from now on. My time is extremely valuable and you are nothing but a blackhole (and an antagonistic weirdo). I hope you can get sober from your various drug and alcohol habits, and good luck with your lobotomy and your sex-change operation, Gaylord.


        • A very good point, thank you for chiming in. I just checked Richard’s twitter (@RichardBSpencer), and he has his personal MakerSupport link in his Twitter description/summary as well.

          • Ha!!

            The AltRight is celebrating today……

            They will never go Poor no More………

            A Rich Gay Benefactor has come to Save the Day……..

            We’ll see how long you last, Fag……

            Good Luck……

      • Then go Donate to Maker Support, Fag……..

        You’re a Nothing that will never do Anything……..

        And you Know it…….

        I think I remember you from about close to a year ago…….

        Attacking the threads claiming that you’re Superior to everyone……..

        With a different username……

        And what has changed??

        Your Gonads still haven’t descended, Sheila…….


  • I’m an Atheist….

    But, I support wholeheartedly Traditional Christian Morality………

    In my mind, there is no Contradiction in this…….

    If you commit Adultery you are ‘Sinning’ not against a ‘God’ but against your People and Community………

    To Normal White Conservative Christians who vote Republican……..

    This in Incomputable……..

    In their Mind, supporting the Zionist State of Israel while lambasting the AltRight is Righteous……..

    This is Incomputable in my mind………..

    How one Bridges these Massive Gaps is lost on me……….

    I’m sure ZviZvi relishes this though………

  • I agree.
    there is no political solution.
    We need our ethnostate and we need it as soon as possible.
    There are 200 million White Americans. If only half of us voted for Trump and only half of them are White Nationalists at heart, that still leaves us 50 million good Whites with whom to start our ethnostate.
    We just need some territory. I think that territory might be easy to acquire.
    Our enemies have such hatred for us that they might gladly give us some land if we would just go away.
    We need to start clamoring for separation and partition now.

  • I’ve been thinking about this lately & the fact of our situation is that there is no option for our future besides armed conflict.
    There can be no peaceful separation. I ask anyone who actually believes this possible to really think hard on it.
    The only option for us is to have the men with the most guns on our side. And be ready for any way the future turns in an organized paramilitary political party fashion. Anyone who believes we don’t need some of the masses on our side is foolish.
    Currently those men are for the most part constitutional conservatives. They have the guns and they are currently the most willing and the most ready to do something. They are also in th best position as of now to succeed if shtf(still far from it but much closer than us)
    The other truth is that they will never become Nat Soc or fascist
    What to do?
    AH or Mussolini would not ignore them. They’d figure out a way to have them fight for us.

    Imo both the online far right (Nat Socs, WNs) & the civnat anglinesque cucks fail on this most important piece.

    For the record I personally think Nat Soc is greatest governmental system ever created but any one who believes that the word Socialism or a swastika will gain us victory is naive. Can we rebrand NS, change the name and make it American? Idk

    • Armed revolution, or attacking the system head on, right now, is a suicide mission. The best thing we can do right now is drop out of the system, refuse to participate, build autonomous Fascist communities of resistance. The system is in decline right now and anything we can do to accelerate that decline and weaken it, without ending up dead or in jail, is a good thing. MAke yourself and your people as autonomous as possible. Build real, organic communities.

      As far as getting the normies on board, or rebranding NS, to appeal to them, it’s a waste of time and energy and does more harm than good. Normies aren’t ideological. If they have their food, clothes, shelter and entertainments, they are not going to rebel. After the collapse, they will follow who ever is able to provide these things, and that should be us.

      • I never said now. I mean 1 or two decades from now armed conflict will be inevitable. Surely you see this, Johnny.
        As far as normies are concerned. I’m specifically speaking about those patriots that fervently believe in overthrowing tyranny yet they still believe that NS is evil. That said, they would still be sympathetic to a pro white pro America message & We need them. I’m not sure how anyone can say we don’t tbh. It’s a losing view Imo.

        • 50 people with one unified vision on the same page about optics, tactics, worldview etc. is more powerful than 500 people whose views and goals are all over the map. This is the fundamental error of the Alt-Right. The big tent model. It simply doesn’t work and leads to more infighting than anything else.

          • Johnny, 50 ppl cannot accomplish anything in a country of 350 mil with the strongest military ever recorded.
            The fundamental issue is that we are stuck on the Internet & we are not embodying what AH or Mussolini taught us. They never believed in that 50 men stuff. They sought ought to build movements of millions of ppl.

          • It’s just a random number to make a point. We already have more than 50…

          • Idk I don’t see it. Anyone who thinks we don’t need at 2 million well trained well armed men is naive.
            Anyone who thinks we can succeed without the few million armed constitutional guys not on our team is also naive.

          • I basically agree with what you’re saying, but…
            It’s all about balance. Optics do matter, but one should be very careful to subordinate one’s message to them entirely.
            That said, goose-stepping is idiocy & serves no purpose. Neither do Swastikas. Nazism is not the future. Avoiding certain appearances is just smart. Doesn’t mean we can’t talk sensibly about the Nazi subject & not give a f*ck, but advocating Nazism or dressing up in Nazi regalia is just counter-productive.
            Still, there is no way to make the press cover us favorably, no matter what we do, which is why remaining edgy is fine.
            Finally, there are a lot of people in the Alt-Right who think revolutionary talk is beyond the pale, that it will alienate normies, & that’s just not true.
            The truth is, ordinary America people are simmering & highly volatile. Talking revolution is en vogue & actually quite appealing to normies. Because honestly, everyone on the right knows our government really is that corrupt & unresponsive. Shoot, a lot of people on the left know it too.
            We are not where we were 20-30 years ago. Ordinary Americans are primed to explode. They will not be offended by this kind of talk. We are at that point as a society.
            I remember, a Democratic pollster described some of the findings of a national poll done about 10-15 years ago (concerning trust in the US Federal Government) as “pre-Revolutionary”. A *DEMOCRATIC* pollster. LOL!

          • Yes, this is my point. Ordinary white guys are ready to go. These are the guys with guns. We need them to accomplish anything in the future.
            But we cannot get them on our team going full fash. Idk how some don’t see that. I am myself full Nat Soc but I’m also a realist who values success by any means

          • I’m no National Socialist myself, honestly.
            I think many National Socialist views are quite childish & underdeveloped.
            That said, I am something of a syncretist, I’m just a freedom-respecting syncretist & cynical about power structures.

          • Guns and Ammo are when the American Government tries to become California or Great Britain and when they try to lock us up for Hate Speech (simply defending ourselves as White People)……..

            Until then, we have LOTS of Room………

            Whites are still the Majority……..

            Whites hold the Most Guns/Ammo………

            They just don’t understand what’s coming YET……

          • Practical applications change, but the worldview remains the same. Anybody who wants to play dress up is not to be taken seriously, personally I don’t think we need a uniform at all. We have to operate in the here and now and not nostalgia for the past. We should also develop/revive our own symbols for sure, but also honour our heroes who fought this fight before us.

            I agree with the second part 100%.

          • Ok, we’re are too far off in our ideas. Imo if we did gain our own state AH would be upheld and all young kids would be taught to honor him.

            My main point is that we need us fully conscious guys to run the show & we should be willing to use white lies to get those pro America normies ready for revolution to fight for us, even if they don’t yet full you understand our ideology.

          • Absolutely agree with you, Mr. Spraguer – Nazism is not the future, and never was. I’m especially certain of this after reading “Beyond This Horizon – A White Nationalist Blueprint For Tomorrow”. It explains why GLR’s American Nazi Party, the NSM, the NWF, and the TWP have failed to capture wide followings, in places all over America where the KKK had amazing success. But we must inspire our people too, and I can name no better WN novel than “Eternity Beach”, one I’m sure you will greatly enjoy. From inspiration action flows. A good axiom to remember.

      • One must also ask, what would AH do if he came back tommorow.
        Ignore all non Nat socs and fascists he certainly would not. He would devise a new strategy to bridge the gap as much as possible without sacrificing the end goal. This is what leaders who value success do.

          • But, what do his actions show. He never revealed his full power level to the masses until after he gained total power. He did not tell ppl he was ending voting. He didn’t tell everyone about kikes right away.
            He played a practical and realistic game for success.
            One built upon fixing Germany for Germans.

          • I don’t disagree but sometimes the strong man HAS TO BE TACTICAL!
            If AH did his thing on pure 100% truth full heart on his sleeve he would have never succeeded.
            I don’t know how you don’t see this.
            AH did not alienate when he could bring together. He created a strong fully counscious group of leaders that were commited to NS in mind, body, & spirits & then said and did what needed to be done towards the masses for sucess.

          • We shouldn’t go out of our way to alienate, but we also shouldn’t pander to. Like I said earlier, most people aren’t ideological. They’ll come to our side regardless of optics/rhetoric when we can provide basic necesseties that the system is failing to provide. The system is still strong, and we’re still weak and that is our number 1 obstacle right now.

          • Yes, but we have to pander to some extant. We have to. I see no way we cannot & still win.
            We need our own movement with us running the show.
            It needs to be pro white, pro america( not the constitution not the republic, just the land & our shared history)
            We can take the entire NS system & change the name and no body would know. Normies have no clue what NS is.

            In short, we need to quit larping and we need to take NS and make it our own with our own twist, symbols, etc

          • I don’t disagree. Build strong, cohesive, self-sufficient, localized communities. Build up from there. Look at what European groups like Golden Dawn, Nordic Resistance, Casapound etc do and emulate it. Rome wasn’t built in a day. I’m against compromising and sugar coating though as it hurts rather than helps. America has a revolutionary history, so you aren’t starting from nothing, like us Canadians are lol.

          • This is my entire point. I’m honestly surprised it gets misinterpreted as sugar coating. We need to effect positive real world change in white Americans lives. Bashing America and wearing past symbols is a losing strategy.
            That doesn’t equate with pandering though, I’m not advocating civnat lol. But if you are openly anti American nationalism it doesn’t matter how much power you may or may not gain, good luck.

          • Sorry, I just saw this now…

            I’m unapologetically anti-American. America was founded on liberalism and capitalism by Freemasons. National Socialism is opposed to all three of these things. America as it exists is not compatible with National Socialism/Fascism in any way. I support white seperatism, not MAGA or MAWA.

            The American mythos has to be deconstructed, white people need to understand that it was never “their” country and the beast has to be slain. The continued existence of the white race requires it. 14/88 > empty patriotardism.

          • You know, I agree with all of that but it is just not realistic in my mind. I think we need to rebrand America, literally. We need to make it compatible with the 88 precepts.

          • lol alright. We basically agree. But we have to smash the state to save the nation. Patriots aren’t going to help with this, so they should be discarded. Patriots =/= Nationalists.

          • Yes on smashing the state, democracy, constitution, but I do think we can use patriots as useful idiots. This is what they are and it’s what the kikes use them as, so we take the kikes very tactic and use it against them. This is the one thing they don’t ecxpect us to do. It’s a hard road, but every other path plays into the kikes hands Imo.
            & remember that these patriotards are also the guys with guys who fantasize about revolution 2.0. So they have use.

          • I think they will die to defend the state. Without the state, an American is essentially nothing. Nationalists fight for their people. Patriots fight for the state. When the state turns against the people Nationalists fight Patriots. This is why I think Black Nationalists are more natural allies than White Conservatives.

          • I have to say that you lack an understanding of the minds of the average American here on the ground. They know that the entire state is corrupt. Every aspect. Once trump leaves office and democrats take the rein which will happen in the next 6 years. Conservative Americans will have not even a single man to hold them in line & provide false hope. They will fully see that nothing can save this state tht they already know to be rotten. This is where we use them. It is a golden opportunity & to miss this is suicide of the white race.

          • The key is to rebrand AM away from the constitution and towards the 88 precepts

          • Thanks. Read it all & it aligns completely with the way I think tbh.
            Maybe you are right & no Augustus is coming that can pull this thing together with force and we are just better off pushing it to its deserved death.
            I fucking hate everything America was founded upon except that frontier spirit anyway, but I think you already know this.

      • Also, and I apologize for blowing up your thread. But I’m honestly curious & would hope you’d adress all my points.

        What would be the end goal if we simply drop and and create our own communities. Eventual ethnostate? Gov will invade that & you’ll lose unless you have all those men with guns.
        Eventual coup? You need all those patriots with guns for that
        Revolution? See above.
        There are just not enough nat socs or fascists alone to win, dude. This is the reality on the ground

        • Funny, because the media itself recently claimed that a full 10% of the American public was basically Alt-Right. The media!
          How many millions of us are out there, ready to sacrifice, ready to act? Hard to say.
          I mean, an absurdly disproportionate percentage of that 10% are young, angry, armed white men.
          It’s true that we’re not organized, but it’s not true that we’re not there.

          • Maybe we have enough guys who are full fledged far right. I’m skeptical, but even if we did there is an equal amount of constitutional pro white guys with more guns and more training who may see us as a threat equal to the gov.
            This is my concern

      • This is a tad late, but to adress that last part:

        This Is where the disconnect is. You say after the collapse, but what collapse do you mean and when will this collapse take place?
        Imo there will be no collapse. If whites don’t act within the next 2 1/2 decades we will be fucked forever. The system shows nothing that indicates it cannot run indefinitely. By the time whites are completely outnumbered in the states(2040) autonomously s working automons will be every where inside of majority of the economy and said economic system will be oermantly propped up with no end in sight.
        This is the one thing that Seigge gets incorrect. No collapse is coming. We have to be the ones who force the change by any emans nessecary & you need numbers for this.
        This is the dirty truth most can’t handle

        • Apologies for the typos. Should still be legibl but I did sperg out tab.
          It is still the truth though. Anyone who believes that a magical collapse is going to happen that will open the gates for a white fascist regime to swoop in and take power from ZOG is living in fantasyland.

        • My experience in talking to friends and relatives is that the post-World War Two brainwashing is so deep that the situation is near hopeless without an economic collapse. American whites are so terrorized from engaging in race conscious activity that it’s embedded in their unconscious. i think they would suffer physiological symptoms if forced to confront racial realities. The Christians are among the worst — they somehow think it’s Christian for the race that brought the New Testament to the world to go extinct. It’s such a bleak situation compared to Eastern Europe and Russia, where attitudes are extremely healthy. Nothing is better to begin to undo the brainwashing than spending a month in Eastern Europe/Russia, where white male dominance is not only not questioned, but seen as vital to society.

          • Idk where your relatives and friends live, but blue collar, country, and some middle class whites are fully redpilled on the corruption of the gov. Most aren’t aware of the kikes & the entire situation but they still hate the government. Once trump leaves it’ll reach its peak. A lot of average working class whites are racist by birth & hate the idea of foreigners invading us.
            Tbh I am dumbfounded at the level of disconnect on this thread as to the Mind of the average working class white. It is profoundly mistaken. Not just you personally but most it seems.
            The only thing missing is leader(s) and millions of whites mostly conservatives would join a movement to take back power from the gov

            Idk if the AR is filled with urbanites or suburbians but the mind of the average patriot seems to escape those here

      • This is 100% accurate and correct. All we can do now is to prepare for the GREAT COLLAPSE. And when it happens, we have to be ready to take over wherever we may be.

        • What for what God?
          That’s what it sounds like. No different than evangelicals waiting for the resurrection.
          What collapse are you speaking of & why are we to wait when a collapse will probably never arrive. Seems that we face a slow death type situation.
          To me this is such a foolish thought

    • They will end up on our side, we don’t need to change our ideology for them. We just have to have some minimal level of intelligence and avoid doing incredibly stupid things.


      They say a coward will allow himself to be bullied and backed up as long as there is room left for him to back up. All of White America has been behaving like a damned coward in the face of arrogant Blacks and traitors in government dismantling the once-great United States of America. Before it is too late, let’s see to it that the big coward at last gets backed into a corner so that he is going to have to come out fighting!
      It’s a crying shame and disgrace that every incident that’s happened so far with only one or two exceptions, which even comes close to being revolutionary, has either happened as an accident or as the result of Red agitation.

      [The object is to] to FAN THE FLAMES! If we can’t get the Whites off their *sses to retake control of their destiny then we can at least put them in a position where they will have to fight for their miserable lives!

      If, as Rockwell said, your uniform in the coming war is the color of your skin, then what, I ask, shall be your insignia of rank? We must view and realize that ALL OF WHITE AMERICA is our army. The leaders, the officers in this army, are those who take action…. We are the cause, they are the effect.

      • My only point is will promoting Nationalism Socialism & upholding hitler gain those we need to win?
        Why can’t we change the fucking name of it and tailor it to our country?
        I’m not saying anything about changing ideas.
        The kikes beat us through manipulation of words and ideas yet we’re are willing to do some what similar to best the kikes. This makes no sense to me

        • To me it seems that the obvious approach is to talk about race, Jews and (white) nationalism, without dressing up in costumes or needlessly going around creating distracting associations with past regimes. I would view the 88 words as a logical extension of the 14 words.

          It will come up when you start talking about Jews though.

          But ultimately, we don’t necessarily need the masses to love us, we just have to influence their thinking and the conditions they’re living in, to ensure that they end up fighting the right enemies.

          • This is the point I was attempting to make.
            White nationalism, 1488 is all good. This should be our message.
            We need to be in the communities though and we will need the support of the minority Americans stocked up with guns, a lot of them are full consituionlists & we need a better strategy then simply hoping the Overton window will naturally affect them.

          • We do have to be careful to think in terms of NS as a worldview, which is adaptable to our specific people and our specific circumstances

            Rather than a dogmatic recipe for recreating every aspect of the 1930s.

          • Exactly. This is what I’m trying to get at though I may have been a tad rushed in some of my comments so it wasn’t entirely clear.

            We need to rebrand NS & the 88 precepts towards our unique situation here in the states. Imo we need to create a political party, not in order to gain seats, but simply to organize & better effect whites within their communities. We need our own flag, symbols, words etc with the goal being to create an American Nationalist party where American equals white & our government & society we advocate is based upon NS & the 88 precepts of nature.
            If we can do this we can set up pseudo governments within local municipalities nationwide. This is a long process, 1 to 2 decades.
            But, I think this our path to success.

            Time to move off the interwebs though

          • Agree, but it should be “White American”, not “American = implicitly White”

            You can say anti-white nowadays, you don’t have to cloak it in implicit rhetoric. And doing so is risky when you use a term that has an unclear meaning.

          • That’s what Matt Heimbach was doing until he shot himself in the foot with his dick. Except we need to get away from the Neo-Fash optics. I think the Spencerites’ polo shirts and khakis are the right approach. We need to look as clean cut and benign as possible. We should look at Heimbach’s collapse as an opportunity — use the good things he did yet get rid of the stupid things.

          • Heimbach failed because of the name he chose for his party & because he was not pro America.
            The altright can wait 100 years until the average white has had enough, but nothing will change our situation until then until the bourgeoise members of this movement look towards opening it towards blue collar and country folk. This Holy than thou attitude when it comes to lower income whites is Jewish & will be the end of the white race.

          • Very true. Hitler didn’t strut around in the uniform of Frederick the Great. He wore contemporary clothing and had a modern uniform, a real man living in the real world of his day.

            We must move beyond the “rebellious teenager” phase and into the “serious man” phase.

          • Yes. I also think that we need to be pro America. Hitler didn’t rally against Germany. He rallied against the power structure & was pro german. The average conservative patriot may love muh constitution & muh republic but they fancy these as ideas mostly. They hate the government.
            We need a pro white & pro America message with a different idea of America. We need actual policy and actual ideas to give ppl on how to change America and fix it. How to change the corruption of the state in ways other than vote in new ppl. The average white knows deep inside that the solutions are greater than vote out dems and rhinos.
            The average patriot is not loyal to the state. They are loyal to the idea of American freedom. We just need to subtly change their conception of American& also make them loyal to their race & once more see America & whites as synonymous Those are my thoughts.

    • As an American……

      It would be Wise to Legally buy Guns and Ammo now……

      And then Legally……

      Buy More…….

    • Nothing is possible until the economy collapses. Normie whites are too addicted to their professional sports, their fast food, their porn, their video games, their tourism, their lawnmowers … Once the economy collapses, everything becomes possible — separation, segregation, conquest …

  • I can’t think of any system of government that would not require regular violent rebootings. Over generations people eventually let their guard down, forget important principles or get trapped in bloated bureaucracies. Although, whether or not it’s coincidental, history does show that autocracies seem to conserve homogeneity the best. Actually wouldn’t be surprised if monarchies made a come back this century. Why settle for small-time dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping when you can have a glorious emperor leading your people? If democracy is a lie let’s get the best autocrat we can get.

  • The problem with democracy is that it equates the political worth of unequal people. Why should the opinion of a minority be weighed the same as a majority’s? A woman’s to a man’s? An 18-year-old’s to a 60-year-old’s?

    The risk of a bad monarch is certainly real, but democracy with universal suffrage is not the solution. It is only another form of poor governance.

    • Democracy with a fully controlled (((media))) and (((cultural))) infrastructure is effectively soft-communism.

      • I agree 100%. We live in a system of pseudo-freedom. We have the freedom to buy property, yet that property is taken from us the minute we say something that contradicts the (((Narrative))). It is a diabolical system that convinces us we are free when we are far from free.

    • I agree 100%. Universal suffrage is insane and the Founding Fathers would have never supported it. At this point, universal suffrage is completely manipulated by ZOG.

  • We all know about the deliberate destruction of the founding stock of people and just how far along this plan now is; however, the destruction of the US economic system is even more advanced, and this could be the thing that sparks an awakening and a revolt. The US stock markets are teetering on the edge of a major collapse. I expect a major drop in values this year. It could happen tomorrow. We are on the verge of a collapse of the US dollar and a major fall in the artificially high standard of living here in the US. I know right-wingers have been saying this for several decades now, but believe me, the implosion is very near. The problem our masters face is that China is not playing their sick games. Call it a communist government if you like, but the Chinese government has NOT sold out the Chinese people, and clearly under its guidance it has greatly advanced that nation in every way over the past few decades… all while the US and Western Europe have rapidly decayed. Our masters simply will not be able to compete with China unless they abandon their present course. Believe me, things will be radically different in this country ten years from now. Economic upheaval will bring opportunity.

  • I’ve heard many say that the NRA has been so politically effective because they understand that ‘He who has the gold makes the rules.’ Maybe we need to learn to start playing the game……….as corrupt, rigged, and fickle as that game might be.

    On a closely related note, the gentleman of have finally got a payment processor. Donate while you can before it’s taken down.

  • A lost opportunity at Michigan speech.

    Why didn’t Spencer and Co make a quality video of the speech with good sound?

    Look how Identity Evropa did it:

    Spencer has spoke of importance of aesthetics but aesthetics are conveyed through mastery of medium.

    Now, there weren’t many people in the auditorium. Okay, this is what Spencer could have done:
    He could have had people video the melee outside: the antifa lunacy and police collusion with antifa.
    And he could have made a video of the lecture by juxtaposing the speech inside with the violent lunacy(allowed by police) on the outside.

    It would contrast the sane and rational delivery of Spencer with the rabid lunacy of the antifa enabled by the system.

    So, the loss could have been spun into victory. It’s all about having the savvy to manipulate and spin events.

    Consider how Michael Moore juxtaposed the jobless workers and rich corporate tycoons in ROGER AND ME:

    Btw, Dinesh D’Sousa reinvented himself as docu film-maker, the michael moore of the ‘ right’.

    Today, thanks to digital technology, it’s much cheaper and easier to become a docu filmmaker. And when Oliver Stone wasn’t making feature films, he made docs.

    Alt right can go into docu film mode.

    It could have made a great docu on Charlottesville and owned the narrative. But it didn’t.

    Watch how Sergei Eisenstein manipulated events of the October revolution. Look what Barbra Koppel did with Harlan County USA. Look how the Left spun the 1968 Democratic Convention to favor the anti-war protesters and radicals.

    Be a master of montage

    Alt Right can make docus and sell them as dvds.

  • this dark choking blackness
    saturated and overtook me
    permeating my being with its death

    but my eyes and mind refused to fall
    for I knew this death firsthand

    it was a traveling companion
    I learned to keep quite close

    and so as it does
    it rose and then fell

    and dawn emerged once again
    as I kept on walking on
    with this enemy-friend

  • It seems very clear that these are the right ideas to be thinking about, although nobody yet knows who, if anyone, can make them a reality.

  • A lot of talk about how we need to just get back to the founders implicit ethnostate reality.

    They also failed to make the Constitution strong enough to thwart ethnic and spiritual subversion, did they.

    Kind of a gaping hole.

    But yes, we don’t have a monarchy – just like you said oligarch’s.

    Another gaping hole in their founding document.

    Anglin et al over at DS are going all deus vult convert to Christianity or die, + Americana = really NatSoc meme…I wish the founders were. They weren’t.

    Plus that, American flag, is fairly ingrained brand – good luck changing it. Yes, I get it – embrace what the left is already saying about the flag. But, that won’t encourage anyone.

    Christianity , as E Michael Jones can readily explain to anyone who will listen, has been since two generations ago totally subverted to modernity. Lost.

    You’ll need something else. Yes, you’ll definitely need something else. The European mythos and spirituality will be there glue that binds

    • A white ethnostate in North America can incorporate the American flag or other American symbols within its own flags & emblems. I’m not convinced it needs to, but there are ways to do so & it’s not a terrible idea on the whole.
      Yes, christianity can not save us. It will not be the glue that binds the ethnostate. Naturally, the ethnostate will likely be overwhelmingly christian, but whatever form of christianity takes root or exists there, will be a very different form of christianity.

      • It’s kind of like we in the AltRight have to just wait until the White Majority realize what’s actually happening…..

        Our Enemies are WISE…..

        Which is why it’s been coming in Micro-Increments………

        While making sure from the Fed Reserve that the Economy continues to pump out Cheap Products and Easy Pleasure/Comfort……..

        And then it’s OVER……..

        And there’s NO Turning Back………

        America is not Europe or the UK……….

        But, the Major Black Pill is that the Majority of White Evangelical Christians are Brainwashed by Scofield Dispensationalism……..

        They can’t See the Light because ‘All Atheists are Leftists trying to Destroy Christian America’…….

        Little do they know……..

        All we can do is Keep Trying…….

Leave a Reply