Back to my post, though. I’ve always been critical of the e-celebs in the alt-right such as (((Weev))), Andrew Anglin, Christopher Cantwell, Mike Enoch and Eric Striker, but I think Spencer has his head in the right place. TRS/DS will never discuss Enoch’s Jewish wife, Weev’s ancestry, or the debacle that was the “optics” debate. Striker seems very keen on ignoring my criticisms towards him and I was banned from the 504um after owning Enoch in a debate. What do you guys think about my assessment on Richard, though?
Spencer is ideologically and strategically miles above TRS or DS (with the exception of Striker). He has problems with being narcissistic and focusing a lot of attention on himself, similar to the problem that heimbach had. It ends up harming any organization. But he is still better than Anglin or weev or Enoch or any of the other e-celeb clowns, since he actually tries to build real life organizations whereas they actively work to prevent any real life organization.
Ian Evans
kys OP and take specer with your faggot ass
Noah Parker
I'll re-asses my position on him when he admits he was wrong about the Holohoax and so-called "jewish nationalism", and takes a hardliner stance against jewry.
ironically, i find spencer and striker to be quite close ideologically, despite wanting different means to achieve an end. They at least have some thought process behind what they say (right or wrong). Most others are subjective to their "brand" and shekel flow, and will flop depending on what their donors want. Add in the big gay cabal and it's a giant clusterfuck. Nobody gets on with anybody so you might as well focus your efforts on destabilising the enemy.
