Seems like most people find AmRen more likable, but is their approach really the best? Jared Taylor recently said in a new interview with Greg Johnson that he shouldn't be seen as radical because his ideas are in sync with American figures like Lincoln and Washington.

Yes I find this annoying as well. AmRen continues to invite people like Brimelow who runs a great website but whose strategy of normalization of WN ideas and anti-immigrant sentiment seems to fail time and time again. Also the strategy of openly courting Jews -- I remember the Derb once saying that the reason you had to have Jewish backing and make your ideology 'Jew friendly' was because political success was impossible without them -- seems never to bear any real fruit yet they persist.

However I have massive respect for AmRen and Taylor and this is a movement where people should be approaching the problem from different angles and different approaches without being called names. I am so sick of every time I see someone on the Dissident Right call someone a fed or a shill or a loser just because that other person doesn't perfectly align with their niche worldview and practical approach.

Who knows maybe AmRen will have success and drive the GOP rightwards like they've always envisioned. We have to play the long game and accept both strategies.

Edit: Oops you asked for definitions. I'd say Spencer is trying to make a coherent and metapolitical basis for white advocacy whereas AmRen does practical, IRL conferences in the hopes of influencing the GOP and conservatives -- among others -- that white advocacy is normal and justified. Both have their own place.