Counter-Currents
1,908 words
I once naively believed that everyone thought more or less as I did and shared my basic values. Today I wonder if anyone does.
A threshold reason why I write is simply that the Good Lord granted me facility with the written word. Not with video or motion picture production, or music, or broadcasting, or entertainment, or even the spoken word, but simply with writing. The process is never fun, or easy, and writing is certainly less meaningful and influential today than it was in the past, but that is the talent I have. Therefore, it is what I cultivate.[1]
My core concern is the survival into the future of some remnant of the white race which can hopefully reconstruct itself later as a meaningful demographic entity of some sort, but with a shared recognition that group survival must be one of its primary goals. I say “remnant” because that is the best that can be hoped for at present.
Due to the precipitous nature of its occurrence, few people are aware that the white race is deep into a population bottleneck of enormous proportions. Two outcomes are possible: extinction or recovery, with the former far more likely than the latter under present and foreseeable trends and conditions.
The Moral Imperative
An obvious question presents itself: who cares if the white race survives?
The fact that such a question is asked reduces to sophistry all contemporary yammering about “genocide,” “racism,” “hatred,” and related posturing. People are obviously not moral; they are moralistic.
In reality, the prevailing obsession is far more extreme even than that. Ruling elites and institutions of state and society adhere to a Jewish view that
The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. What the Mongol hordes threaten is far less frightening than the damage that Western “Faustian” man, with his idealism, his magnificent art, his sense of intellectual adventure, his world-devouring energies for conquest, has already done, and further threatens to do.[2]
Furthermore, the race accused of “a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God Himself”[3] must be eliminated. Its destruction is a “moral” imperative justifying an orgy of criminality and bloodshed. Anti-white racism strikes roots deep into mankind’s heart of darkness, releasing the most bestial instincts.
Prevailing discriminatory, totalitarian, and genocidal policies of state and society are the logical consequence of this ideology of hatred.
Increasingly, extremist anti-white racism and philo-Semitism of the most absurd sort — with Jews elevated to the status of demigods — constitute the glue holding dysfunctional states together. What else do their disparate and intensely antagonistic, exploitative populations and ideological components have in common?
We all have a moral imperative to oppose evil. Most people, however, lack an inner moral compass. Morality for them is a normative framework (any framework) imposed by authority. Conformity of beliefs and behavior to imposed “values” is what constitutes morality. At a somewhat higher level, instructions spit out by artificial, intellectually-constructed belief systems — typically ideologies, but formerly religions — serve the same function.
For some reason, I am not like that. Thus, the first reason why I write is rooted in morality.
Facts Are Facts
The second reason I write has been touched upon by previous authors.
I am empirically oriented. I am enthralled by facts, not fairy tales.
The “Holocaust” is not a shrine to which I bend my knee. It is a purely empirical matter — albeit of enormous importance to the survival of the white race.
Similarly, patent absurdities of the “race does not exist” variety elaborated at great length by dyed-in-the-wool academic racists are Orwellian mechanisms of social control, nothing more.
Reigning creeds of this sort are water off a duck’s back to me, despite their near universal acceptance. I do not waste two minutes worrying about whether my conclusions are “respectable” or not, because we live in an age when “respectability” is disrespectable.
Indeed, the need to systematically censor, bankrupt, malign as “domestic terrorists,” destroy the reputations or livelihoods, imprison, physically assault, torture, kill, or otherwise attack people for espousing contrary beliefs is itself persuasive evidence of dogmatic falsehood.
There is no question but that if you share my scientific bent, if you are a born socio-historical detective curious about how power really works, then you can quickly strike gold by studying race and the Jewish question without blinders. You will be astonished at how much you will discover. More tantalizing still, despite the handful of intellectual Daniel Boones and Davy Crocketts who have gone before, a vast wilderness remains yet largely unexplored by the mind of man.
It is yours to conquer, if you have the courage and fortitude to do so.
That said, writing candidly about race — and, far more importantly, Jewish hatred and power — in defense of the voiceless, embattled white race, is not the way to win friends and influence people. It is not something to undertake lightly, for fun or entertainment. It is dangerous to your health and general well-being and may reduce your life expectancy. Jews and the governments and other institutions that serve them are not white. They are thugs. Morality and the rule of law mean nothing to them. This is a hard lesson that most have yet to learn.
On the other hand, speech and action are most needed precisely where they have been outlawed. That is our moral imperative. To shirk our responsibility to fill the void is to shirk a fundamental duty. As Martin Luther is said to have remarked in a Christian context:
If I profess with loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point at which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ . . .
Finally, I write — as all of us must to some extent — because I have faith in freedom of thought and speech to potentially alter the course of human events — not just for ill, as at present — but for the better. To invoke the felicitous phrase of Richard Weaver: “Ideas have consequences.”
Our enemies share this faith, as their hate laws, break-ins, spying, defamations, ubiquitous “terms of service,” frame-ups, physical assaults, criminal prosecutions, civil suits, imposed impoverishments, bombings, assassinations, dungeons, and control of the mass media abundantly demonstrate.
“Why I Wrote . . .”
At some point it seems likely to me that my personal trajectory as a racialist will sputter out. I will throw in the towel. Many things in life are bigger than we are, and Jewish power, contemporary totalitarianism, and anti-white hatred are probably among them. It is possible that there is nothing effective I can do to thwart them. That is an uncomfortable truth, but, like other truths, it must be faced.
As a student of Communism — the closest historical analogy to contemporary events — I am acutely aware of what modern police states are capable of. They can and will destroy millions of human beings without scruple. The first eradication of a major race of mankind is well within their capacity.
Most of the historical parallels invoked by contemporary racialists are inapplicable. Jews are not white, and modern totalitarianism differs radically from former authoritarianisms. Consequently, former intra-white conflicts are not useful precedents for future behavior.
After much study and reflection, I have accepted two propositions as axiomatic:
First, that the white race will not survive if its leaders are unwilling to forthrightly confront, or are constitutionally (i.e., biologically, psychologically, or emotionally) incapable of confronting, the Jewish role in its demise.
Second, that Jews, governments, and reigning elites will not permit peaceful social change (speech or democratic activity) by whites.
For a complex variety of reasons, I believe that whites as a group will be unwilling to confront their primary nemesis. Therefore, they will perish.
Briefly, they will be foiled by what anthropologist Carleton Coon called “the dominance of groups” (specifically, human races).
William Pierce and Jewish evolutionist Ernst Mayr — independent of each other and of Coon — identified the same racial phenomenon, but analyzed it using the language of evolutionary “fitness.” (Coon’s “dominance” seems more appropriate.)
Some races are dominant relative to others. Thus, whites, after contact, quickly established dominance over blacks and Amerindians. Similarly, Jews readily exercise dominance over whites.
Finally, there are few outlets for pro-white speech, and in the future they will dwindle further. Due largely to the hostile social environment, our forums and publications have the lifespan of Drosophila. Moreover, personal squabbles, ideological differences, and any number of other petty and not-so-petty factors may cause the welcome mat to be abruptly withdrawn from a writer at any time.
If, in the future, I cannot say what needs to be said for any reason, I will consider my moral obligation to have been fulfilled. By merely speaking out I did more than 99.9% of whites were willing to do. Unfortunately, I am no superman of the Lincoln Rockwell, William Pierce, or David Duke type, able to physically print and disseminate, as well as write, all of my own material in the present hostile environment.
So I’ll have done my best, unimpressive though it was.
Finally, A Positive Note
Despite all of this, careless defeatism is as potentially deadly as the action of the enemy. When you give up, you lose. Where to draw the line between sensible opposition and awareness that fruitless resistance against an overpowering foe is counterproductive is impossible to say.
Therefore, out of a sense of duty to those blessedly unhampered by my innate pessimism (or realism), I close with a thought about heroism by Andrew Lytle:
There is no hero unless the odds are overwhelmingly against the thing he stands for . . . They are the powers of darkness; they show in the brutal weight of matter, the seemingly irresistible force of mass. Since fear and desire make all of us tremble, the first quest of the hero is triumph over himself; and afterwards he follows the quest, a selfless and devoted individual on the way of becoming an archetype.
That the hero has “committed himself without reservation of goods or person . . . is of the very essence of heroism” and is likewise “the secret of his triumph over great odds. Never thinking of himself, he is free to think of the enemy; and so he finds the weakness which will topple all the weight and mass.”[4]
Notes
[1] “[T]here is an irrepressible tendency in every man to develop himself according to the magnitude which Nature has made him of; to speak-out, to act-out, what Nature has laid in him. . . . The meaning of Life here on earth might be defined as consisting in this: to unfold your self, to work what thing you have a faculty for.” Thomas Carlyle, Hero Worship, Lecture III (1840).
[2] Susan Sontag, “What’s Happening in America” in Styles of Radical Will (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1969; rev. repr., New York: Picador, 2002), 203. Originally published as “What’s Happening in America” in Partisan Review, Symposium, 44 (Winter 1967): 57.
[3] Abraham H. Foxman in ADL On the Frontline (January 1994), 2. Foxman is the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.
[4] Quoted by James B. Graves in Conservative Digest, September 10, 1989, 45.
TOQ Online, September 24, 2009