Counter-Currents
  • Private Events
  • T&C
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
  • Webzine
  • Books
  • Podcasts
  • Donate
  • Paywall
  • Crypto
  • Mailing List
  • About
  • Contact
  • RSS
    • Main feed
    • Comments feed
    • Podcast feed

LEVEL2

  • Webzine
  • Books
  • Podcasts
  • Donate
  • Paywall
  • Crypto
  • Mailing List
  • About
  • Contact
  • RSS
    • Main feed
    • Comments feed
    • Podcast feed
  • Private Events
  • T&C
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
Print November 17, 2010 14 comments

Six Rules for White Advocacy

Matt Parrott

1,335 words

German translation here

I’m working on a Simple White Advocacy Guide that will help activists in the movement with the basics of persuasion and discourse. Its primary inspiration was the Israel Project’s Global Language Dictionary, but it will include a set of Appendices that will serve to aggregate our community’s tribal knowledge on these topics. For example, those of us who’ve put a lot of time into persuasion and discourse know that West Virginia’s relative lack of crime is good to bring up if the persuadable suggests that Black criminality is caused by Black poverty. That will be included as an item in the “Challenge/Response” appendix.

Chapter 2 of the guide is Six Rules of Discourse. It’s an attempt to boil what people need to know about conversational discourse down to a handful of memorable rules. I’ve pasted the first draft below and would appreciate feedback. Am I missing anything? Are any of the rules tangential? Is there a better way to sum up the rule? If you are thinking of suggesting an additional rule, go for it, but keep in mind that the total number of rules needs to remain as low as possible.

Rule 1: Flip the Table

When cowboys are playing poker in the saloon and they realize that the deck has been stacked against them, they flip the table over. Be a cowboy. The words and phrases people learn to describe racial issues in America are stacked against us, loaded with false assumptions, blatant biases, and the Marxist worldview. If you don’t learn how to hijack the discourse, an intelligent debate opponent can easily redirect you into arguing in favor of the KKK, declaring that you’re “a racist,” and supporting “the continued oppression of minorities.”

When you forfeit the language battle, you’ve lost the debate before you say a word

Don’t take language and terms for granted. Ask the persuadable to define loaded terms. If he declares that he rejects “racism,” ask him to define racism. If he calls them minorities, point out that they outnumber us globally and will outnumber us at home in a couple decades. If he brings up academic terms like “White Privilege,” “institutional discrimination,” or “historical oppression”, then you’re not dealing with a persuadable. Don’t waste your time with him unless there’s an audience to influence.

Rule 2: Focus, Focus, Focus

Our people have a right to exist. We don’t need to fight forgotten wars, defend dead people, or associate ourselves with any historical movements. There’s nothing to gain here and everything to lose. Don’t dwell on the problems other races have, either. Even if Black criminality were cured tomorrow, our people would still have a right to exist as a separate people.

If the persuadable brings up slavery, ask how many centuries have to pass before we move on. If the persuadable brings up the Holocaust, flip the table by declaring that you’re against genocide: every people has a right to exist. If the persuadable brings up hatred or bigotry, ask the persuadable to explain why our desire for a separate peace is “hate.”

Don’t let yourself get sidetracked from the objective of persuading the persuadable to become aware of and supportive of White American interests. The typical person can only be expected to learn and consider a finite amount in one conversation, so it’s important to keep that conversation focused on the core concern: our people have a right to exist. This simple and positive assertion can serve as a seed, growing over time in the persuadable’s mind as he considers whether his people are being allowed to exist as a separate people by today’s political and social environment.

Rule 3: Hone your Tone

Nobody likes to be preached at, but many people enjoy having a conversational exchange of ideas. It’s hard to pretend like you’re not passionate when so much is at stake. It’s hard to pretend like you’re not angry when people are so naive about what’s going on. But when you come at a persuadable with passion or anger, he’s going to become defensive, combative, and unwilling to give your ideas a fair hearing.

Additionally, we’ve been slandered by our opponents as “haters,” so passion and anger — no matter how righteous — will usually be perceived as “hate.” The tone of your voice and your body language should encourage a frank and friendly conversation. Even if the persuadable says something that offends you, smile warmly and explain why the statement was offensive. Don’t cross your arms, furrow your brow, or bug your eyes out in exasperation.

There’s no such thing as objectivity, but most Americans don’t know that. Feign objectivity. Be very careful about statements of fact, particularly sweeping statements, so you establish credibility as an unbiased expert on the subject. Even if you don’t change their mind right away, you may be able to establish enough credibility that they may want your opinion on racial issues in the future.

Rule 4: Listen and Learn

Most people love to talk. Let them. Ask them open-ended questions then find things they said in their answers that can lead to further questions. If you ask the right questions (see Appendix II – Conversation Starters), you can lure a talkative persuadable into changing his own mind while you sit there and listen intently. This is called the Socratic Method, and it can be a very effective way to lure the persuadable into examining the minefield of ridiculous beliefs and assumptions that have been planted in his head.

Rule 5: Know your Audience

Ask the kinds of open-ended questions that help you figure out how knowledgeable a persuadable is and speak at that level. Don’t lay a bunch of heavy information about the Federal Reserve system on your apolitical aunt. It’s imperative that you figure out what your audience’s position is before you attempt to persuade them.

Don’t skip any steps. If you haven’t convinced them that our people exist and have a right to do so, then they won’t really care if another group of people is threatening our existence. If they don’t know that a certain group of people moving into the neighborhood will have a predictable and negative effect, then they won’t really care if those people are moving into the neighborhood.

Some people are deathly afraid of disagreement, and other people are itching for a debate, use an appropriate style for your audience. But know who your audience is. This isn’t always obvious. For example, your cousin is in for Christmas from his freshman year at college and is openly explaining to the extended family that all the jobs went to Asia because Asians are smarter and work harder. In this case, the audience isn’t your cousin. The audience is the extended family. Reply to him but in their language and at their concerns.

Rule 6: Patience and Persistence

People don’t change their worldview that often, and rarely do so right in front of the person who got the ball rolling. The work of advocating for our people isn’t very rewarding work, but it’s important work. The seeds we plant take time to grow and often require some sort of trigger event that causes the persuadable to reconsider his worldview.

Even a failed attempt to persuade may help the persuadable realize that we’re not frothing hatemongers. There may also be some unforeseen event happen in the future which awakens millions in a short period of time. If you’ve established credibility with friends and relatives as a fair and sensible advocate of White interests, they’ll turn to you for answers and guidance at that time.

Most lively discussions contain at least one assertion of fact which is either contested or not entirely accepted. Use that as an opportunity to follow up with the person after a couple days. Even if you were incorrect about the fact, follow up with the correct answer. It will help protect your credibility. If you’ve shown yourself to be sloppy with facts, you’ll be incapable of persuading anybody.

From Occidental Dissent, January 2, 2010

Related

  • If I Lost Hope

  • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 442
    Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson

  • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 441
    Interview with Richard Houck on Roe v. Wade

  • Abortion & White Nationalism, Again

  • The Northman

  • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 434
    The Writers’ Bloc with HapaPerspective on Militias

  • Let’s Break Up the USA

  • Free Speech vs. the Great Replacement

Tags

Matt Parrotpolitical organizingwhite activismwhite nationalism

Next

» Good Hair

14 comments

  1. cladrastis says:
    November 17, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    I’d add humor to that list. If someone announces in a public forum that race doesn’t exist, that immigration is good for the economy, or some other such nonsense, we shouldn’t be afraid to laugh at him. One of our problems is that we take our opponents way too seriously; the ideas they promote are anything but serious. With some chortling provocation, the speaker may even reveal himself for the hater that he is.

  2. Ethical Rhetoric says:
    November 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Flip the Table by using the incendiary rhetoric of the SPLC and ADL when talking about them and their ilk.

    Anyone who attacks Whites and our White Privilege as racist should be attacked with the same language that our haters attack us. Anyone who teaches multicultural tolerance, inclusiveness, Diversity, Interfaith, etc, is an anti White hatemonger racist and should be called that.

    Use progressive language. “We just can’t afford to let our children be taught that Diversity is Our Strength. It is a step backwards to the shameful days of the Brown v. Board and MLK’s crusade against White happiness when we allow vile, anti White hatred to spread on the Internet like a toxic and virulent cancer. Anti White hate speech creates a climate that encourages violence against Whites. We have much more work to do in bringing restorative justice to all the White Communities that have been destroyed by racial integration and non white immigration. Our work is unfinished.”

    We need to learn how to sound like and oppressed, marginalized, victimized minority, which we are, in contrast to the Jew agitators who sound like it, but aren’t. We have the moral authority to be whiners, not them. We need to be as shrewd at rhetoric as they are. We are not whiners, but we need to sound like it in order to get the payoff of compassion from White women who can’t resist helping the underdog. Deception is the credo of our enemies, and by measuring their victories over us, we should co opt their tactics.

    Just re-word anything put out by the masters of propaganda at the Center of American Progress, and make it fit our more sacred and urgent uses. Pat close attention to the buzz words they use in their headlines.

    Today, they are on “reform”.

    “We must reform the anti White hate speech policies that mandate Affirmative Action and bring about a more just and equitable application of the universally accepted value of equal protection under the law.”

    1. Lonely in the Cellar says:
      November 18, 2010 at 2:06 pm

      We need to learn how to argue like the experts. Look at the rhetoric they are now using against Glenn Beck. Just short of calling him anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. We need the same attack against Affirmative Action and the Diversity Privilege for the blacks, for whom we’ve done far too much already.

      http://www.faithfulamerica.org/action/

      Dear Supporter,

      Last week we told you about our three-pronged plan to combat fear in our public discourse. [combat racism in college admissions, government hiring, unearned Diversity Privilege Afro Affirmative Action] Thanks to you, we now have the funds we need to leap into action!

      We’re starting right at the source: FOX News. [SPLC, ADL, NAACP, Congressional Blak Caucus, La Raza, Brown v Board, Civil Rights Acts] The smears, distortions and hate speech on FOX News get worse and worse. And it’s hurting our country — a new poll found that FOX News viewers are more likely to believe smears about Muslims than those who get their news from other sources [1], and a would-be terrorist credits FOX News’s Glenn Beck as his inspiration to attempt a shooting spree. [2]

      It’s time to call for real change.

      Tell advertisers: stop supporting FOX’s dangerous hate speech, smears and lies.
      Glenn Beck has a particular dislike for people of faith who are concerned about social justice and the common good. He’s attacked Faithful America directly, as well as many of our allies in justice work, including making anti-Semitic attacks on our friends at Jewish Funds for Justice. [3]

      FOX also has played a key role ramping up Islamophobia over the past year, particularly around the Park 51 project in New York. The resultant anti-Muslim fervor has led to unprovoked attacks on our Muslim neighbors and their places of worship across the country.
      It’s clear we need to send FOX News a message they can hear. And the best way to do it is by targeting what matters most: their advertising revenue.
      Sign our petition and tell advertisers to stop subsidizing fear-mongering on FOX News.
      We know this strategy works. A campaign last year to pressure companies to stop advertising on Beck’s program succeeded in getting over 35 major companies to withdraw their support.[4] But Beck is able to stay on the air, and even ramp up his hateful rhetoric, because the advertisers on other FOX shows subsidize his program. We need responsible companies to drop FOX entirely until they change their ways.
      We’re joining a broad movement of concerned groups like Media Matters, People for the American Way, and the Tides Foundation on this campaign. Together we can make an even stronger case to business leaders.
      Strengthen our movement: Add your signature today!
      We’ll keep you updated on our campaign’s progress. Thanks for helping us take real steps to end the fear and hate in our media.
      – Beth, Nick, Dan, Kristin, John and Jennifer
      The Faithful America Team

  3. LEW says:
    November 17, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    I need solid rebuttals for the various attacks premised on White collective guilt: White Privilege, Institutional Racism, Legacy of Slavery, your ancestors committed Indian genocide, etc.

    1. Ethical Rhetoric says:
      November 17, 2010 at 6:41 pm

      Just rebut the way Pat Buchanan does: Blacks in this country have the highest standard of living anywhere on Earth, all thanks to what we Whites have done for them. We demand gratitude.

      Until we get that through their doing their part to make America safer and stronger, we admit nothing. Whites don’t know how to negotiate on racial terms. We never make a counter offer, even when our survival depends upon pulling the enemy into a “dialogue” of our making.

    2. Jerry says:
      November 18, 2010 at 8:30 pm

      @LEW
      I’m particularly interested in the notion of white privilege as it is a central idea at the heart of anti-racist theory. In general, I think white advocates should be well-versed in anti-racist theory and it would be nice to see sites like this chipping away at it, exposing the hypocrisies and falsehoods.

      With white privilege, what I try to do is keep my eyes out in current events for examples that contradict the idea. For example, AmRen does a great job of documenting the ongoing scourge of racially motivated attacks on whites by blacks in Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Colorado, Richmond CA, Seattle, Baltimore, St Louis, Ohio, etc. When you compile these cases you get a clear picture of something that most white people already know instinctively but which can be confirmed factually – that there are many places in this country which are no-go areas for white people, places where it is literally unsafe to walk the streets because the color of your skin is white.

      Where is white privilege in this context? Even if blacks aren’t necessarily holding “institutional power” aren’t the facts of these cases, when taken together, enough to prove a kind of “systemic racism” that discriminates against whites? Of course this is not enough to take down the entire anti-racist construct of white privilege, but it’s a good stick to jab them with.

      There are plenty of less extreme cases of discrimination against white people too. I came across a recent study which showed that whites from rural, red state regions were discriminated against when applying to Ivy League colleges. The study showed that the better student the applicant was – for example, say the student was head of his school’s chapter of the FFA – then this actually worked against them. All such studies like this should be compiled together to build the case against white privilege.

      Another tact is to point out the advantages (like affirmative action, college scholarships, etc) that minorities get that whites don’t. The anti-racist will say that these advantages are needed to correct historical injustices. You can respond then by saying that fine, take your advantages, but don’t bitch about white privilege while you do it. They can’t level the playing field (or tilt it in their favor) while also simultaneously complaining about how unfair things are. Call them on it.

      I think it’s also worthwhile to point out that the notion of white privilege is a “designer term” contrived by anti-racist activists in academia with very specific intentions and goals. Remember, for the Politically Correct left language itself is a tool for indoctrination, re-education, manipulation and ultimately, control.

      When they say “white privilege” what they are really describing is a set of phenomena that occurs in most any context where there is a dominant majority and a discriminated against minority. And yet they didn’t call the term “majority privilege” did they? No, the term was designed for particular use against whites, and most insidiously, it was designed in such a way as to get white college kids to self-criticize and even hate themselves. White college kids aren’t taught that majority/minority dynamics are a problem across the globe in practically every place where they exist – no, they are taught that this dynamic is a particular problem with white people – a white pathology, in fact, is what they call it. It’s a toxic bit of sophistry they’ve built and it should be called out as such.

      I could go on but off the top of my head these are some points at which to attack the notion of “white privilege.” I would very much love to learn more. Personally, I think it’s important to have good counters for these anti-racist concepts rather than simply write off the anti-racist as unpersuadable. As has been pointed out, there’s an audience that’s watching.

      1. LEW says:
        November 19, 2010 at 7:47 am

        Good stuff. Thanks.

  4. White Republican says:
    November 18, 2010 at 12:17 am

    Matt Parrott,

    I’d like to know more about your Simple White Advocacy Guide. As this article was first published early this year, I hope that the Simple White Advocacy Guide will appear soon.

    You might like to study Jean Ousset’s book, Action (Norfolk, VA: IHS Press, 2002), which has many excellent ideas on activism. The following excerpts (pp. 222-225) are relevant to your rules for White advocacy:

    It is not enough just to proclaim the truth on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If we want results we have to take the situation as we find it, make the best of a bad job, draw all the advantages we possibly can from circumstances which in any other respect we may well consider deplorable.

    For instance, we cannot but deplore the muddled thinking, the incoherent illogicality so prevalent nowadays. It is obviously, in itself, a bad thing. But, such as it is, we can use it, at least to a certain extent. It is undeniable that our generation has lost its appetite for the truth–at least for the whole truth, a truth developed, ordered and presented systematically. We are uncomfortable in the presence of large-scale doctrinal syntheses. All that is left is our natural, inalienable taste for small gobbets of truth, learned from our own experience or from those who have formed our minds for us.

    It was La Fontaine who said ‘long books frighten me.’ Similarly, our contemporaries are terrified by the sight of the vast fresco of truth. If we cannot interest men in the wide synthesis of truth as a whole, in its systematic totality and unity, there is only one solution left. We must not water the truth down, make it less true, but we can break it down into assimilable fragments, without revealing in advance the final synthesis, the full title as it were of what we are trying to hand on; rather as Socrates, far from imposing his conclusion at the outset of the discussion, led his disciples by a series of apparently innocuous questions to ‘discover it for themselves.’ The men of today have a horror of being ‘indoctrinated,’ but provided we are aware of this, it is not too hard to get round the difficulty.

    Think of the number of Catholics who, quite sincerely, support divorce, communism or euthanasia. Likewise vast numbers of Lutherans and Calvinists know next to nothing of Luther and Calvin. Plenty of communists have never studied Lenin or Marx, and how many socialists could tell you what the word ‘socialism’ means? A pitiful state of affairs, no doubt, in one sense, but in another, a very fortunate one, for it proves that one can generally afford to ignore the ‘label’ and concentrate on the underlying reality.”

    . . . there are a host of fundamental truths that we can get over to people who, if were to judge purely by the ‘label’ they display, ought to reject them, but who in fact can be brought to accept them–the fact being that beneath even the most marked forms of ideological error there always lurks a grain of common sense and a readiness to accept the truth when it is properly presented.

    It is to this grain of common sense that we must appeal, this unavowed readiness to accept the truth that we must try to satisfy. Thus, by a patient, piecemeal re-establishment of single truths, one by one, we must work towards a restoration of total truth in all its fullness in men’s minds.

    Make no mistake: this tactic does not dispense us from deep and serious study and understanding of basic doctrine. In fact, it makes it all the more necessary. It is no use patly trotting out doctrinal propositions we have learned by heart. We need to assimilate them so well that they inform and impregnate our conversation without being so aggressively obvious that they arouse our opponent’s instinctive suspicion, their inbuilt resistance to what they consider as ‘brainwashing.’ We must so present our arguments for the truth that they have all the acceptability of clear and evident common sense and wisdom.

    To achieve this, our doctrinal training needs to be oriented not towards pure scholarship as such . . . but towards an ability to assimilate and use our knowledge effectively.

    If such an action is to have any chance of revitalizing each and every corner of the social organism, it must be omnipresent and thoroughly diversified.

    Our methods and our timing, therefore, have to be well-timed and flexible so that the doctrine or action we are proposing finds a form adapted to the special needs of each case and each milieu in society.

    We cannot expect to convince everybody or proclaim every truth that needs to be proclaimed everywhere and at the same time. In the present state of opinion, an enormous amount of good would be done if we only managed, in each milieu, to sow the seeds of one basic truth in such a way that it gained acceptance.

    You don’t have to share Ousset’s Catholic and counter-revolutionary views to appreciate the quality and utility of his book. I can strongly recommend it.

    1. Matt Parrott says:
      November 20, 2010 at 7:35 am

      That excerpt’s intriguing. I’ll follow up on this.

      I especially like this part…
      We must not water the truth down, make it less true, but we can break it down into assimilable fragments, without revealing in advance the final synthesis, the full title as it were of what we are trying to hand on; rather as Socrates, far from imposing his conclusion at the outset of the discussion, led his disciples by a series of apparently innocuous questions to ‘discover it for themselves.’

    2. Matt Parrott says:
      November 20, 2010 at 7:36 am

      Oh, and the SWAG is almost complete, and will be completed. I’ve buried myself in too many projects and some of the ones in the queue are starting to gather dust.

      1. White Republican says:
        November 21, 2010 at 3:33 am

        This is good to hear. The Simple White Advocacy Guide sounds promising. Can you provide a brief summary of its objectives and its contents? How exactly do you intend to publish it?

        I intend to adapt the ideas of Eric S. Raymond (The Cathedral and the Bazaar) and Everett M. Rogers (Diffusion of Innovations) to the development of nationalist discourse. I think it might be worthwhile to develop nationalist discourse in a manner analogous to open source software. I’ve previously remarked that “ground level Gramscianism” would involve “developing nationalist discourse to make it as presentable and persuasive as possible in relation to the audiences to which it is addressed. This work would involve carefully selecting and molding the ideas, arguments, examples, language, imagery, tone, and style of nationalist discourse for optimal effectiveness.” Molding nationalist discourse in this way is very much a collective effort. It requires, to use a phrase of Peter Kropotkin, “the severe effort of many converging wills.”

  5. LEW says:
    November 19, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Matt, 

    I think we need strong arguments and discourse focused on showing that organizing around White identity doesn’t suggest hate or ill will toward other races. 

    Most White people live their lives with day to day interactions with Jews and non-Whites that are not part of the problem. We all have Black, Jewish and other non-White colleagues, clients, customers, and acquaintances. My Chinese neighbors, for example, don’t bother anybody, and one of my Black neighbors recently ran off some punks (Black ones) in the neighborhood looking for trouble. 

    So in developing our discourse, we can’t lose sight of the extent to which many White folks’ lives are entangled with non-problematic non-Whites. This is another reason on top of everything else Whites resist our efforts at persuasion. When I talk about our ideas with people, usually the first bromide I get in response is “but I know so and so, and he’s a nice guy; Pedro is hard worker,” and so on. Of course everyone of these non-Whites and their kids benefit from quotas, affirmative action, set asides and other policies that discriminate against Whites. And none of them let their acquaintanceship with us stop them from voting their ethnic interests and seeking collective power that is used at our expense and leading to our dispossession. But we have to stay grounded in reality. Most Whites, especially the middle and upper class ones we most need to influence, don’t perceive their neighbors as a problem because they’re not gang members or pushing La Raza conquest rhetoric. 

    I’m a hardened WN and personal relationships even cloud my judgment sometimes. The fact is my Honduran contractor is a nice guy, hard worker and a productive member of the community. The guy has done work for free for me at times. So sometimes even I have to remind myself why an ethnostate is necessary. 

    Side Note:

    If anyone reading this is tempted to give me grief for employing a Honduran contractor, please don’t. There is a long story behind it. 

    1. Matt Parrott says:
      November 20, 2010 at 7:20 am

      What I always wonder about these hardcore “haters” is whether they’re one nice Black guy who finds and returns his wallet or one attractive Asian girl who flirts with him at the ice cream shop away from realizing that his worldview is a lie. Non-Whites are fully human, an obvious reality that seems to escape some people in the stuckment.

      It’s the enemy’s job to tie our cause to the anchors of impotent rage and dehumanizing vulgarity – not ours.

  6. Sunjay says:
    November 21, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    I don’t believe in your racist cause, but I will use your article to convince my fellow men that FEMINISM is a hate movement which tramples the civil rights of men everywhere. So for that, I thank you white hoods.

Comments are closed.

If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.

Note on comments privacy & moderation

Your email is never published nor shared.

Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.

  • Recent posts

    • If I Lost Hope

      Greg Johnson

    • Das Manifest des weißen Nationalismus:
      Teil 4, Wie Können Wir den Weissen Genozid Beenden?

      Greg Johnson

    • Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre

      Greg Johnson

      56

    • The Counter-Currents 2022 Fundraiser
      Between Now and May 20th, Give a New Monthly Gift and Receive a New Book!

      Cyan Quinn

    • This Weekend’s Livestreams
      Jim Goad on Counter-Currents Radio & Kathryn S. on The Writers’ Bloc

      Greg Johnson

    • Remembering Hinton Rowan Helper

      Spencer J. Quinn

      7

    • Make Art Great Again:
      The Good Optics of Salvador Dalí, Part 3

      James J. O'Meara

    • Babette’s Feast

      Nicholas R. Jeelvy

      1

    • Das Manifest des weißen Nationalismus:
      Teil 3, Weisser Völkermord

      Greg Johnson

    • Hey, Portland Synagogue Vandal — Whatcha Doin’?

      Jim Goad

      26

    • The Pro-Dysgenics Agenda

      Robert Hampton

      29

    • Make Art Great Again:
      The Good Optics of Salvador Dalí, Part 2

      James J. O'Meara

      4

    • Das Manifest des weißen Nationalismus:
      Teil 2, Weisses Aussterben

      Greg Johnson

    • Now Available!
      The Enemy of Europe

      Francis Parker Yockey

    • Now Available!
      Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema

      Trevor Lynch

      1

    • Now Available!
      Jonathan Bowden’s Reactionary Modernism

      Jonathan Bowden

    • Why the Central European Elites Love War

      Petr Hampl

      31

    • Make Art Great Again:
      The Good Optics of Salvador Dalí, Part 1

      James J. O'Meara

      1

    • Memelord Dalí
      Remembering Salvador Dalí
      (May 11, 1904–January 23, 1989)

      Nicholas R. Jeelvy

    • Morality Death Match:
      Lecter vs. Chigurh

      Mark Gullick

      2

    • Why I Write, Part II:
      Farewell to My Friend Robin

      Richard Houck

      16

    • Put Many Tools into the Toolbox

      Morris van de Camp

      4

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 442
      Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson

      Counter-Currents Radio

      2

    • Das Manifest des weißen Nationalismus:
      Teil 1, Einführung

      Greg Johnson

    • The Worst Week Yet:
      May 1-7, 2022

      Jim Goad

      39

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 441
      Interview with Richard Houck on Roe v. Wade

      Counter-Currents Radio

    • Some Thoughts on the Hume-Rousseau “Philosopher’s Quarrel”

      Stephen Paul Foster

      5

    • My Midlife Crisis

      Greg Johnson

      10

    • Interview mit Breizh-info

      Greg Johnson

    • Mother’s Day Special

      Cyan Quinn

      2

    • This Weekend’s Livestreams
      Tonight’s Episode of The Writers’ Bloc Cancelled

      Greg Johnson

    • The Counter-Currents 2022 Fundraiser
      Now You Can Make Monthly Donations with E-Checks!

      Greg Johnson

    • Critique as Empire-Killer

      Nicholas R. Jeelvy

      11

    • Simon Webb & Patriotic Alternative

      Spencer J. Quinn

      12

    • The Case for Societal Collapse as Saving Grace

      Aquilonius

      9

    • Is “More White Babies” the Answer?

      Greg Johnson

      8

    • Manifesto del Nazionalismo Bianco:
      Capitolo 15, Il Nazionalismo bianco è inevitabile

      Greg Johnson

    • Abortion & White Nationalism, Again

      Greg Johnson

      47

    • An Extra 20 Million George Floyds

      Jim Goad

      23

    • The (Real) Hollywood Secret Agents

      Morris van de Camp

      1

    • O co skutečně jde na Ukrajině

      Greg Johnson

    • Stay Free:
      The Scythian Conversation

      Mark Gullick

    • Is the End of Roe v. Wade a Victory for Us?

      Robert Hampton

      22

    • White Woman Tears

      Spencer J. Quinn

      6

    • Student Loan Forgiveness

      Beau Albrecht

      5

    • Fail-Safe & Today’s Nuclear Crisis

      Steven Clark

      4

    • The Northman

      Alex Graham

      23

    • True Romance:
      Why Everyone Thinks Sicilians are Black

      Anthony Bavaria

      56

    • Sex Ed

      Greg Johnson

      11

    • Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 440
      John Morgan & the Best Month Ever on The Writers’ Bloc

      Counter-Currents Radio

  • Recent comments

    • Scott Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre Table Talks should be taken with a shaker of salt. I don't agree that defending the interests of the...
    • Wrath Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre People in the movement don't realize how important memes and shitposting is for the cause. We...
    • DarkPlato Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre No, I just wanted to see some debate.  I like anglin, but mostly read him on Unz.  He’s got a...
    • Oliwier Saikowski Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre Mr. Scott, I appreciate your thorough answer. I do agree that a war in Europe was more or less...
    • Tim Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre He linked to the "Color of crime" of Amren unfortunately.
    • Scott Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre > Actually no, Germany didn’t have to invade Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, France, and...
    • Greg Johnson Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre Hitler's Table Talk is genuine, and it reveals that he intended to colonize Russia and Ukraine and...
    • Scott Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre >> The ‘Original NS’ also stood for genociding the Poles as an obstruction to Germany’s...
    • Tom Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 429
      The Jonathan Bowden Memorial Livestream
      He straddled the fine line between genius and madness. Although a brilliant orator who has helped...
    • Francis XB Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre Supposing this young man tried to organize a White Student Association on his local college campus (...
    • Danesovic' Christianity, Platonism, & Demographic Winter Whites need to be taught that it's their duty to procreate and raise children (especially those with...
    • Greg Johnson Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre Thanks, he was the last guy I used the boilerplate for.
    • Greg Johnson Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre https://files.catbox.moe/s3vgj2.pdf
    • Greg Johnson Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre The Manifesto seems pretty much like previous instances of the same genre, which it is patterned on...
    • Hrafn Why the Central European Elites Love War Yes, exceptionally cringy. If I never, ever hear about muh "cultural marxism" and muh DEUS VULT!!1!...
    • Oliwier Saikowski Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre Actually no, Germany didn't have to invade Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, France, and ultimately...
    • ncleapyear Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre Reading Anglin, I get some of the same vibes as from Rockwell's writing in the 1960s: undiluted...
    • E_Perez Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre The Germans saw the problems coming 90 years ago, proposing 'racial divorce' and nationalism as a '...
    • Chad Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre I don't know, man. His "manifesto" reads almost like something a fed or a New York Times journalist...
    • Vehmgericht Payton Gendron & the Buffalo Massacre The ‘Original NS’ also stood for genociding the Poles as an obstruction to Germany’s eastward...
  • Books

    • Kerry Bolton
    • Jonathan Bowden
    • Buttercup Dew
    • Collin Cleary
    • Jef Costello
    • F. Roger Devlin
    • Julius Evola
    • Gregory Hood
    • Juleigh Howard-Hobson
    • Greg Johnson
    • Jason Jorjani
    • Ward Kendall
    • Anthony M. Ludovici
    • Trevor Lynch
    • H. L. Mencken
    • J. A. Nicholl
    • Andy Nowicki
    • James J. O'Meara
    • Michael O'Meara
    • Christopher Pankhurst
    • Tito Perdue
    • Michael Polignano
    • Spencer J. Quinn
    • Savitri Devi
    • Fenek Solère
    • Irmin Vinson
    • Leo Yankevich
    • Francis Parker Yockey
  • Webzine Authors

    Contemporary authors

    • Howe Abbott-Hiss
    • Beau Albrecht
    • Aquilonius
    • Anthony Bavaria
    • Michael Bell
    • Alain de Benoist
    • Kerry Bolton
    • Jonathan Bowden
    • Buttercup Dew
    • Collin Cleary
    • Giles Corey
    • Jef Costello
    • Morris V. de Camp
    • F. Roger Devlin
    • Bain Dewitt
    • Jack Donovan
    • Ricardo Duchesne
    • Émile Durand
    • Guillaume Durocher
    • Mark Dyal
    • Guillaume Faye
    • Stephen Paul Foster
    • Fullmoon Ancestry
    • Jim Goad
    • Tom Goodrich
    • Alex Graham
    • Mark Gullick
    • Andrew Hamilton
    • Robert Hampton
    • Huntley Haverstock
    • Derek Hawthorne
    • Gregory Hood
    • Juleigh Howard-Hobson
    • Richard Houck
    • Alexander Jacob
    • Nicholas R. Jeelvy
    • Greg Johnson
    • Ruuben Kaalep
    • Tobias Langdon
    • Julian Langness
    • Travis LeBlanc
    • Patrick Le Brun
    • Trevor Lynch
    • Kevin MacDonald
    • G. A. Malvicini
    • John Michael McCloughlin
    • Margot Metroland
    • Millennial Woes
    • John Morgan
    • James J. O'Meara
    • Michael O'Meara
    • Christopher Pankhurst
    • Michael Polignano
    • J. J. Przybylski
    • Spencer J. Quinn
    • Quintilian
    • Edouard Rix
    • C. B. Robertson
    • C. F. Robinson
    • Hervé Ryssen
    • Kathryn S.
    • Alan Smithee
    • Fenek Solère
    • Ann Sterzinger
    • Thomas Steuben
    • Robert Steuckers
    • Tomislav Sunić
    • Donald Thoresen
    • Marian Van Court
    • Dominique Venner
    • Irmin Vinson
    • Michael Walker
    • Aylmer Wedgwood
    • Scott Weisswald
    • Leo Yankevich

    Classic Authors

    • Maurice Bardèche
    • Julius Evola
    • Ernst Jünger
    • D. H. Lawrence
    • Charles Lindbergh
    • Jack London
    • H. P. Lovecraft
    • Anthony M. Ludovici
    • Sir Oswald Mosley
    • National Vanguard
    • Friedrich Nietzsche
    • Revilo Oliver
    • William Pierce
    • Ezra Pound
    • Saint-Loup
    • Savitri Devi
    • Carl Schmitt
    • Miguel Serrano
    • Oswald Spengler
    • P. R. Stephensen
    • Jean Thiriart
    • John Tyndall
    • Francis Parker Yockey
  • Departments

    • Book Reviews
    • Movie Reviews
    • TV Reviews
    • Music Reviews
    • Art Criticism
    • Graphic Novels & Comics
    • Video Game Reviews
    • Fiction
    • Poems
    • Interviews
    • Videos
    • English Translations
    • Other Languages
      • Arabic
      • Bulgarian
      • Croatian
      • Czech
      • Danish
      • Dutch
      • Estonian
      • Finnish
      • French
      • German
      • Greek
      • Hungarian
      • Italian
      • Lithuanian
      • Norwegian
      • Polish
      • Portuguese
      • Romanian
      • Russian
      • Slovak
      • Spanish
      • Swedish
      • Ukrainian
    • Commemorations
    • Why We Write
  • Archives
  • Top 100 Commenters
Sponsored Links
Alaska Chaga Antelope Hill Publishing Imperium Press American Renaissance A Dissident’s Guide to Blacks and Africa The Patrick Ryan Show Jim Goad The Occidental Observer
Editor-in-Chief
Greg Johnson
Books for sale
  • Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema
  • The Enemy of Europe
  • Imperium
  • Reactionary Modernism
  • Manifesto del Nazionalismo Bianco
  • O Manifesto Nacionalista Branco
  • Vade Mecum
  • Whiteness: The Original Sin
  • Space Vixen Trek Episode 17: Tomorrow the Stars
  • The Year America Died
  • Passing the Buck
  • Mysticism After Modernism
  • Gold in the Furnace
  • Defiance
  • Forever & Ever
  • Wagner’s Ring & the Germanic Tradition
  • Resistance
  • Materials for All Future Historians
  • Love Song of the Australopiths
  • White Identity Politics
  • Here’s the Thing
  • Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy
  • Graduate School with Heidegger
  • It’s Okay to Be White
  • The World in Flames
  • The White Nationalist Manifesto
  • From Plato to Postmodernism
  • The Gizmo
  • Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch’s CENSORED Guide to the Movies
  • Toward a New Nationalism
  • The Smut Book
  • The Alternative Right
  • My Nationalist Pony
  • Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right
  • The Philatelist
  • Confessions of an Anti-Feminist
  • East and West
  • Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come
  • White Like You
  • Numinous Machines
  • Venus and Her Thugs
  • Cynosura
  • North American New Right, vol. 2
  • You Asked For It
  • More Artists of the Right
  • Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics
  • The Homo & the Negro
  • Rising
  • The Importance of James Bond
  • In Defense of Prejudice
  • Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)
  • The Hypocrisies of Heaven
  • Waking Up from the American Dream
  • Green Nazis in Space!
  • Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country
  • Heidegger in Chicago
  • The End of an Era
  • Sexual Utopia in Power
  • What is a Rune? & Other Essays
  • Son of Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
  • The Lightning & the Sun
  • The Eldritch Evola
  • Western Civilization Bites Back
  • New Right vs. Old Right
  • Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations
  • The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity
  • Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013
  • Pulp Fascism
  • The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition
  • Trevor Lynch’s A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies
  • And Time Rolls On
  • Artists of the Right
  • North American New Right, Vol. 1
  • Some Thoughts on Hitler
  • Tikkun Olam and Other Poems
  • Summoning the Gods
  • Taking Our Own Side
  • Reuben
  • The Node
  • The New Austerities
  • Morning Crafts
  • The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories
  • Rss
  • DLive
  • Telegram
  • Gab
  • Entropy
Copyright © 2022 Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd.

Paywall Access





Please enter your email address. You will receive mail with link to set new password.