- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Why I Write

[1]1,598 words

I write because I believe my primary group — Whites of European heritage — is at extreme risk, and — for better or for worse — the most I have now to offer is my virtual pen.

I am fortunate to follow a number of my betters who have written on the question of why we write. Now I can simply repeat that with which I agree. For instance, put me in the camp of Michael O’Meara, Kevin MacDonald, and most of The Occidental Family who, in O’Meara’s words, feel that “we, the country’s white majority, have been dispossessed, that we no longer belong to America, and that America no longer belongs to us.” I never thought I’d feel this way, but I do.

And this dispossession has happened right in front of the eyes of anyone now over forty. Think back to the TV reruns we all watched — I Dream of Jeannie, The Brady Bunch, or Green Acres: they were all about White people living White lives. Or think about the seven-member cast of Gilligan’s Island. They were diverse but would hardly qualify as multicultural under today’s standards. Back then we could identify with characters in nearly every show; now you have to search to find your own demographic set. It is almost as bad as bowling alone.

Dispossession is painful on many levels. It calls for a response. I know I must do something because we’re faced with a blunt proposition proffered by our enemies: “Die!” Or as Kevin MacDonald more tactfully describes it, conservatives (and by extension race realists) “should be aware that they exist at the sufferance of the ‘cultural establishment’ and that in order to exist at all they have to pledge obeisance to the fundamental tenets of leftist ideology. But to do that is to basically throw in the towel and acquiesce in the dispossession of our people. Obviously, we can’t do that.” Obviously. It would go completely against nature’s ironclad laws.

Thus I resist our dispossession and coming extinction. Perhaps this urge to resist is due to a certain aspect of my personality: I am combative and naturally take sides. (For instance, I would never consider fraternizing with boys from the town two miles away – they were our football rivals, nay, enemies.) When young, this personality trait meant schoolyard fights and sports. Now that I’m grown, I’ve put away such childish things and focus on REAL competition: Race War, the ultimate contest.

I might also add one other factor responsible for caring so much about white dispossession: my own extended clan has experienced a parallel process of dispossession from the land that has been ours since the Irish Potato Famine. At one point it comprised over five hundred acres — fields, multiple households, grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, a thriving business . . . even a religious order living on donated family land. Now the bulk of that is gone and we are scattered. It was better before.

Still, why do I care so much about “The Jewish Problem” and why choose to write about it? Well, consider what Prozium admitted about himself: “I had a rare personality type (one that I suspect many intelligent racialists share) that inclined me to care far more about truth than social status.” Ditto for me, alas. I’d rather face the facts about what role Jews play in our dispossession than pander to community standards on status.

And to think that I only came to realize the power of status over truth in my own middle age. In fact, it was only earlier this year that I realized that my own abiding interest in the Jewish Question had an unusual wellspring. In his bruisingly honest article “Prisoners of Fate?,” Andrew Hamilton inadvertently captured my case perfectly:

It appears therefore that “white consciousness” arises pretty much de novo each generation among a tiny minority of random individuals possibly selected for higher racial awareness. At some point in their lives they realize more or less spontaneously that something is amiss — specifically, they become conscious of, and instinctively adopt a hostile attitude toward, anti-white racism and policies designed to eliminate their race and the basic rights required to preserve it. Usually, a search for answers motivated from within leads to whatever racial literature or small groups exist. It seems very much a matter of inner-direction, of “seeking out.”

(This shock of recognition was followed by the revelations gained from reading Michael O’Meara at TOQ and Alex Kurtagic at TOO, that myth and style trump reason every time. So much for my own writing.)

Going back, in grad school I finally conceded that books had fallen more than a few notches in the pantheon of things respected in our (so called) culture. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death but especially Sven Birkert’s The Gutenberg Elegies convinced me of that. My training in the linear logic associated with reading and writing is now of less value than it would have been two or more generations ago, so maybe I’m now a bit of a relic in that respect.

Camille Paglia recently weighed in on this subject as well:

Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote ‘critical thinking,’ which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms (’racism, sexism, homophobia’) when confronted with any social issue.

Perhaps this message has been available everywhere, but I simply lacked the eyes to see it, just as I erred on the status vs. truth issue. Now that I accept it, I recognize the message everywhere. Just this morning, for instance, I read what Richard Hoste wrote here on TOQ: “We are a species that evolved to care about status, not truth.”

He was reviewing a book on evolution by an author who argued:

When individuals espouse ideological positions, we typically interpret their beliefs as signs of good or bad moral character. . . . Political correctness is one outcome of such attributions.For example, if a scientist says, “I have evidence that human intelligence is genetically heritable,” that is usually misinterpreted as proclaiming, “I am a disagreeable psychopath unworthy of love.” The arbiters of ideological correctness can create the impression that belief A must indicate personality trait X. If X is considered sexually and socially repulsive, then belief A becomes taboo. In this way our sexually selected instincts for moralistic self-advertisement become subverted into ideological dogmas.

This brings us back to the question, why do I still write even though I’ve long suffered the consequences of violating strongly entrenched taboos and, further, believe I now understand the near futility of writing the non-fiction columns and essays that I do?

In brief — and paraphrasing what I wrote in the introduction above — I share the sentiment that Christopher Donovan wrote about here on Sept. 22nd: “I write because I can’t stand what’s happening to whites.” Like him, in the grand scheme of things, I am a nobody, powerless and most unwelcome in niches for which I might qualify but are in fact overwhelmingly occupied by Jews (and the Asians and other minorities Jews support).

Still, I am a creature of habit, and, as a conservative, change but slowly. Having been brought up in a White world that consistently paid homage to plain speaking — “Don’t beat around the bush”; “Call a spade a spade”; “Say what’s on your mind” — I’m loath to conform to radically different rules today.

Also, the West has long prided itself on its fealty to reason — the Greeks, the Enlightenment, science, etc. From early on I came to respect those who practiced reason best, and most of those people put pen to paper. Despite the drop in status of the book in our society, I still revere those thinkers who think and write well, the Cuddihys, Paul Johnsons, Albert Lindemanns and Kevin MacDonalds of the English-speaking world. I aim to be like them, which is why I have followed the path of the scholar. That is my chosen training and I will stick with it.

So, I might say that despite the evidence I’ve cited about the waning of critical thinking, I nonetheless concur with what Kevin MacDonald notes in his own “Why We Write” speech. He believes that “the greatest danger to the cultural establishment is the existence of intelligent, well-written, well-documented, and fundamentally honest articles arguing for the importance of white identity and white interests.” Every time I write, this belief burns inside me.

Finally, one more reason I write is because I want to address the community of race realists and earn their respect. (Ah, Connelly, so you DO aim to play the status sweepstakes!) But honestly, I desire the camaraderie and respect of others in the movement to save Whites. This may strike some as trite, but when I listened to James Edwards’ The Political Cesspool from August 29th, I felt as though I were among family listening to him and Keith Alexander banter, or when Craig Bodeker and Merlin Miller appeared, and especially when our editor Greg Johnson spoke during the third hour. I value being a part of this group.

I know what resonates with me and what doesn’t, and the words of the extended Occidental Family certainly resonate. The hope that my own words resonate with others is why I continue to write.

TOQ Online, September 30, 2009