The Politics of ResentmentGreg Johnson
White Nationalists believe that the existing multi-racial, multicultural system has set our race on the path to extinction.
White birthrates world-wide are below replacement, while our homelands are being flooded with fast-breeding non-whites who undermine white wages and take far more from our welfare states than they contribute to them, meaning that indigenous whites pay the bills.
Whites are disproportionately the victims of non-white criminals, from black and brown murderers, rapists, and petty thieves in the streets to Jewish mega-swindlers and warmongers in the citadels of power. Whites are disproportionately dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course we are disproportionately paying the bills for those wars as well.
While non-whites enjoy a baby boom at white expense, we are being sold miscegenation, homosexuality, abortion, perpetual adolescence, interracial adoption, selfish careerism, environmental altruism—anything, really, as long as cradles are not filled with white babies.
Our standards have been debased, our morals debauched, our culture liquidated in order to feign equality with primitives. Every healthy form of white ethnic consciousness is stigmatized, while white guilt and non-white assertiveness are promoted. We are told that we are not entitled to our nations, our wealth, our standards, our way of life. We have no pride, no backbone, no birthright, no sense of destiny or purpose, no conviction that we make the world a better place.
We behave like a conquered people. A conquered people exists at the sufferance of others. A conquered people cannot say no. When a non-white demands something, we must give in. If this keeps up, we will become minorities in our homelands within a few decades. We will cede the power to determine our destiny to people who hate us, people who will plunder and persecute our ever dwindling descendants until our race simply ceases to exist—and then they’ll keep blaming us for their failures long after we are gone.
Whites are being victimized simply because we are white. And while Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, who were tortured and murdered by blacks, obviously suffered more than heiress Casey Johnson or poetess Sylvia Plath, who were killed softly by a poisonous cultural atmosphere of anti-white hatred, all whites are targeted for destruction, simply because we are white.
White Nationalism, therefore, has the potential to become a mass movement, encompassing all whites, since we represent and fight for the genuine and legitimate racial interests of all our people. Furthermore, White Nationalism can appeal to the most powerful passions that drive mass political movements: resentment, victimhood, anger, hatred of a system designed not merely to swindle and degrade us, but ultimately to destroy us.
Moreover, White Nationalism will never amount to anything unless it aspires to be a mass movement, harnessing resentment, victimhood, and hatred to smash the existing system and set our people free.
But this kind of politics does not sit well with many White Nationalists.
A lot of White Nationalists are just warmed over bourgeois conservatives who tremble for their bank accounts when they hear populist rumblings or catch wind of the politics of resentment. I have known shady capitalists who have enriched themselves in ways no decent society should permit. But to a man they are convinced that any objection to their way of life is motivated solely by envy and resentment, much as Jews always attribute anti-Semitism to the defects of their enemies.
Other White Nationalists tend to be elitists with a fondness for Traditional hierarchical societies: monarchies, aristocracies, classical republics. We are contemptuous of the rise of mass man and mass society: democracy, socialism, communism.
But if we are going to found a classical aristocracy, we need to learn martial arts, invent a time machine, go back 1,000 years, conquer a country, and then mellow for 900 years. Then politics can be based on the nobler sentiments, not the crude tastes and resentment of the rabble.
To my mind, no system of government was more perfect than the English monarchy at the middle of the 19th century—except, of course, for the fact that a hundred years later England was Airstrip One, liquidating its empire to rain fire and death on Europe, to the profit of Jews, Bolsheviks, and Americans, none of them conspicuously noble and cultured.
Once you follow your ideal aristocracy to its end and rejoin us in the present, we can set about the task of saving our race in the real world. To do that, however, we need to face the fact that we are the rabble, the uppity, ungrateful peasants slated by our Judeo-plutocratic overlords for replacement by dumber, browner, more docile fellaheen.
We need to rouse our rabble by making our racial brothers and sisters aware of their victimization. We need to free them from the white guilt that makes them easy marks. One does not really feel victimized unless one believes that one’s plight is wrong. We need to stoke their resentment and outrage until they are fighting mad.
“Now, Greg,” you might be wondering, “how does this agenda of crude rabble-rousing fit in with your professed elitism and your focus on ‘metapolitics’ and your endless stream of articles mentioning Nietzsche, Spengler, Evola, and Heidegger?” That’s a fair question. My answer is that metapolitics is necessary but not sufficient to save us.
Metapolitics as I understand it embraces two things: (1) intellectual activity, namely constructing our worldview and deconstructing the enemy’s, and (2) community organizing, namely building a White Nationalist community, a counter-culture and counter-community that will be the seed of a new White Nationalist order to come. Those things are absolutely necessary, but alone they are not enough to save us. To save us, White Nationalism must ultimately become a political movement.
I do think it is too early for a political movement, and that we should spend our time and money on metapolitics. At best, political activism today should be regarded as a kind of metapolitical education, since we need to have a tradition of people with concrete political experience if we are to someday get involved with politics and play for keeps. (Looking at it that way will also prevent the kind of burn out fostered by false hopes of actually making political headway in the present climate. Managing expectations is always crucial.)
But when the time for politics comes, it will necessarily be a form of modern mass politics fueled by resentment—in our case righteous resentment. My metapolitical role, and the aim of this little essay, is to make sure that we are clear about that fact right now and adjust our attitudes and plans accordingly.
It needs saying, because two writers whom I regularly read—Richard Spencer and Brett Stevens—have recently been critical of attempts to stoke white resentment at our ongoing dispossession, and their attitudes are not idiosyncratic but widely shared.
In “Poor Little Oppressed White People,” Spencer discusses Colby Bohannan of the Former Majority Association for Equality and Lou Calabro of the European American Issues Forum, both of whom seek to promote white ethnic consciousness in a multicultural society, the first by sponsoring a scholarship for whites, the second by lobbying for California schools to recognize European Americans as an ethnic group.
Spencer likens both men to “entitlement-mongers like Al Sharpton — poor, little oppressed White people will apparently now plead for handouts from the welfare state.” Spencer recognizes the potential of these projects to awaken white resistance to racial dispossession, but apparently it does not seem sufficiently high-minded or revolutionary for his tastes.
Stevens also identifies mass resentment politics with low-minded “liberalism,” which he contrasts to high-minded, elitist conservatism. He also claims that thinking of oneself as a victim is unhealthy. In my view, however, it is being a victim that is unhealthy. Feeling victimized, by contrast, is not necessarily bad if it motivates one to get mad and get even. Besides, this is politics, not therapy. Frankly, I am willing to sacrifice some peace of mind if that is what it takes to win.
White Nationalism incorporates both populist and elitist elements. We are populists because we believe that a just society aims at the common good of our people—all of them. Yet the knowledge and ability to pursue the common good are the property of the few, not the many. So a genuinely populist society needs an elite to guide it. (By the same token, the masses need a say in politics to keep the elites from pursuing their factional good at the expense of the common good.) The only real choice is whether we are ruled by our own elite whose selfish tendencies are mitigated by kinship or an alien and hostile one with no such barriers to exploitation. Our model is a hierarchically differentiated, organically unified society, a body politic.
If we are to create this kind of society tomorrow, our movement needs to embody that same blend of populism and elitism today. We are not going to win without engaging in mass politics, and the masses are moved by resentment. There is nothing dirty about that, because our grievances are just. And even if it were dirty, a race that is fighting for its survival can no longer afford to be led by high-minded gentleman who take swords to gunfights because they would rather lose than violate their sense of honor and sportsmanship. Instead, we need leaders who are willing to make the same sacrifice as Frodo in The Lord of the Rings, who saved the Shire, but not for himself, for in the battle he lost something of his own soul.
Žluté vesty zviditelnily tu nejfrancouzštější část Francie
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 527 Machiavellianism & More
The Machiavellian Method
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 526 Cyan Quinn Reports from CPAC & More
Remembering Richard M. Weaver (March 3, 1910–April 1, 1963)
La Russie et l’Ukraine, à nouveau
Greg, I don’t believe telling the truth (which is that Jews are very powerful and have interests contrary to ours, that they are our political enemies) has anything to do with victimhood or resentment (here understood in the Nietzschean way?). All noble warriors through history have understood that one sometimes needs to defend one’s country and people by fighting physical enemies who hurt one’s people, that has nothing to to with “blaming others”. This nonsense of just sitting and contemplating one’s own defects is modern, petit-bourgeois bullshit, and not very noble (since it allows the to enemy hurt the people you are supposed to defend).
“And even if it were dirty, a race that is fighting for its survival can no longer afford to be led by high-minded gentleman who take swords to gunfights because they would rather lose than violate their sense of honor and sportsmanship.”
I am not talking about resentment in Nietzsche’s sense, but simply generic resentment of the injuries that have been done us. I think that whites are right to resent what is being done to us. Leadership is needed to stir up such resentment and channel it into action rather than just navel-gazing. Resentment needs to become action. If it is not released, it is internalized and becomes unhealthy.
Thank you for making that clear. The leftists/Jews have obviously turned the crowd’s resentment to their advantage, so maybe we should learn something from them.
Great essay, by the way.
“Resentment” in this sense (the one Greg has in mind) is nothing more than the healthy reaction of what Plato called “thymos.” When one (or one’s people) has been unjustly injured or insulted, then resentment is a proper reaction.
Nietzsche’s “ressentiment” was an unhealthy offshoot–treasuring up one’s (alleged) grievances in private, while never making a forthright and manly response. Nietzsche saw this form of resentment as being definitive of the Jewish project.
A clumsy or inattentive (or treacherous) analyst can of course confuse the two.
Great essay and your right regarding the “resentment” issue.
What the Jews and their collaborators have done to us is an outrage, and the correct response to an outrage, is to be outraged.
Yet another home run, Greg; great job. And that particular essay by Spencer was a rare strikeout where he really misses badly. There is nothing wrong with stoking the fires of anger and resentment if doing so will help to build a mass movement, and it seems hard to deny that it would.
More than a decade ago I used to talk about what I called “the ethics of resentment”. It was a sort of revaluation of all values concerning psychology. I cannot delve deeper into it. In a nutshell it can be understood in the model of Swiss psychologist Alice Miller: making contact with the injured inner child instead of mocking self-compassion.
Resentment is powerful indeed. Since Richard Spencer published that article at The Occidental Observer, let me say that in another recent TOO thread the issue of healthy hate was discussed. My view was that hate and resentment are as powerful to the mind as nuclear energy to the physical world. We only must be careful to use it in determined circumstances, otherwise the fire can burn us.
I happen to be reading the 50th anniversary edition of LOTR and as far as page 332 goes I haven’t seen any “ethics of resentment” in Frodo or in any other character. To find it we have to reread Jeremiah’s and—oh irony—uncle Adolf’s book. Of course: there are many Jewish texts that feed on resentment, but I cannot include them here (I take Jeremiah, on the other hand, as part of Western civilization even if I’m not a Christian).
Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag has some healthy resentment too, but in a sense it is a flawed book, or rather a preliminary treatise to his 200 Years Together since in the Gulag the JQ is still not obvious.
Solzhenitsyn’s work is metapolitical. To take the ethics of resentment to the masses we need orators, starting in the underground of YouTube. As to date David Duke is perhaps the only WN American who is exposing his face in public. We need more orators who, unlike Duke, have gotten real fire in their speech (again, like uncle Adolf).
RE LOTR: I did not say that there is a resentment ethics there, just that in the end Frodo was willing to give up more to win than the beautiful losers who have been leading the right to defeat after defeat in entirely good conscience, because in the end good conscience is all that matters to them.
To win this battle, it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters who cannot return to normal society to enjoy the fruits of victory. We need leaders who are willing to sacrifice their immortal souls to this cause. I don’t believe there is an immortal soul, but psychologically speaking what passes for it are immortal scruples or absolute principles OTHER THAN victory. All these need to be slain and sacrificed on the altar of victory.
This truly is one of the most important essays I’ve ever read, not just on this site but on any radical-traditionalist site. I agree with Richard Spencer on many things, but in this one particular, crucial matter, I really think he gets it wrong, while the position that is espoused in this article is correct.
The opening explication of our predicament, the dire situation in which we Europeans and European-Americans find ourselves, is all too painfully true, and the sooner that as many of our kin as possible realize this, the better.
Yes, that’s exactly right. I’ve never heard it put that way, but that explains the situation precisely. It doesn’t matter what percentage of us are still nominally in charge of corporations, or in government, because none of those individuals do a blessed thing on behalf of European-Americans; on the contrary, they aid and abet the eradication of the European race/culture for their own personal convenience or gain.
I confess that you have my number when you identify this group. I certainly have the fondness that you describe. However, I do acknowledge the weaknesses in that system and why it cannot come back; moreover, even if it did, why it could not withstand the modern world.
My own ideal state, from a historical perspective, is the Second German Reich, the Kaiserreich–either under Wilhelm I or Wilhelm II. But over time, I have come to recognize that in combating the modern world, the system of the national socialists was more viable, because it recongized the true face of the enemy and how to combat it, in all of its manifestations (especially cultural), and furthermore, it gave the people a vigorous and compelling new ideal to believe in.
I have to say that this is correct. I can’t imagine what else could work, from a practical standpoint. I read many wild fantasies on the genuine Right about things that “should” happen, like grand ideas that “We should replace the middle class with something else” (!), but absolutely no viable propositions on how to get from point A to point Z (i.e., the target goal), nor even to take the first step to point B along the way.
I think the efforts by Colby Bohannan and Lou Calabro are not just commendable, but almost the sole examples that I have yet encountered of anyone even trying to get from point A to point B — i.e., doing something tangible, something real, to ignite racial/ethnic consciousness among whites, and not just theorizing about what should be done.
The idea of a scholarship for whites is excellent, both as a symbolic move and as a practical effort (practical, because whites, and particularly white males, are steadily dropping as a percentage of college students).
The lobbying effort to get California schools to recognize European Americans as an ethnic group is even better, even more important. I hadn’t even heard about this endeavour until I learned of it in the TOO article. What a brilliant idea. How could any radical traditionalist be against this? This is one of the few actions I’ve ever heard of that might actually make whites realize that they have an identity, a racial identity; that they are not just deracinated drones; that they have an ethnic heritage; that European culture is theirs, their own, their inheritance, something that they have a stake in, that they should defend it against the efforts to eradicate it.
Who cares how such an effort relates to the “welfare state”? Such an effort is important in that it, and it alone, might spark the first sense of racial consciousness in whites — in European Americans.
Yes, a thousand times yes. I remember once having a discussion with a friend about feminism. We both hated it, of course, but he said that he disliked it for its “tribalism.” I thought about this, and said, “No, I’m not against feminism for its tribalism. I’m against it because it’s the enemy tribe!”
Given the predicament that we’re in, I certainly agree that we must do “what it takes to win.”
As Europena-Americans, as whites, we are being victimized, whether we like to acknowledge this or not. Simply pretending that we are not victims doesn’t make the victimization stop. Stopping the victimization makes it stop!
The lone quibble that I have with this article is in the “all of them” phrase (see the “we are being sold…homosexuality” point earlier in the essay). But that aside, I absolutely agree with the idea of incorporating both populist and elitist elements. This is precisely what, in my opinion, the national socialists were attempting to do: still preserving an order of rank among the Germans, but also uniting them all as Germans. A friend of mine is fond of the concept of “Prussian Socialism” (a la Spengler and many other writers of the period), which differs so substantially from Internationalist Socialism as to be practically its antithesis. I think it is as fine a model for us to follow as any.
But look, there I go doing it myself — daydreaming about point Z. For now, getting from point A to point B is what must be done, and this article, I think, indicates how this can be accomplished better than most.
Thank you for an excellent and much-needed essay. I hope that many will carefully consider its premise and arguments.
Jim Bowery aside, there seems to be a lot of aversion to the idea of concrete political programs. You can’t have a populist movement without a real world political program.
Secede to survive. The premise of undertaking such agenda under the mantel of a redundant and spent industrial nation-state is false. Deal with it. It’s over.
Very good essay. Thanks again Greg.
I don’t like to admit it, but I think Greg Johnson might be right. Besides, I know I implicitly fall back on victimhood arguments when arguing with inferior whites who I don’t think can really “get” it. This would seem to point towards my understanding this on some level, even if I do despise the masses (including whites). Also, I don’t think, if and when the time comes, that the implementation of victimhood politics will be exclusive and singular. I think, just like the in the Third Reich, it can be mixed with positive, empowering propaganda (Will-to-Power, etc.). Many can admit that although the National Socialist elite did engage in “victimhood” politics, they did it in a much more tasteful manner than our leftists contemporaries. National Socialism for the masses (which was not the same thing as for the elite) may have simplified the Jewish Problem among other things, but even in this it was only generalizing truths.
Even if the thought of leaders like Harold Covington make me cringe, at least I know what Greg J. is speaking about in this article could be implemented in a way that I could support it.
“Even if the thought of leaders like Harold Covington make me cringe”
Hitler was insufficiently ruthless when it came to selecting – and more importantly deselecting – the proper personnel for various tasks. National Socialist political soldiers (“alte kampfers”) and other German celebrities were frequently Peter Principled many levels beyond their real competence and then sustained in those positions for several years past their obvious expiration date.
In the case of Ernst Udet and the Luftwaffe’s Air Armaments Office this deficiency probably cost Germany the war.
If Harold wants to write pro-white themed novels and generally agitate on the internet, fine. Let him find his place doing so with those who enjoy his style of entertainment. Just don’t fool yourself into thinking the Covingtons of the Movement will ever be capable of more than they’ve been doing for decades.
…unless the coming Crash and Chaos finally turn Body-Snatched Pods into normal whites again, I would add.
I think that shunning some action or tactic just because it is associated with “liberalism” is silly. We have massive unemployment and guess what? A bigger dose of what passes for conservatism these days is not going to solve it.
We have what is basically a giant game of musical chairs going on in the realm of employment and unemployment, and the game is demonstrably rigged to favor anybody that is not a White male. The thought that anybody who is a victim deserve what he gets, which is a very common underlying assumption of “anti-statist” politics in the USA, is just wrong.
So yes, we really are victims, and anybody that denies it is a willfully blind son of a bitch.
That said, the victim pose is essentially feminine. What can you expect from that? Action? More likely a plea for mercy. We need manliness that will produce creative action. We need to remember the examples of our heroes.
I followed the link and checked out the blog. Good stuff.
I would like to blend Hadding’s comment, “So yes, we really are victims, and anybody that denies it is a willfully blind son of a bitch,” with Greg’s comment, “We behave like a conquered people.”
The former clarifies the latter. The only reason we behave “like” a conquered peoples is because we are a conquered peoples. The writing is on the wall in big, bold letters.
Odd character quirk about victims: they are always the last ones to find out.
The sad reality is that in a materialistic, debased environment such as those that exist in all Western nations, the majority of our people will not become motivated by anything apart from situations that empty their stomachs or their bank accounts. Somehow, most have not come to the logical conclusions that we have by observing the disastrous consequences of massive immigration, Liberalism etc. They remain asleep and are merely interested in economic matters or distracting themselves by pursuing various mundane pleasures.
They need to truly suffer. Only then will they become angry enough to actually harness their contempt and direct it toward our enemies. Here I am talking about real anger where people become willing to take risks, and identify enemies. The questions, of course, are how long this is going to take, whether or not we have enough man power left to make use of, and how many WN’s will be present to properly direct this energy.
Without legitimate leadership, an angry mob can be manipulated to do anything-including acting against its own interest.
Why does the rabble have to be white? Racial homogeneity is not a prerequisite for building a hierarchical society. In fact, it’s often an impediment. Sweden is probably the most egalitarian country on the planet. Ancient Egypt wasn’t racially “pure,” neither was Ancient India, Greece or Rome. From the Middle Ages on Europe has been ruled by Normans, Germans and Jews. Elites are almost always of a different race/ethnicity than the people they rule over.
…And all this talk about “racial” dispossession is nonsense. Whites (white elites) have never been more powerful than they are today.
What they do with their power is another matter.
I am a White Nationalist first, an elitist second.
Agreed. Completely. One has hierarchy/elitism to preserve the race and its culture, not the other way around. Hierarchy/elitism is just a tool for a greater goal, like any “ism,” including capitalism.
There was some capitalism in national-socialist Germany, but it was employed in the service of the greater goal — the preservation of the German people.
It’s great that you’re openly identifying as a White Nationalist.
For the last ten years I have never claimed to be anything else.
When the elites are of different ethnicity/race than the people they are:
– superimposed by a foreign power or
– a small ruling elite that conquered a people maintaining their power through extreme violence and immigration.
Examples for the first case:
– the Ottoman Turks imposed a Greek rule in the Romanian countries when no Romanian ruler was to be trusted – the beginning of XVIII century
– the USSR imposed a Jewish rule in Romania – 1948 to 1964 (when the romanization of the communist party begun
Examples for the second case:
– Norman occupation in England
– England occupation of Ireland
– Hungarian domination of Transylvanian Principality (the Principality was autonomous and separated until 1867)
This kind of foreign elite is always much hated and finally destroyed or assimilated by the “rabble”; in fact by oppressed who can no longer endure.
The national elite has to emerge from the people and proving itself in the line of fire.
It might be true that the current national elites (“might” because we don’t really know how much foreign blood runs through their veins – they are masquerading in order to prevent the people hatred) seem to betray the people.
But what the elite seems to not comprehend is that their wealth depends entirely on the people who creates and defends that wealth. When the people will no longer exist and create and defend that wealth the elite will be scattered by the first determined invader. Which it is already the case with the so called elite.
They do not trust their own people but they trust foreigners to defend and work for them. Arrogance and stupidity. I would prefer “the ruble”.
In Aristotle’s Politics, he discusses the problem of trust and ways in which oligarchic tyrants deal with the growing population of resentful people:
The oligarchs will import and surround themselves with foreigners with whom they can curry favor and who will also naturally be disinclined to side with the polis. The oligarchic class will also not hesitate to use said foreigners to war against the polis in order to maintain power, particularly when “they run out of money”.
But what’s wonderful is that always the “rubble” is able to raise a genuine elite “to put a fist into the chest of storm”.
The elite sits at the top of the pyramid, but is dependent upon its base for legitimacy. The top of the pyramid, the ‘eye’, so to speak, serves the base. The moment the elite no longer serves its base, its folk, it loses its legitimacy. No loyalty = no legitimacy.
Jayna Murray is a White girl murdered by a black employee at Bethesda at Lululemon after closing. This is a big case in the DC area and has been on TV several times and in the Washington Post.
Nostalgia for dead aristocratic social orders and hierarchies is no different in principle and has about as much practical utility for advancing White interests as the conservative nostalgia for the Constitution and the early American Republic. The American conservatives, the people often laughed at in WNist circles as the so-called “patriotards,” love to wallow in their sentimental yearning for that which will never exist again, and so do many WNists.
Up to a certain point, there is nothing wrong with a little idle yearning for dead social orders, rules of conduct, and an irretrievable past as long as people understand that the past is just that, irretrievable. But, this yearning for the past does become problematic when people take it so seriously they forget that building a mass political movement by any means necessary is the only route to state power and thus the only route to change.
William Pierce himself said that “without real masses of people there will never be any real power,”*** yet many people in WNist circles who are otherwise very advanced in their learning often appear to forget this.
Excellent article! I wholeheartedly agree! I despise those individuals who prioritize religion (Christianity), or nationalism (my country, right or wrong) over racial survival. We can be idealistic, high-minded and noble after our racial future is secured. Whatever means, noble or ignoble, which ensure the survival and ascendancy of our race, must be employed. We must become more fanatical, more maniacal, and more ruthless than we have ever been in our millennial-long existence. We must prevail, regardless of injustice inflicted to the innocent, regardless of consequence borne by some of our own, to the damnation of our eternal souls.
And one fine morning,—– after we have hardened ourselves,—–cast our pity to the wind, ——————our journey to that unknown country will begin.
Now Greg … don’t you think you should throw some more rhetorical wood on the FIRE in this piece? Don’t you think it needs to be HOTTER than it already is?
Actually, I rather like its thoughtful, sensible tone, which is all the more welcome given the scope of the problem. I think that this essay, like Kevin MacDonald’s work, and the best pieces at Alternative Right (by a number of authors), are cultivating a sober discourse for the genuine Right, where the passion is in the content, not the rhetoric.
Greg Johnson at his current best.
Given how good he is, he would be the one to draw up plans to move us forward in the right direction. He could use the media to stoke the resentment in our favor with two tactics:
Go after Jewish organizations that don’t “truly reflect the vibrant and enriching diversity of their local communities,” i.e. if a synagogue does not have a diverse enough membership to reflect all the blacks, browns, and yellows in the city, then we should be deeply concerned that the Jews might be harboring unacknowledged bias against non-Whites while enjoying tax-free property and foundation investments. Are they institutional racists? Is the head Rabbi’s assistant a White? Do they use a White property manager, or a White investment manager? If so, they have more work to do. We should get this suspicion into the mainstream discourse on race, multiculturalism, interfaith dialogue, social justice, restorative justice, transformative leadership, etc.
1. Go after the Jews on the charge of lack of Diversity.
Every time a black robs, rapes, and murders a White, or a tribe of them has bongo party during a mass chimpout, which they graciously videotape and post online, we must connect that criminality in the minds of our Whites to the Civil Rights movement. Hold Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Tavis Smiley, John Lewis, Barak Obama, Eric Holder, etc., accountable for the failures of “their people” in “the community of color” to live up to the standards of civilization and to the honor of those “civil rights leaders and icons who sacrificed so much to bring American into the modern era.” Use the media to train Whites to automatically ask “When will Jesse Jackson issue his apology to the White victims?” E.g., when will Jesse Jackson make is public apology to Burger King, an employer of massive diversity, for the blacks who went berzerk and tore up the store? When will he apologize for the black girl who jumped up on the counter in her bikini, not to mention the lost business while the diversity employees had to clean up the mess?
(You must admit, the Internet really is good entertainment for WNs, and we owe Whitey drudgereport.com a debt of thanks for spreading this latest anthropological treasure- http://tinyurl.com/48kuqfl)
2. Civil Rights leaders and icons must be shamed into explaining why they have failed to control “their people” with as much success as they are controlling “our people” – our White Humanity.
Once Greg Johnson successfully mainstreams these two tactics into the course of conventional wisdom, he will have done his next best work on behalf of WN.
There’s hope. Bill O’Reilly went off recently on the fact that nobody can’t say anything about black crime without being accused of being a racist. It may have been a watershed moment, IF AND ONLY IF, smart WNs find a what to keep the fire hoses gushing.
Pull as stunt: post letters in the newspapers with these two Jew/Civil Rights antagonism tactics, and keep after the editors and news producers over their responsibility to hold the diversity-avoiding Jews and crime-dismissing blacks accountable to the values and standards that characterize a welcoming, tolerant, inclusive and fast changing global nation.
This is what set O’Reilly off: Juan Williams was accused of bigotry for speaking the truth about how dangerous blacks are. A very hottie White liberal scolding him for daring such a outrageously insensitive comment. If blacks commit crime, you can’t mention it, even if you are a half-black, without a liberal Whitey jumping on your for stereotyping and bigotry.
We know that the purpose of demeaning those who speak from instinct is to squash “virulent and toxic racism,” which means Whites must not hear anything that reminds them that they are not alone when fearing blacks. White communal interests are forbidden, and so should be any speech that might foster community among Whites. Prejudice must be isolated, condemned, ostracized, and eradicated. Those who haven’t yet spoken their prejudices must see how much shame and approbation befall those who do, and therefore the mass of Whiteness will keep itself self-censored. They must be forced to believe that if they are afraid of blacks, or if they say so, they are nothing better than a Klu Klux Neo Nazi and will be punished as such. Raise the fear of speaking Truth to a higher level than the fear of blacks, and White dispossession can continue apace.
How much longer, Lord, how much longer?
Until we learn to hold Whiteys who say “There we go again, Juan. I would find that to be racial profiling that’s a bigoted comment” accountable for how few blacks live in their neighborhoods and how few black doctors they visit, and how few blacks they buy insurance and investments from, how few black bosses they’ve had, how few blacks are in their family tree, and how few pictures of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are hanging in their bedrooms, it will be much too longer indeed…
I think these are good ideas, but I am not the right person to implement them. We need a thousands fanatics in a thousand communities around the country who are plugged into their local communities to constantly stir the pot.
Fourmyle of Ceres says: “In reply to Hadding. You wrote:
Goddamn. Charlie Brown and the football and HAC yet again.
I hadn’t noticed the Charlie Brown thing but WWW was right.
“I am not here to participate in board wars; let VNN remain VNN, even if they banned WWW.”
Ha! Linder wrote that he banned me from VNN because “Will is always right.” I was crushed. And what Hadding says I’m right about is the fact that you and “New America” at VNN are one and the same anonymous character assassin, safely sniping at your betters, like Dr. William Pierce, from the shadows: http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/20110317/a-new-right-website/#comments
I’m not always right, just most of the time. Hadding’s right that I’m right about you though, 4-Mile, just like I’ve always been right about your Great White Leader-in-hiding, defendant Covington.
LS-Odin says: “Go after Jewish organizations that don’t “truly reflect the vibrant and enriching diversity of their local communities,” i.e. if a synagogue does not have a diverse enough membership to reflect all the blacks, browns, and yellows in the city, then we should be deeply concerned that the Jews might be harboring unacknowledged bias against non-Whites while enjoying tax-free property and foundation investments. Are they institutional racists? Is the head Rabbi’s assistant a White? Do they use a White property manager, or a White investment manager? If so, they have more work to do…Go after the Jews on the charge of lack of Diversity.”
You know, that’s a point not lost on those of us who have attempted to procure tax-exemption for exclusively White religions — ie, Cosmotheism, Creativity — only to be selectively denied by the JOG. I would substitute “Semite” everywhere you use the word “White,” however, as I most certainly do not consider Jews to be White. It goes without saying that the head Rebbe’s assistants and managers of property and investments will not be White, but Jewish. Jewry is founded on ‘Us Jews vs. the Goyim’ (Yellow, Brown, Black & White) institutional racism.
Speaking of VNN, a member who is not banned there recently went into the VNN archive and retrieved many of my posts that I had not seen in years. This one from May, 2005, is germane to your comment: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=18621
“Unfortunately, with all the phony, glib talk about vaunted ‘separation of church and state’ here in what has become anti-White America the only way a church will receive the necessary 501(c)3 tax-exempt license is to submit to what JOG deems acceptable (read: non-threatening to its status quo) for a fully State-approved, incorporated religion:
Government Restrictions on the Corporate Church
TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Sec. 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.
(c) List of exempt organizations
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
By law, the 501c3 church may not:
* preach politically incorrect sermons (propaganda)
* influence legislation
* participate in political action
* endorse candidates
* oppose candidates
* publish or distribute political positions
Too bad these restrictions are only selectively applied to pro-White religions that might unite and rile the long-suffering, restless palefaces. Muslims collect $$ for Jihad against infidels; synagogues for the Zionist state of Israel and against the “anti-Semitic” goyim; Black Xian churches use their pulpits mostly to rally the troops for BN causes, yet Whites cannot have a religion that advocates for their own interests and to the exclusion of the interests of non-White “strangers.”
That will change, 501(c)3, or not, for it is an exclusive religion which will be our glue…just as it has been for the Jew.
That’s the Rule Book. That’s a good starting point from which to attack the double standard..
Fascinating, seminal piece. A few comments follow, with me quoting some topic sentences instead of entire paragraphs.
Greg Johnson wrote:
What you are describing is TOTAL Cultural Warfare at all level. The success of this can be seen in that (1) we DO behave like a conquered people, and (2) This Is Not By Accident, but is the end result of more than a century of deliberate social engineering which operated with one goal, the destruction of the White Race, it’s Creation, Western Civilization, and it’s uniquely effective vehicle for large-scale organization, the nation-state.
Greg Johnson wrote:
To paraphrase Terrible Tommy Metzger, the checkbook conservatives are really only interested in their checkbooks. To loosely quote George Lincoln Rockwell, “The conservative is only interested in money. We are interrested in our Race.”
Greg Johnson wrote:
The “aristocracies” you refer to are basically heredetarian social systems, all too prone to stagnation, save the accrual of wealth (“rents”) to the people at the top, the Owners.
Your example of mid-Nineenth Century England is perfect; the wisely read and astute (German!) Royal Consort, Albert, saved England from war with the new America Lincoln’s “Prussian Socialist” advisers. Then, Disraeli came to power, and, in time as defined by Culture, time started running out for the White Race in England.
It took a while, yes, but the clock has run.
That leaves us, and that’s it.
Greg Johnson wrote:
A possibly helpful formulation: metapolitics, and politics, alone, are necessary, but not sufficient.
Metapolitics AND politics are necessary, AND sufficient – IFF we get them right.
Greg Johnson wrote:
Greg Johnson wrote:
The elegant formulation of “Hugh,” of the “A Better World” thread on VNN/F, can be paraphrased simply; we are like a dog chasing a car. If we caught it, what would we do with it? Same for political positions. If we captured them, what would be do with them?
The schools of the Junker aristocracy in Prussia were adoped and made meritocratic by Uncle Adolph. A movie discussing this from the perspective of one young man, “After The Fall,” contains the usual attacks on the NSDAP Cultural Moment, but captures the sense of purposeful discipline they internalized in the grooming and training of their nascent Elite.
The skills needed to run a modern nation can be developed, but not overnight. The alternative is the revolutionary moment, where incompetents are given titles and positions they are not prepared for, and where their ineptitude can cause great harm. Placing Che Guevara in charge of the Bank of Cuba is one example.
Incidentally, note that the father of the tactics supported by “Hugh,” on the website he links to, was the topic of an article in the New York Times as the father of the Arab Spring Revolutions.
Looks like there is something to this perspective, doesn’t it?
Think we can learn from this?
Greg Johnson wrote:
This is long overdue.
Greg Johnson wrote:
And one that is organized in terms of a living, organic hierarchy, rather than the ossification of the heredetarian aristocracy.
Greg Johnson wrote:
Playing fair, with people who don’t, is a guarantee of failure. Just ask Charlie Brown how well that works for him. Then, ask him why he still accepts Lucy as an authority figure, and Lucy’s Game as valid for him.
We have taken knives (not even the power of swords!) to gunfights for more than half a century, in the name of Conservatism, with our highest goal being the Restoration of the Constitution. (WHICH Constitution they seem rather vague about. 1791? 1865? The one developed by the Revolution of 1933?)
So, we have all chased the cape of the matador, missing the controlling hand of the matador, much less the controlling Mind of the matador.
No wonder we die slowly, bleeding out from the death set up for us by the picador, who drain us, waiting for the matador to deliver the killing blow, dying alone, helpless, on the dusty floor of the arena, mocked by those for whom we supply…
I’ll have more to say about this – a LOT more – but I am grateful that someone on our side, besides a Mr. Covington, realizes that it is not enough to be AGAINST something. That only works for one or two, at the most, political cycles.
We must offer Something Better in its stead.
Again, I offer to one and all Mr. Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic as the Analytical Model that will allow us to build a temporal bridge between the extant political order, and the metapolitical order we are laying the foundation for, in our thoughts, our words, and our deeds – the substance of our lives.
Now, THAT is bringing a gun, to a gunfight.
Our Enemies will be fearful, and our Posterity will be grateful
We can learn from this.
Goddamn. Charlie Brown and the football and HAC yet again.
I hadn’t noticed the Charlie Brown thing but WWW was right.
In reply to Hadding.
I have deferred to the Adminstrator’s sensibilities in my commentary, and will continue to do so.
Charlie Brown – a fat, White, bald, helpless, impotent fool who blindly follows the “suggestions” of Others, is a perfect metaphor for those who support Conservatism.
I use it just for that purpose, so people can use a symbolic shorthand to describe what otherwise gets lost in the artificial complexity of Wordism.
Don’t be a Charlie Brown, and complain; offer Something Better.
That takes us to the second part of your comment.
I am not here to participate in board wars; let VNN remain VNN, even if they banned WWW.
. . .
It’s generally the case that White Americans will not band together in support of any decisive action against an enemy until they perceive that they have already been attacked. When there is no such incident at the start of a war, the popular support is lukewarm at best.
I believe that this was why Dr. William Pierce made crimes against Whites by non-Whites a frequent theme of his broadcasts, but he went beyond that to explain how Jewish control of mass-media results in suppression of the reporting of such crimes so that the Jews are influential accomplices in anti-White crime. That implies a solution, which in the intermediate term is to build White media, and in the long run to remove Jewish influence from our society.
This is a great article, and an excellent rebuttal to some of the ideas floating around in WN-land. There’s nothing wrong with a victim mentality if it helps you escape an actual state of victimhood – and there’s no question that Whites are currently on the receiving end of a lot of abuse from Jews and other non-White groups.
Also, I thought Richard Spencer’s most recent article at TOO was so awful that I frankly question his motives in writing it. Then again, I don’t normally check in at AltRight so I don’t know what he’s like in general.
I certainly don’t think that Spencer is up to no good. He is a sincere person who is moving into a White Nationalist perspective from the conservative camp, and the piece in question seems to bear the mark of his origins. His distaste for the politics of identity and the politics of victimization are Republican instincts that he will free himself of in time.
This is a good point. I am encouraged to see Richard Spencer, a former editor at The American Conservative, contributing on a site like TOO and publishing writers like KMD and Matt Parrot at alt right. Alex Kurtagić also recently became an editor at alt right, and although I know little about Kurtagić’s work beyond reading a few of his articles, he does appear on the list of recommended authors at CC so I think his appointment shows that alt right is headed in the right direction. I know it probably puts me in the minority here, but I like that alt right retains somewhat of a connection to Francis-style paleo-conservatism and traditionalism by publishing pro-Christian authors.
In my experience nationalists often forget — I know I do all the time — what it was like before we arrived a perspective that would make one a reader at TOO or CC. There are so many people committed to suppressing the emergence of a genuine White race by using lies, deception, infiltration and subversion that sometimes it is hard to know who among the less radical is acting in bad faith and who isn’t.
I’m fine with the “paleo-conservatism and traditionalism by pro-Christian authors” at Alt Right. I take those authors and their articles one at a time. E.g., I’ve read two articles by Mr. Nowicki (who is not unknown here) that I agreed with strongly, and then others, like his most recent one, that I disagree with sharply. I definitely think that radical traditionalism needs to encompass both Nietzscheans (among which I count myself) and, say, traditionalist Catholics, as long as each doesn’t try to “convert” the entire movement either to atheism or to Christianity, because that will just engender bad feeling, and anyway, it won’t work. By this point, we’re all pretty set in our religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
The main concern I have with Alt Right is that it publishes a fair bit of pro-Israel material, especially since the departure of Mr. Hoste, and that makes me absolutely sick. It sickens me as a matter of principle (because what the Israelis are doing is abominable), and it dismays me because I think it’s bad strategy.
Sympathy for the Palestinians is one of the few areas where we can actually find common ground with people who are otherwise far away from us ideologically. I mean, on a basic human level, no one likes a bully, and the actions by Israel are a jaw-dropping case of state-sanctioned bullying. Plus, it’s a logical stepping stone for people to go from seeing Jewish abuses in Israel, and how they disguise is and manipulate the discourse around it, to recognizing Jewish abuses here. It could be a winning issue for us.
Of all issues, for the alt Right to be siding with the neocons in support of Israel seems completely insane. It represents a creeping Jewish influence on radical traditionalism (witness the recent AmRen conference write-up), and it could end up with an already tiny white nationalist movement dividing itself up even further.
Spencer is idiosyncratic. He’s stuck his chin out in public more than a bit. We’re still finding out about him.
But we’re still finding out about everybody, and ourselves. I’ve written some articles I now regard as utter trash. I didn’t spring, fully formed, from the brow of White Nationalism, and no one has.
However Evola later went on to write ‘Men Among the Ruins’ as a guide book to possible future action!
He even re-published it in the early 1970s (1972 if memory serves) in case it might be useful in the near future for those of a later generation who wished to carry on the struggle for Tradition.
The biggest objection that I have to the victim pose is that it is often used as a substitute for confrontation.
I have particularly seen this tendency in regard to the Holohoax. Some people think it’s really clever to try to distract attention from the Holohoax by bringing up the Ukrainian suffering. The obvious objection to this response is that it leaves the Jews’ lie standing, and since they control the mass-media, their lie is going to get a lot more publicity than some momentary mention that not only Jews have suffered.
There’s a subtle difference between our victimization and that of other races. Other groups use victim-identity to shame whites into giving them money or accepting reverse-discrimination. We must engage in victim-identity to wake up other white people. It’s the same thing that Germans did to stir up public sentiment during the degenerate Weimar Republic.
Other whites need to hear about outrages like the Christian-Newsom murders. Some people say we need to suffer before we can change our country. That’s not true. We only need to know that we’re already suffering. It was only decades ago that a black man simply whistling at a white woman could start a race-riot. And 40,000 black-on-white rapes a year is not enough suffering! Even 1 of these disgusting violations is too many! If only white people knew!
I’m not a big fan of Alex Linder, but his decision to really push the issue on the Christian-Newsom murders was well-done. I’ll give him credit for that. It was only because of WNs that the Christian-Newsom murders made national news. We need to do this again, and again, and again until our people start waking up.
You are right. This is why I was so repulsed by John “Yggdrasil” Gardner’s suggestion that we should never mention the Jews, but merely provoke them into attacking our people so that THEY, not WE, are the ones who wake our people up. As if our people are not suffering enough already, and if that suffering were not something we could turn into well-aimed and powerful political resentment RIGHT NOW by identifying the culprits. https://counter-currents.com/2010/12/why-conservatives-still-cant-win/
I agree RE the Knoxville murders. On interracial rape, see Jim Goad’s recent piece at Takimag:
Anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea that we should adopt a “victim mentality” or feel “resentment” should think about it from a more tactical point of view. When whites play the system by demanding that equality laws should apply equally to them, they are often seen as an amusing oddity because everyone instinctively senses that certain non-white races need special treatment to help them fit in; “equality” means “help for the less able, or the non-assimilable”. When whites refuse to play by this unspoken rule, it seems almost impolite; they are abusing the system. Well, we should abuse the System, and we should continue to abuse it as much as we can until it collapses under the weight of its corpulent decadence. That which is falling should also be pushed.
Whites behave like a conquered people because, with few exceptions, we are a conquered people. Most whites have resigned themselves to the fact that they are now third class citizens and behave in a submissive and deferential manner in the presence of non-whites which is a tacit admission of our inferior standing. Being white in 2011 America is like being black prior to 1965 which was the Jewish objective all along.
And I think some are missing Richard Spencer’s point in his recent TOO article. Some pro-white oriented groups and individuals have come to terms with multiracial America and adopt a strategy whereby whites agitate merely for recognition, fair treatment and table scraps from the regime. Fighting to reclaim America for white people and only white people is obviously not in their repertoire and probably considered too “radical” and beyond the pale to these people.
There’s an increasing tendency to think small in some WN circles. These types are always sweating bullets while they type long winded essays for fear of offending conservatives, Christians, Sally soccer mom and Joe six-pack. And when this happens the message becomes so distorted and diluted that it is no longer white nationalism as observed and noted by Greg Johnson last year.
I think that Spencer is the one who misunderstands the motives and potential of the groups he criticizes. I doubt very much that these people merely want a place at the multicultural table, but they know that by demanding that, they will help whites appreciate that multiculturalism is merely a euphemism for white dispossession.
Most whites are currently chumps for multicultural shakedowns because they think that they are “universal” humans or “unhyphenated” Americans, and as such they are not ethnic groups much less minority groups, which are the only people entitled to take part in identity politics.
The first step toward white nationalism is to get whites to think of themselves as an ethnic group entitled to take part in identity politics, and since that is now the lingua franca, it requires nothing more radical than demanding that the multiculturalists act like they believe their own bullshit. This is “safe” for newbies, because all they are demanding is that the authorities play “fair”–and the accords with white moral universalism.
However, when the multiculties refuse to play fair, the next realization to dawn on whites is that universalism makes them chumps if there is no reciprocity. At that point, the lightbulb goes off and people realize that we must either assimilate non-whites or exclude them entirely. And, since assimilation is impossible, exclusion is ultimately the way to go.
Spencer’s disdain for white identity politics smacks of Republican talking points. Right now, like Sam Francis whom he quotes, Spencer has one foot in conservatism and one foot in white nationalism. But he is a smart guy, and his ideas are constantly evolving, which is why I thought it worthwhile to criticize his piece.
Yes, exactly so. That’s so right.
This is what I thought when I read Mr. Spencer’s piece originally, and again when I read Mr. Johnson’s response at TOO. I don’t accept the premise that those who have created the white scholarship or, more importantly, those who are arguing for the recognition of European-Americans as a distinct group, are multicultural believers.
Rather, my take is the same as Mr. Johnson’s — that these efforts are crucial in getting European-Americans to think of themselves as EUROPEAN-Americans, not as deracinated anonymous units with no heritage to defend, no ethnic identity except as part of a mulatto “multiracial America.” Getting whites to regard European culture and the European people as something that is their own, that is part of their identity, is the first step towards getting whites to have a stake in said culture and said race, and not to be able to sit idly by while it is destroyed.
And I contend the exact oppose of “There’s an increasing tendency to think small in some WN circles.” Rather, the converse is true — people on the genuine Right often seem to concoct grand schemes that have zero chance of ever happening, because there’s never any step-by-step plan, never even any discussion of what the first step must be. That’s all they do, is daydream. But nothing actually ever gets done.
What the white scholarship and the European-American identification are is two examples of actually getting something done.
Getting something small done is better than getting nothing at all done.
And Mr. Spencer, whom I admire greatly for his work ethic and efforts, has also done something; in fact, done a great deal — first in creating Alternative Right, and second in creating NPI TV. These are small things compared to HuffPo or Fox News, but there are vital, concrete achievements, especially admirable given that none of us have any real resources, as far as I’m aware; no money to start a Hollywood of our own, as it were.
Let’s do something small so we do something, not merely dream big and do nothing.
I hope your right but I just don’t see it that way. Groups like EAIR aren’t covert white nationalists just playing the victimology game as part of some brilliant grand strategy to raise white racial consciousness. EAIR and like groups truly believe that many races have the right to reside in the U.S. in which the progeny of the race that founded and built this country have only an equal right to it and no more.
Whites shouldn’t be satisfied with carving out an ethnostate the size of Vermont in what was once America no more than the Spaniards settled for the Northern 20% of Spain after it was conquered by the Muslims in the 8th century.
I definitely agree on the point that whites contenting themselves with a Vermont-size pseudo-Shtetl is appalling. In another time, whites considered their ethnostates to be places like “Germany” and the “United States.” That’s the right mentality.
But what is EAIR? Is that the group that organized the white scholarship, or the one that pushed for European-Americans to be recognized? Either way, if they are true-believer pushers of multiculturalism for everyone, then they are indeed pathetic SWPL types, although marginally better because at least they are standing up for whites. But perhaps they are merely adopting this strategy as the one and only way to raise any white, European-American consciousness at all, and if that is their belief, then I think it has merit, because it still takes white European-Americans from having exactly zero ethnic/racial consciousness to having some, and that is a vital first step.
In fairness – the White people are the victims of their elites and not the non-White minorities which were brought into the western world during their colonial period to serve their local economic interests – from cheap labor to outright slavery.
The Western elites loved the Asiatic Khazarian Jews for their money and hated them for corrupting the Christian societies. Contrary to that – the first wave of Muslims came to the West as conquerers. From Spain they spread science and enlightenment to the western world going through its Dark Age.
White Christians expelled Jewish communities from almost every country in the past and later recalled them for their wealth. This ‘cat and mouse’ game ended in the current domination of the entire West by the Jewish elites and their White Christian poodle.
Yes, low birth rate among the White communities do create demographic problem – and so does the ‘gay and lesbian’ culture. So instead of blaming others – the solution lies in fixing the decay in White Christian morality and putting their nations’ interests over the interests of Israel.
Well, yes and no. The elites certainly didn’t help, because they allowed the Jews to exist in Western societies, and, worse, to involve themselves in cultural matters. But when it comes to who, exactly, we are the victims of, it is the Jews themselves.
The sentry must be denounced for falling asleep at the gate, thus letting in the enemy, but it is the enemy who does the killing. We are the victims of the enemy, not of the sleeping sentry.
The Germans didn’t fortify themselves sufficiently against Napoleon, but it is Napoleon who tyrannized Germany. Germans were the victims of Napoleon, not other Germans.
The elites insufficiently guarded against cultural Marxism, but it was the cultural Marxists who killed the culture. We must always remember who is the real antagonist here.
As to your other point, I definitely see the gay and lesbian culture as a terrible problem, and have argued as much time and again. But I see it as such a problem culturally, not demographically. Population decline is not a bad thing if it’s not faced with an influx of aliens. Europe thrived after the Black Death culled the herd, as it were. Europe had a lower population in past centuries than it does now. I seriously believe that all of the talk about a declining population is rhetoric that the left uses to try to argue for bringing in more aliens. We don’t need them. A lower population is fine, as long as it is homogeneous.
Your recent comments at C-C have been very illuminating. I understand AltRight much better now. Thanks.
Don’t hold us in suspense–what do you now understand better about AltRight?
Usually I don’t visit that site. Now that I know that they support Israel I’ve removed it from my blog list.
I used to write for them. I wasn’t aware we supported Israel. Nice to know.
So are you saying that Karsten got it all wrong?
Hey, don’t drag me into your cat fights. I’m just telling you what I remember.
I am fighting no one. Just asking a question.
The progenitors of cultural Marxism are overwhelmingly Jewish which should be noted in this discussion.
(Looking at it that way will also prevent the kind of burn out fostered by false hopes of actually making political headway in the present climate. Managing expectations is always crucial.)
That can be stressed enough. Converts have a tendency to measure history from the date of their conversion. Prior to their conversion history was happily chugging along without them paying it too much attention. After their conversion ordinary events that slipped by unnoticed now take on outsized importance. And the latest outrage has them expecting that surely this is going to snap people out their slumber. This is effect is particularly prominent come election time, especially in Europe, where people can actually vote for representatives of their views. When the expected results fail to materialize converts can become disillusioned. Because — whether anyone here likes it or not — it’s possible (however undesirable, from a racialist point of view) to make peace with multiracialism, many people do just that. A racial reordering (of America, Europe, heck, the whole world — think big!) can only be a long-term project, so it’s essential that those undertaking it adopt a long-range mentality.
“Managing expectations is always crucial”
This is so important. If you’re engaged in nationalist electoral politics too early – and by too early i mean when you can do okay but have no chance of consistently winning – then any electoral setback can completely kill morale *if* the aim is to win. Outside of PR electoral systems i think nationalist electoral politics should only be undertaken as meta-politics i.e a method of advertising / radicalizing / informing. The way the Greens undertake electoral politcs primarily as a method of popularizing their ideas should be the model. I think that’s the only way to stop people getting disheartened.
(Outside of PR) winning consistently will only happen after the meta-political battle is at least half won.
“And that particular essay by Spencer was a rare strikeout where he really misses badly.”
I think the argument may be crossed wires over the difference between advocating a demand for justice (or else) or an assault on double standards (as an assault) compared with advocating we plead for mercy and/or scraps.
“Some people think it’s really clever to try to distract attention from the Holohoax by bringing up the Ukrainian suffering.”
It’s not about distracting. It’s about going round the Maginot Line.
Undermining Moral Authority:
The mass murder of 6 million Jews is so important the whole world must steep itself in permanent mourning but the mass murder of 30 million non-Jews is not even worthy of a footnote? If only the Bolshevik holocaust was taught in the schools and if only the Bolshevik holocaust had memorials in every town and if only the Bolshevik holocaust had hundreds of films about it what would the Jews say? I think they’d say it implied the lives of Jews had no value. While the Bolshevik holocaust is denied the holocult implies the lives of non-Jews have no value.
(And if you want to win an argument with the official version over the actual details of what happened then the best way is to demolish their moral authority first.)
Nazis as a monstrous reason-less eruption out of the inherently black Aryan soul that needs to be bred out of existence by diversity or Nazis as reaction to a hostile expansionist Bolshevik state that had recently invented industrial mass murder, practised it on millions of its own citizens and had a powerful fifth column inside Germany. Which is the most useful narrative from their point of view?
Leveraging Media Dominance
If you can insert a pebble in the shoe of the official version with someone then every time the official version gets mentioned i.e all the time, that person gets reminded.
“Why does the rabble have to be white? Racial homogeneity is not a prerequisite for building a hierarchical society.”
Why did the Romans generally allow the pre-existing elite to carry out the bulk of the day to day administration while the Roman Governor and legions stood back from public view?
Why did the Normans consciously anglicize?
Why couldn’t a small minority of White settlers hold on in Africa?
Could a small minority of White settlers have held on in Africa if they’d blacked out?
Could the small minority of White settlers in some South American countries have held on this long without help from the CIA?
Why are countries like Venezuela going back to brown?
Did the Aryans in India have to brown out to hold on?
Why do Jews hide the fact that they dominate American politics?
Why are Jews trying to ditch the Anglo look as so last season and marry orientals?
All answered by the last question – Why did Saddam’s Sunni Arab elite have to spend so much on secret police?
The default state for an ethnic group ruled by members of another ethnic group is rebellion. The default state for an ethnic group ruled by members of the same ethnic group is consent. In the first case the ruling elite has to constantly strive to maintain consent. In the second case the ruling elite has to constantly strive to push people into rebellion. Just look at multi-ethnic America for proof.
So the rabble doesn’t *have* to be white but Chavez wouldn’t be in power in Venezuela if the previous White elite had made sure they were.
Being “high minded” and effective aren’t mutually exclusive – in several historical cases they have been perfectly joined. Case in point:
Codreanu was certainly a noble individual, but by what standard was he effective?
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.
Edit your comment