Übersetzt von Deep Roots
English original here
Weißentum ist zumeist im Sinne eines “Anti-Schwarzentums” definiert worden, (more…)
White advocates have no political power. White advocates have all the political power.
Those who don’t favor the genocide of the white race have been completely marginalized. And yet, in another sense, White Nationalists dominate American life.
To paraphrase Marx, where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as “racist” by the party in power? Where is the opposition party that has not cleverly retorted that their enemies are the “real racists”?
Sometimes it seems that American political debate boils down to accusing the other side of being like those evil White Nationalists. This suggests that the world recognizes that White Nationalism is “itself a power,” a power that cannot be ignored. You can love us or hate us, but you can’t pretend we don’t exist. Underlying every issue that is debated—guns, health care, immigration, foreign policy—is the reality of race, the undercurrent that is never spoken about by the Right but that dominates American life.
Much of white advocates’ political activity, other than pure education, consists of trying to bring this undercurrent to the surface. Unfortunately, White Nationalist political influence within the mainstream is chiefly negative. Associating with certain groups or figures hurts their credibility with the larger public, which is conditioned by the controlled media to remain anti-white.
However, there is a positive side to this. We aren’t here to elect Republicans after all. If activists concentrate enough on a certain subculture or political issue, it becomes associated with the white advocacy movement. Those hostile to white survival avoid it, but it can still serve as a way to attract unattached people who might be interested. Subcultures like folkish heathenism or black metal are cultural examples, and Southern nationalism is moving this way as a political example.
One can imagine issues like immigration or guns evolving in a White Nationalist direction. As groups that focus on such issues become racialized, many people will bail out, but those who remain involved will become more dedicated, and a “safe space” will be carved out for white advocates to organize. Furthermore, these spaces will still exist even if they are no longer respectable. This is why Leftists fight so hard to prevent white advocates from participating in even non-political venues, especially music scenes.
“The power to destroy a thing is the power to control a thing,” said Paul Muad’Dib in Dune. Believe it or not, White Nationalists have this power. Take the conservative movement. All it takes to demolish a conservative gathering is for one person to show up with a “racist” sign. There are costs to such actions, obviously. In the short term, it makes it more difficult for any white advocates who are trying to work within the movement. It increases the internal defenses of the anti-white thought police within conservatism. It empowers a progressive media, which gleefully trumpets any proof of racism.
However, in the long term, it creates an association in the public mind between a major political force and the cause of white people generally. Isn’t that what we want?
James Mason writes in Siege that white advocates must think of all white people everywhere as our army. They may not volunteer, but circumstances and political action will cause them to be conscripted. For white advocates, the overall strategic objective of political activity is to make race the defining difference between various political, cultural, and social groups, as a precursor to the formation of an ethnostate, the great dream of the White Republic.
Arguably, race is already the defining difference on a host of issues, but only on a subconscious level. The explicit issues are things like “limited government,” capitalism vs. socialism, or religion vs. secularism. We have to cut through the distractions and bring out what is already implicit in the narratives we see every day.
How do we do this?
Do we just show up where we are not wanted, screwing up mainstream conservative plans?
It’s a start. But this can’t just be trolling.
A successful movement has to have waystations that we control all along the political spectrum. Part of this means overt vanguardist groups for the true believers. But another part of it means creating cultural spaces: publishers, websites, bands, or spiritual groups. Yet another part of it means trying to reclaim turf from the Left, like unions or the environment.
However, for now, the bulk of White Nationalists’ power consists in the power to destroy.
If our goal is to make all white people our “army,” we have to deal with the fact that the largest group of politically active whites is affiliated with the Republican Party.
One of the perennial debates in White Nationalism is between attacking conservatives, working with them (or infiltrating them), or just ignoring them. The correct answer is essentially “all of the above.”
Everyone knows that there are certain issues—immigration being the key example—that come as close as they can to being defined as purely “racial” without crossing the line. The media knows this, non-whites know this, and white advocates know this. The only people who don’t already know this are the professional anti-immigration groups and activists, and this ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) is the thin reed that allows them to continue to operate and have a voice at the system’s table.
There’s no point in showing up to an anti-immigration rally talking about a non-white America. Everyone involved in the issue already knows that this is what it is about, and the battle lines are already drawn. All overt White Nationalist participation in the issue can do is make their job harder, lessen the numbers of uncommitted people who want to engage in the issue, and reduce the value of the movement as a whole. It is better to show up quietly, make new contacts, and educate and move them along separately and below the surface to waypoints further along the spectrum.
In contrast, something broad, like the general opposition to President Barack Hussein Obama, should be racialized. The two-party system leads to political groupings that are so broad that ideology is less important than emotional identification. “Team Red” vs. “Team Blue” means more than ideology. So forget the idea that the Republican Party is “anti-white,” because there is no monolithic party the same way there is in Europe. Anyone can call himself a Republican. The broader, more inclusive, and more race-neutral a Republican group is, the riper it is for infiltration.
The media are looking for signs that the Republican Party is transforming into an all-white, rump opposition party that opposes the President purely on racial grounds. White advocates should give them what they want. The case that should be made is essentially the Mantra: the system is anti-white.
A single sign at a Tea Party rally that says “Obama is Anti-White” will make every blog. A post on the Campaign for Liberty website that “the government targets whites” will go viral. Showing up to an Americans for Prosperity meeting to ask a question about why non-white small business owners get special advantages, which “hurts whites,” will become the subject of every discussion afterward.
The key is to racialize every mainstream issue, to make implicit racial polarization explicit. Constantly emphasize that (1) the government is targeting whites on racial grounds and (2) the opposition is organized on racial lines. The media will do the rest of the work, since they will promote anything that fits their own narrative of angry white males standing in the way of progress. So much the better.
George Lincoln Rockwell often spoke about “political jujitsu,” using the very power of the controlled media to his advantage. Rockwell accomplished this with outrageous stunts and imagery that could not be ignored, especially that of the swastika. Today, the media’s hysteria over “racism” has advanced to the point where such tactics are no longer necessary to get attention. Something as harmless as a Confederate flag at a war memorial or a white student union can throw the whole country into an artificially produced uproar. This is an opportunity to exercise power, because the media can do white advocates’ job for them.
Media people think that tax protesters are racist. Good. Argue that whites are hit with a “disproportionate impact” in any tax increase and that this is deliberately discriminatory.
Media people think that gun owners are racist. Good. Argue that whites disproportionately own guns because non-whites disproportionately commit crimes.
Media people think states’ rights are racist. Good. The best way to further this is to argue that Barack Obama’s “drive for equality” is about using federal power to target whites.
In every case, make the point that the egalitarian principles of the system are violated when it comes to whites. Make race the central question even on issues that were once considered race-neutral.
The media will broadcast these reasonable positions in tones of shock and outrage, but they will broadcast them nonetheless, and the effect is bound to be educational.
We want to increase media criticism of Obama’s opponents as racists. We want to increase the feeling that minority conservatives are Uncle Toms and race traitors for hire (which they largely are). We want to increase the reliance of the Republican Party on white voters, so it is harder and harder for them to ignore or betray white interests.
In our own consciousness, we need to consider ourselves already the true leaders and authentic spokesmen of our race, and we need to communicate that attitude to everyone else.
It’s important to clarify that this is simply a tactic. It’s a separate question if the Republican Party can be reforged into a pro-white party or used for anything practical. Nor should this strategy actually concede egalitarianism as a desirable goal. The point is to use the Left-wing media to sow discord in the controlled opposition and break some people away from it.
We should also do the same thing to the libertarians.
Simply criticizing Republicans from the outside is useful, but it is not enough, because it largely goes unheard. Race-based criticism from within, amplified by the media’s bias against the Establishment Right, can destroy the controlled opposition and open the way for a new alternative. A well-written article on Counter-Currents can be read by tens of thousands. A well-staged stunt at a Republican event can be seen by tens of millions.
We have power. We have the sexiest idea there is. We know this because they can’t shut up about us. Let’s use it. Whites will become our army when we force everything down to a simple choice: The System is anti-white. We are pro-white. Which side are you on?
The political regime under which much of the world labours (and the entire Western world) is called “Liberal Democracy.” Francis Fukuyama has praised the ever widening expansion of this regime over the globe as “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and [it consists in] the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” The source of Fukuyama’s thesis, the Russian Hegelian Marxist, Alexandre Kojève, called this End State the “universal and homogeneous state”: it is the ultimate goal of both Liberalism and Communism. (more…)
Robert Stark will appear on the Central Valley Talk TV network today at 2:00 pm and 9:00 pm Pacific Standard Time. Topics discussed:
Originally, I planned to publish this piece on New Year’s Day. But on Christmas Day I started coming down with the terrible influenza that is going around the country. A week ago, my energy started coming back, and I am only just now over it. I have not been this sick since I was hospitalized with pneumonia as a child.
Judging from how quiet things have been in “this thing of ours” over the last month, quite a few other people have been sick as well. (more…)
Edited by Alex Kurtagić
The Following is an excerpt from Blood, written between April and May 1992. It is part of a much longer discussion about art, where Bowden explores one of his favorite themes: the art of the radical Left versus the art of the radical Right. (more…)
[jwplayer file=”http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/ccradio_eurhour_2012-11-18.mp3″ streamer=”rtmp://s3cxt7hxkp9tvh.cloudfront.net/cfx/st” provider=”rtmp” duration=”3790″]
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save target as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
German translation here
Quentin Tarantino’s last movie, Inglourious Basterds (2007), tells the story of a group of American Jews who team up with a non-white (an Amerindian-white mix from Tennessee with an Italian name, like Tarantino himself), to torture, mutilate, and slaughter evil white men and women (Germans, Nazis) during World War II. ‘Terds, in short, is nothing but an elaborate fantasy of Jewish sadism and revenge. (more…)
Call him what you will — a paranoic, a fascist, a zealot — but remember one thing about Ezra Pound: he was the first serious writer to bring attention to Vivaldi’s work. A big fan of early music in general, Pound was one of a select few who helped resuscitate the long-neglected composer’s music. (more…)
[jwplayer file=”http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/ccradio_preston_2013-01-01_election-coverage.mp3″ streamer=”rtmp://s3cxt7hxkp9tvh.cloudfront.net/cfx/st” provider=”rtmp” duration=”3316″]
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save target as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
Part 1 of 3
“What [Walter Moses] calls ‘political’ is the political in the ancient sense of the word, rather than in the modern sense that is relevant for us. What is hidden behind this absolute negation of the sphere of the ‘private’ is not a modern Leviathan, but rather its pagan-fascist counterpart . . .”
—Leo Strauss, 1923