The Perils of Positive ThinkingGreg Johnson
“Time to stop talking falsely now.
The hour is getting late.”
— Bob Dylan, “All Along the Watchtower”
The best way to get people to take bitter pills is to coat them with something sweet. The principle applies to poisons as well as medicines, and it applies in the intellectual as well as the material realm.
The most insidious and destructive ideas are often served in the syrup of high-minded sentiments. A case in the point is the perennial cliché that white advocates need to “keep it positive”: focus on the things we love rather than the things we hate.
1. This is a false alternative. The best approach is to do both: we must love what is good and hate what is evil—i.e., that which opposes and threatens the good. We must promote the good and combat evil. And you can’t really be serious about promoting the good if you are unwilling to name and fight the evils that oppose you.
2. The root of White Nationalism is, of course, the love of our own people. The aim of White Nationalism is, of course, to perpetuate our race and insure its well-being. These are positive goals. But if that’s all we have to say, then white advocacy remains merely sentimental, abstract, and high-minded, merely a matter of feeling and thinking, as opposed to saying and doing.
As soon as we act upon our love, as soon as we step outside the online echo-chamber and enter the realm of public debate, as soon as we try to promote the well-being of our people in the real world, we will discover that there are people who actually oppose us, people who have conflicting interests, including people who simply hate us, and whom we should heartily hate in return.
3. The peril of positive thinking is that it is ultimately ineffectual. It cannot save our people, because it is abstract rather than concrete, high-minded rather than realistic. I am all for abstractions and ideals, but they are not ends in themselves. They have to illuminate reality and lead to realistic, effective action. High-minded happy-talk divorced from ugly facts will not save our race, whose existence in the real world is being threatened by concrete forces including real, flesh-and-blood enemies.
4. Keeping it positive basically boils down to a resolution to be superficial rather than radical. No matter how positive one’s spin is, one can’t avoid dealing with the surface reality of white dispossession. So to “keep it positive,” one has to refuse to examine the underlying causes of our plight, specifically the people who are to blame, lest we discover reasons to hate.
But the best way to treat an illness is to understand the cause. The best way to kill a weed is to pull up the roots. The best way to stop white dispossession is to discover who is behind it, and why, and stop them.
5. There really are people who become so fixated on harming their enemies that they end up harming their own interests. This is the psychology of spite, and it is self-defeating. For instance, some White Nationalists are so fixated on scoring points against the Jews that they attack Israel for being racist and nationalistic, even though White Nationalists should be defending the principles of racial nationalism, rather than attacking them on liberal, egalitarian, universalist grounds.
But the solution to suicidal spitefulness is not a priggish refusal to confront the reality of enmity. Instead, one must simply keep one’s priorities straight. Our overriding goal is to serve the positive interests of our own people. Becoming too fixated on our enemies can conflict with that goal. Ultimately, however, ignoring or downplaying the reality of enmity is a far bigger threat to our people than self-destructive spitefulness. The cure offered by the “keep it positive” crowd is worse than the disease.
6. The “keep it positive” meme is repeated for many reasons, including sincere, naïve, high-mindedness. But as with the “white suicide” meme—with which it is often conjoined—I suspect that the motives behind its propagation are usually morally squalid: cowardice or outright enemy subversion.
The picture becomes clearer when we ask what, exactly, are the positive thinkers trying to conceal? Are they trying, for instance, to avert our gaze from black depravity? Are they demanding that we not ask them “the Negro question”? Are they telling us that we need to focus simply on spreading the “white genocide” meme rather than dwelling on black crime, corruption, and chaos? Consistency demands that they would, but I am not seeing it.
Instead, the “keep it positive” meme, like the suicide meme, is almost always employed to avert our gaze from the Jewish problem, i.e., the fact that Jews are massively overrepresented among the forces both promoting white dispossession and preventing whites from organizing to stop it.
It is easy to understand why Jewish infiltrators wish to spread this meme. But what motivates whites? Ultimately, I think it is a combination of cowardice and naïveté: cowardice in the face of Jewish oppression and white social disapproval and the naive notion that one might still be able to win a struggle without naming and confronting one’s most committed enemies. Indeed, some are so naive as to think that we can win while allowing one’s organizations to be infiltrated and influenced by Jewish “sympathizers.” (These Jews may even be sincere, but enemy agents always seem sincere too, and the hour is too late for such foolishness.)
7. Advocates of keeping it positive often claim that their opponents talk “only” about the Jewish problem, whereas they prefer to speak entirely about positive actions they can take for our cause.
Now, I will grant there are White Nationalists who are obsessed with Jews almost as much as Jews are. I grant that there are White Nationalists who act as if Jews are the sole cause of our problems. In the past, when I published articles that did not deal with the Jewish problem, certain commentators would show up to accuse me or the author of conspiring to cover up Jewish perfidy. But even these people probably do not believe that Jews are the sole cause of our problems or the sole impediment to solving them, although they often act like it.
The idea that one can talk only about positive things rather than negative things, or only about negative things rather than positive things, is not really true. One can, of course, speak of certain topics by abstracting and isolating them from the bigger picture. But abstraction entails a kind of falsification, because one is dealing with parts, not the whole—and, in the real world, everything is interconnected. Thus if one really thinks through one’s abstractions, if one tries to understand how they are related to the rest of the world, how they are meshed in networks of meaning and causality, then one inevitably deals with other matters. And one has to, if one is going to affect real changes in the real world. Thus, dealing with matters in isolation is not really dealing with them at all.
If, for example, one actually thinks through how one is going to take positive steps toward saving our people, one is going to have to confront certain negatives, including the vast and essential role of the organized Jewish community in promoting white dispossession and preventing whites from resisting it. Or, if one starts with the Jewish problem and deals with it thoroughly, certain positive steps toward rectification will suggest themselves.
In a world in which everything is interconnected, truly radical thinking—thinking that can lead to action that can change the world—is concrete and holistic. But attempting to focus entirely on positives or negatives condemns one to being abstract and superficial—and thus, from a practical standpoint, ineffectual as well.
8. What about people who have a broad and concrete understanding of the white predicament but who choose to abstract out certain elements and focus on them in particular? It is a big world after all. People can’t know everything about everything. Specialization is inevitable and indeed necessary for progress. What about people who wish to focus on race, or immigration, or the Jewish problem in isolation from the rest of the picture?
There’s a right way to specialize and a wrong way. One can specialize but still keep a sense of the larger whole, and when people ask about the bigger picture, one simply needs to refer them to other specialists and then get back on message. One should not, however, engage in evasions and obfuscations of the larger picture.
Of course, these evasions only flow one way. Kevin MacDonald does not, for instance, treat biological race differences or non-white immigration as a hot potato. Not so with the Jewish question, which is consistently dodged by people who wish to position themselves closer to the political mainstream.
Of course, when writers refrain from dealing with the Jewish question, they come under suspicion of working for the other side. But there is an easy way to dispel such doubts (at least the reasonable ones). When the Jewish question is raised, they must simply state that they do not focus on that issue, acknowledge that there is genuine debate on the topic, refer the questioner to Kevin MacDonald, and then get back on topic.
Under no circumstances, however, should they resort to obfuscations and disinformation. The entire media and educational establishment are working 24/7, 365, cradle-to-grave to mislead our people about race and the Jewish question. Thus it is frankly disgusting when White Nationalists join in the lies because they are working some clever and self-regarding angle of their own.
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
An Open Letter to Scott Adams
A fine essay Greg. You have a great talent for identifying the heart of an issue and bringing clarity to tough topics. As a person who watches ideas ripple across our discourse spaces fairly closely, I sense a combination good but misguided will and subversion at work here. Reasonable people can disagree.
“It is easy to understand why Jewish infiltrators wish to spread this meme. But what motivates whites? Ultimately, I think it is a combination of cowardice and naivete.”
We shouldn’t ignore a third motive: opportunism. There surely are people in the nationalist movement who are not naive (they know very well what they are doing) and not cowards, but who are narcissistic psychopaths. They believe they have something to gain personally from obfuscating the Jewis question, and they don’t really care about the truth or about the consequences for others (or for true, political goals).
Of course, these personality types appear everywhere, but they are probably over-represented in socially marginalized movements, like white nationalism. After all, it is easier to appear like a big fish in a little pond – and that is all that really matters to them. When we encounter people like that, we better not be mistaken about their motives: it would be naive on our part to believe that they simply are ignorant of the true nature of our situation.
I am not so sure about this.
First of all, the mental and personality disorders that I have noticed in WN circles are primarily (1) malignant narcissism (and its attendant vice pathological lying), (2) mania and manic depression, and (3) alcoholism (I would say that there are 100 alcoholics in the WN scene for every person who smokes pot).
During my years in White Nationalism, I have encountered plenty of loathsome, evil characters. But I have not encountered any I would consider outright sociopaths or psychopaths, i.e., people who completely lack conscience. I should say, however, that plenty of evil can be done by people who do have consciences of a sort, but who are so maligantly narcissistic and dishonest that they can square the most squalid behavior with maintaining a positive self-image. Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that sociopaths don’t need to go through such mental gyrations.
Although the fact that lawyers are significently overrepresented among the professions among certain WN circles should give me pause, because lawyers generally score high on psychopathy/sociopathy scales. So do the leaders of large businesses. But even the most dishonest and destructive lawyers I have encountered seem primarily to be a combination of malignant narcissists and biopolar maniacs.
Second, any real White Nationalist, no matter what his personality defects, has a feeling of kinship for his people, which is not a trait of sociopaths.
Third, there is simply not a lot to gain, personally, from the WN movement, and the people who are here for personal gain (like Hal Turner) usually fall into the category of system subversives.
So the true White Nationalists are not sociopaths and the sociopaths among us tend to be outside infiltrators.
If you have specific examples of your thesis in mind, we can discuss them privately.
Greg, truly a brilliant and instructive article. Much better than most articles on “self improvement”
The “reality of enmity” is rearing its ugly head in a California casual clothing company named “Blanco Basura”, or “White Trash” / “White Garbage”. They sell t-shirts and all sorts of other stuff that promotes the meme of Whites being Garbage, and they ask their customers to REVEL in calling themselves White Garbage.
How can our young people have a decent sense of self-respect and identity when they are marketed the “coolness” of calling themselves Garbage? Of course they can’t.
Google “Blanco Basura” and you’ll find their website, and on that site there is a FB page link. Don’t you think we should let them know what we think of their vile hatred and bigotry, coded as “cool logos” on t-shirts?
Don’t be “offended” if you contact them, but inform them that their deployment of hatred and bigotry against our people gives us permission to look into what kind of sick, hateful minds want to make a buck doing this.
This action, which is clearly designed to condition Whites psychologically to their own debasement, seems to me too sophisticated to arise from a Mestizo mind. I suspect a Jew behind it. Perhaps we should sell T-shirts with texts like Spic Trash or Kike Trash.
Franklin, you nailed i
The White Genocide meme is not an attempt to “keep it positive,” it is imposing language that benefits our cause by bringing attention to the truth. It is the simple, concise truth, and the opposite of “keeping it positive.”
I don’t understand the thought process that leads one to think the that referring to what is happening to our people as “White Genocide” is somehow trying to “keep it positive.” I’m here because I want my people to continue to exist. I want white genocide to stop. By engaging the public with that meme and staying on message I am benefiting our cause and thus our people. BUGS is not concerned with concealing black crime or any other truth. But talking about black crime and Jews when engaging the public shifts the focus off of what is happening to our people, what is really inportant, what our bottom line is: stopping white genocide. Different approaches are effective for different audiences and mediums of engagement. Essays on Counter-Currents do not engage the public in the same way BUGS does, so the same tactical guidelines don’t apply. Yet, we can still do our part by using accurate language (i.e referring to it as white genocide instead of using weaker terminology like “white disposession”).
I think part of the confusion or mislabeling here might come from the generally higher energy, motivated disposession of those who work over at BUGS.
Aside from that, I agree with the points made by Greg. Being either overally optimistic or pessimistic distorts reality and is harmful. Besides, people are motivated more by pain (negativity) than they are by pleasure. It’s much easier to get people united and wiling to stand against something than it is to get them to unite for something. Thus, it makes more sense to fight against white genocide than it does to “secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” (even if they are essentially the same thing, it makes a big difference).
Until things get worse, I’ll be the Man in Black.
A succinct and convincing article! I would just like to add that naïveté and high-mindedness are really too innocent descriptions for the spiritual morass the white man finds himself in.
Christianity, and especially its extremist outgrowth which is liberalism, has disempowered the white man. For it has demonized hate, the emotion that drives you to defend what is dear to you. In our conscience reigns the feeling that hate, regardless of its object, is something horrible. We are even afraid that “negative feelings” will cause cancer. A kind of atheist “divine retribution” for the sin of hating.
How to get rid of this feeling? It may help to contemplate the hypocrisy of sanctimonious liberalism calling for the persecution of those people it deems “full of hate”. And how these people are always white, straight men. And how there are some peoples you are never allowed to hate. However, these rational thoughts may not reach to the deeper level of emotions.
Enter Satanism. I believe that many white nationalists embrace the devil so as to access their ability to hate. For the essence of Satanism – pace Anton LaVey – is not sexual licentiousness or a libertarian world view. It is loving what is evil/forbidden and hating what is good/prescribed, according to Christian/liberal ideology. It is dancing with their demons.
As a Norse pagan, I am aware of the shortcomings in the Satan archetype. Satan was a receptacle for many pagan values and images, especially those of Pan. But some pagan virtues, such as loyalty, fitted well in Christian theology, and those were withheld from the Satan archetype. So Satan turned out to be a rather nasty, one-sided version of paganism.
On the other hand, Satanism is a very specific, powerful, imaginative, lively, even vibrant (!) antithesis to the current regime. It supports hate towards our Christian and Jewish enemies, and is as such quite liberating and empowering for our fight. As long as Satanists do not forget the totality of pagan virtues, I can only welcome the surge of Satanism in our midst.
I agree that some people are probably attracted to Satanism as a repository of healthy, vital impulses stigmatized by Christianity. But a better place to go is paganism. Satan is just as much a construct of Christianity as God or Jesus is, so to reject Christianity by embracing Satan is still to remain trapped in an essentially Christian worldview. Better to reject that root and branch and start afresh.
Better to reject that root and branch and start afresh. That is most curious for Martin Luther said the same thing., “To speak plainly my firm believe is that reform of the church is impossible unless………..are thoroughly uprooted.” And down the rabbit hole we go……
Well, I’d say that the total rejection of the “”White suicide meme” can be a sort of “positive thinking” as well. Because I think any honest and thorough analysis will have to admit that there are far, far deeper problems going with White people on than the concrete enemies you name. Otherwise their politics would not have such a deep resonance and meet considerable resistance. I do not think such an objection can be pushed aside by calling it “cowardice” or “infiltration”. I would say the core problem is that white people have lost their sense of meaning and purpose, and it is into this vaccum, where leftist and liberal ideologies creep into as a compensation.
There is no question that whites as a group are vulnerable to Jewish subversion. There is no question that some whites have aided and abetted Jewish subversion. But that does not alter the fact that Jews are the primary architects, beneficiaries, and guardians of a system which is enacting the slow genocide of our race.
When a criminal shoots someone dead, you don’t blame the victim for not being bullet-proof, although he does share some blame if he did not take sensible precautions, more blame if he opened the door to his killer and handed over his gun. But it is not suicide. It is murder. The killer is still the killer.
And make no mistake: killing is going on here. It is not all some ghastly mistake or coincidence. When Jews, who are the people most sensitized to genocide and the conditions that promote it, actively promote those conditions for whites, it is not an accident on their part.
Read my article “Our Fault?” and tell me if I have a nuanced enough view for your tastes: https://counter-currents.com/2012/04/our-fault/
I agree more with Petronius. I think the viewpoint that Jews are the “primary architects” of the major problems facing our race is really questionable. Rather, as Petronius argued, there is much reason to believe that the problems facing our race are rooted in negative worldview and ideological influences. There is, firstly, the fact that subversive ideas were created by Gentiles and not Jews (think of the fact that Lamarck came before Boas, for example). However, it is also significant that Jews advocating egalitarianism, multiculturalism, etc. were only a portion of those advocating such ideas; Gentile intellectuals and activists have been the majority and were absolutely crucial in spreading these ideas.
Aside from the fact that Jews do not always agree with each other (some Jews supported segregation, for example), there is also the fact that Gentiles are ultimately responsible for accepting destructive ideas and practices. It does not seem realistic to me to assume that a small group of Jews can be so clever, powerful, and skillful that they can completely transform the minds of masses of Gentiles, that they can be the true reason negative ideologies attained dominance. It can be argued that rather it is the spread of these negative ideologies that influenced and brought in Jews. Of course, certain groups of Jews have played their role in harming our societies (that is undeniable); Jews as a whole need to be excluded from Gentile society.
However, what concerns me about putting so much focus on the power and influence of Jews is that it can cause people to sometimes lose focus of the weaknesses of Gentiles. For example, by the time we reached the mid-20th Century the Boasians were proven to be frauds, but this did not create a solidification of racialism; instead, egalitarianism still gained dominance over time. The reason why is because a large portion of Americans were attracted to egalitarianism; their ideological background made them susceptible to such ideas. People in other nations with the opposite ideological and worldview background were not so easily taken in by these ideas and showed more resistance.
The hour is rather late for these sorts of discussions. We really need a primer on this matter to which we can refer people to answer these questions. I would love to find a person who could write such a volume. Please contact me if you have ideas.
In the meantime, would some of our readers like to try answering these points?
Well, Greg Johnson, the points I have made are not even entirely original to me. If one does the research, these sorts of arguments regarding the Jews can be also found in writings by Benoist, Faye, Sunic, Gottfried, etc. This issue is, however, far more complicated than what I wrote in my comment, because there are numerous theories regarding exactly how extensive Jewish power and influence is and it would honestly require volumes to discuss every theory, their details, and how much truth there is in them. When you mentioned a primer, I thought of Karl Radl’s “Semitic Controversies” (despite the fact that I obviously have many disagreements with him), but you can see that he writes numerous articles year after year dealing with the Jews and commenting on anti-Semitic theories regarding what he thinks is accurate and what is nonsense. You can see based on this fact that the discussions on such a topic can go on forever.
In my opinion, Kevin MacDonald comes closest to providing a legitimate theory concerning the Jewish problem, but even he leaves a lot of gaps and questions that need answering. I realize that I am taking somewhat of a dissident position by arguing that Jewish influence is not quite as significant as is commonly asserted here, but I felt it necessary to express this viewpoint to provoke thought. What I wrote above is really just a brief remark to get people thinking about some issues regarding just how influential Jews are; it is not a complete explanation and it certainly does not include all the examples and topics I can think of regarding these issues.
Perhaps what we’re dealing with here is a symbiosis of parasites, Jewish and gentile, who collectively form a kind of parasitic superorganism. In this view, it’s not quite accurate to say that the parasites are strictly kosher, although the halls of power certainly reek of the foetor judaicus.
Revilo P. Oliver’s article “Those Awful Protocols” (Liberty Bell, March 1991) makes some interesting observations on what Francisco Quevedo wrote concerning the alliance of Jewish and gentile parasites in the seventeenth century:
“In the ‘Isla de los Monopantos,’ the thirty-ninth and penultimate chapter of his Hora de todos (not later than 1636), Quevedo describes the looting and corruption of Spain by an alliance of Jews and financiers, and attributes to the Jews precisely the purposes set forth in the Protocols.
“In the transparent fiction of the ‘Isla de los Monopantos,’ Quevedo first describes a Congress of leading rabbis from all parts of Europe, who have met in Salonica (then Turkish territory) to plot further means of destroying European civilization. The rabbis were evidently the leaders of Jewry in their respective countries at that time, and Quevedo gives them names that are anagrams of their real names or significant references to them. To the Jewish Congress come the Monopantos, who are the international sect (Quevedo’s term) of governmental ministers and financiers who dominate all the nations of Europe and are in fact the masters of the kings in whose names they rule. The Spaniards among them are designated by anagrammatic names of transparent allusions.
“The governmental financiers and thieves are an international sect because they have rejected Christianity and become atheists after the example of Machiavelli (Quevedo was a staunch Christian), and their purpose is to rob their subjects and reduce them to penury and hence slavery. Their purposes are thus sufficiently close to those of the Jews to permit the two groups to conspire together against civilization. Each party mistrusts the other, of course, but the Jews intend to use the financiers for their own ends and then betray them, while the atheistic politicians, better called Argyrotheists because their god is money, intend to use and betray the Jews in the same way.”
White Republican, I am already very familiar with the works of Revilo Oliver (as well as other major writers who express similar views), and there are many reasons I am not convinced by his arguments, although I cannot fully explain that here. I should mention that Karl Radl once told me that he thought most of Oliver’s works were far too polemical, but Oliver finally reached the crux of the Jewish issue in his chapter “conspiracy or instinct?” (from “The Jewish Strategy”), where he finally presented the idea that Jews may not be harming our societies on a conscious level at all, that they simply do so because of their character and not any conspiracy as was often thought. As you probably have already guessed, I am more in agreement with Radl than with those who believe in a Jewish conspiracy.
I also want to mention that the comparison with parasites and the image of “symbiosis” has, upon deeper thought on the matter in the past, struck me as a very misleading idea when it comes to understanding how Jews function. Furthermore, as I have implied before, I find it unrealistic to talk about a small number of “elite” people that supposedly have skillfully and deeply manipulated everyone (as we were a bunch of stupid cattle and our “rulers” were some kind of god-like superhumans that can make us do virtually anything they want us to do; I simply don’t buy it, and this also the problem with Razvan’s argument), when in reality there are far more important ideological, cultural, and worldview-based currents, tendencies, and forces to explain what happened. These things of course oftentimes – although not necessarily always – rely on activism by various groups and people, but they cannot be realistically explained by reference to a single small group since there are numerous people and factors involved. I believe that people need to realize this in order to actually tackle the real problems and work to change the people’s worldview and the dominant ideology, to essentially focus on what is wrong with our people; as opposed to wasting our time speaking of supposed conspiratorial groups.
When Sheldon Adelson simultaneously supports border security for Israel to preserve its Jewish identity, and open borders for the United States, and backs up these preferences with millions of dollars, is he “unconscious” of what he is doing to the European core population of the United States?
“Jews are the “primary architects” of the major problems facing our race is really questionable.”
As a matter of fact it is perfectly possible. If you’ll take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_%28party_game%29
you’ll see that it is perfectly possible. There are 50-50 chances that a “mafia” of 50 to conquer a 10 000 community of “innocents”. Of course their strategy is to keep everybody “innocent” while killing any would be “detective”. Probably it is even more fun to convince the “innocents” that the “detectives” really are the “village idiots” or “vampires” that have to be lynched.
To make things worse there are lots of “traitors” among the “innocents”. Those who only want to make money, those who were somehow wronged by the “innocents” and possibly want revenge or just another tribe to be accepted in, opportunists, psychopaths, narcissists, maniacs, you can take into account the “Stockholm syndrome”, and so on.
A very good essay. Positive thinking is only good as the belief in ultimate victory. Otherwise, it is a concession to defeat. So, we have to thread our way through life with our goal in mind and our enemies in mind. Both must exist as clear images.
I think there is a golden mean for just about everything in life, and you can imagine a continuum of too little or too much that applies to all subjects. To little or too much food is bad, as is too little or too much rain, etc. This seems to me to be almost a universal truth with universal application, applying also to the level of positivity and negativity within a political movement and its message, as well as applying to the level of emphasis on loving one’s own versus hostility to enemies.
Finding the golden mean is probably related to maximizing the effectiveness of a particular strategy, goal or project. While too much positivity isn’t helpful, I find that in my personal life being mostly positive makes me more effective and efficient. For example, I choose to love my job, am excited about opportunities, am thankful for the vast blessings I have in my life and look forward to each day. This keeps me motivated and productive. Were I to choose pessimism and focus on the darkness out there, I would be reluctant to crawl out of bed in the morning.
In the quest for the golden mean, I often feel that WN is a bit on the negative side, at least there does not seem to be any shortage of doomsaying, anger and dark clouds. Is this optimizing effectiveness? I am not in any position to know, but for me personally I can only visit WN sites occaisonally because I can only handle so much darkness and then need to take a break from it for my own psychological well-being.
I certainly don’t agree with stifling articles and discussions of serious and important subjects due to a need to “always keep it positive”. The world has many dark and ugly things that need to be known and dissected. But a little more positivity injected into the mix would not be a bad thing in the quest for balance, in my humble opinion.
Very confusing article. I don’t really know what your getting at. You attack the abstraction of something “positive” with more abstractions. Who are these positive attitude people you are talking about? Are we even engaging our enemy in any realistic way? Who is the enemy?
Timing is everything, and it’s just not the right time for White Men to assert themselves in a realistic way. Too many bad Jews and anti-White White Men still hold the reigns of power. What we want is power, not the masses on our side.
I disagree that you have to “hate” your enemies. What we need to do is not fall into their false paradigm of morality. We need to find ways to EXCLUDE people and ideas. To a liberal, this is hateful and immoral. So really, exclusion is the first place to start.
Jonathon Bowden made the great point that we are in a struggle with people that have a a different morality. I would add further, they have a completely different consciousness. A lower consciousness of the masses, which has ascended to the be all/end all morality. The triumph of the inferior: The lower races and gender are taking full advantage.
Can’t wait till they lose and they will.
At present, I don’t think we can do anything. We just have to wait till these idiots fall on their sword, and they will.
The love of money is the root of all evil. As it becomes increasingly unprofitable for Whites to turn on their own race, many Whites will become “racially conscious,” only because of economic expediency. Most people only care about money.
Eventually, White Men will lose all compassion and turn on the system. I really don’t see that happening for awhile.
And finally, do you really want to save all White people? Aren’t huge portions of the population beyond repair? I would say, at this point, most White people are more an enemy of the traditional right than anyone.
When you say love your race and hate its enemies, do you mean love and hate as principles as opposed to the feelings of love and hate which can be totally irrational? If so, then love and hate can be acts of the will, no?
I don’t think love and hate are acts of will or can be controlled by will, which is why the Christian injunction to love one’s enemies is so horrible: one literally can’t love or hate on command, but one can torture oneself trying and deceive oneself and others about one’s true feelings.
The idea that it is bad to hate is as ricidulous as the idea that it is bad to blush, or get angry, or for one’s pupils to dialiate, or to be startled by unexpected noises, etc. These are all automatic biological reactions to certain objective stimuli, which are not under one’s conscious control.
Very true. I was hoping I was reading it wrong. But having been around too many people who think one can control everything, self -doubt sneaks in. There was this Buddhist meditation I read where one is supposed to extend loving kindness to the whole world gradually. I wondered at the time if that meant I was supposed to deny I hated someone guts or was not totally repulsed by a drunk jerk urinating off a balcony. I had a suspicion that the non-Asian Buddhist writer had mixed up exoteric with esoteric in her western middle class mind. (been there, done that) I am still sorting the seeds.
I think a conflation occurs over time and people start interpreting love your enemies to mean that we have no enemies. Or that if we do, it’s because we made them and it’s all our fault – and that is disastrous. All over America this meme is inculcated in little boys by women teachers saying it take two to fight: an utter lie to anyone with dignity. In any case, the average man needs to be angry at least in order to fight. The Warrior Saints are rare. Ali is said to have been about to kill someone when the man spat in his face. Ali let him up. The man asked why and Ali replied, “Because I got angry.” I interpret Christ’s statement at this level.
Do I detect some confusion over “love your enemies” and love the enemies of the nation or love the enemies of God? Our personal enemies tend to be on the petty side. God does not love Satan and has reserved the Lake of Fire for Lucifer and his angels so when Jesus said to his followers for them to love their enemies that is exactly what he meant. Why one would love the enemies of Christ or of the Nation is beyond me. God hates a lot of things. Emulate Him and not some wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Well, Sandy, the interpretation of the meme ‘ love your enemies’ really depends upon in which Christian denomination one was brought up, or the one, one adopts. That is part of the problem with Christianity these days. it is no longer whole. Schism upon schism happens over interpretations all the time. It is okay if one is secure in one’s beliefs, but how does one explain the spiritual warfare going on in Central and South America between Evangelicals and Catholics? Do you think it is just coincidence that the new Pope is from South America?
Christianity is certainly no longer whole which is an excellent way to describe it. It’s a mess and I hope it gets it together again. However, it is part of our inheritance and although it is hopeless today we can learn from it’s history. No point throwing that out. We know Jesus had enemies and that he talked about the ultimate fate of them so we can conclude that he has no intention of forgiving His enemies. We can learn from that and from the historical European Christian interpretation of it. So I go easy on my enemies but the enemies of my race and country are something else.
I am not qualified to comment on the spiritual warfare going on in South America but as for the Pope coming from South America his parents emigrated to the Argentine from Germany so although he is from South America he is still one of the boys.
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