894 words
Since our last update, we have received fourteen new donations totaling $4,745. That means that our total so far is $34,069.29. Our goal is to raise $50,000 by October 31, so we are $15,930.71 away from our goal, a lot of money to raise in just a few days! Again, I want to thank all of our donors for their generous support.
Some of you may be wondering what difference an individual donation makes. For a small organization operating on the edge, it makes a big difference indeed. Last year’s Summer Fundraiser brought in $40,325. As it turned out, in 2012, Counter-Currents took in $103,021 in total revenue (from sales and donations), of which $62,749 was paid back out for business expenses (printing, royalties and honoraria for authors, office supplies, etc.), meaning that the total profit from Counter-Currents was $40,272–just under the amount raised during our Summer Fundraiser.
The profits were divided equally between Mike Polignano and me and accounted for the lion’s share of our incomes in 2012. My total income in 2012 was $22,191, which consisted of $20,136 from Counter-Currents and $2,055 from selling books from my personal library. I don’t quite know how I managed, but I am still here. I should add that I also had the considerable luxury of paying for writings by the likes of Gregory Hood, F. Roger Devlin, James O’Meara, etc. from the business coffers.
So if you were wondering where your donations go, the answer is: I live on them. Without your donations, I would have to find a different livelihood and turn Counter-Currents into just another Right-wing hobby project. Of course I could make more at Starbucks. But the work would be less meaningful.
Since I decided to freshen this appeal with the voices of some of our writers and friends, we have heard from Jef Costello, Kerry Bolton, Andrew Hamilton, Juleigh Howard-Hobson, Gregory Hood, Tito Perdue, Ingrid Rimland, and John Morgan. Now Andy Nowicki has added his voice to the chorus:
There are many excellent reasons to help support Counter-Currents financially, but I would like to relate what I find to be the most salient and compelling one. Simply put, out of the vast myriad of contemporary media organs, outlets, and institutions, Counter-Currents is only one of a handful that manfully resist the oppressive, relentless homogenization of ideas, ethics, and aesthetics taking place in our sadly decaying, gangrenously blighted, cancerously degenerate culture today.
Week after week, Greg Johnson’s online journal provides thoughtful, provocative, intellectually fearless articles from writers who are engaged, informed, and unabashedly nonconformist in orientation. A reader needn’t agree with everything, and may strongly disagree with a great deal, while still at the same time appreciating the fierce counter-blast that Counter-Currents defiantly delivers to the ever-sneering and insufferably censorious face of a know-nothing contemporary Zeitgeist as arrogant as it is decadent.
Johnson’s print company, meanwhile, has published an impressive catalogue of books: both fiction and non-fiction, which, while dizzying in their diversity of topics (and I use this often irritating buzzword in its ironically best possible sense), nevertheless uphold standards of literary excellence even as they challenge contemporary norms on matters of genuine significance.
I am proud to have two books published by Counter-Currents, with a third on the way. I count myself blessed to be among such a talented stable of authors, both old and new, established and current. As adept wordsmith and Counter-Currents-published poetess Juleigh Howard-Hobson wrote recently, the works put out by this publisher aren’t likely to receive much mainstream support. Thus, it is up to us—the vanguard, if you will, those ahead of the proverbial curve, to look after one another and make sure that our own are taken care of.
I make a similar point in my piece “Alt Right Art”; in order to fight the depredations of political correctness, we must insure that “our” artists have space to operate, free from pressure to conform to what our adversaries find to be palatable or “acceptable.” In short, we need the freedom to be determinedly and implacably UNacceptable wherever and whenever we deem it appropriate to do so. We need, that is a degree of clout, and clout can only be assured through our seeing to the continued financial independence of our benefactors.
Therefore a donation to Counter-Currents is a very real vote for all of our continued artistic and editorial liberty. It is an investment in our future as freethinkers. Please consider making a contribution to the cause of true intellectual liberty.
* * *
To help Counter-Currents, you can make two different types of donations:
- First, you can make is a single donation of any size.
- Second, you can make a recurring donation of any size.
Recurring donations are particularly helpful, since they allow us better to predict and plan for the future. We have added several new levels for recurring donations. Please visit our Donations page for more information.
We can also customize the amount of a monthly donation.
There are several ways to make one-time donations:
- The easiest is through Paypal. For a one-time donation, just use the following button:
- You can send check, money order, or credit card payment by mail. Just print out our donation form in Word or PDF.
- You can make a secure credit card donation direct from our Donation page.
Please give generously!
Thank you for your loyal readership and support.
Greg Johnson
Editor-in-Chief
Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd.
12 Comments
I would donate if you dropped the anti-semitism.
I would drop the anti-Semitism for free, if Jews would drop their anti-whitism.
That comment just earned you 5 dollars.
Karl,
For God’s sake…if this forum dropped its criticism of the Jews there would be little left to discus.
The NR, in accord with Europe’s long criticism of this tribe, recognizes that nearly all of the ills that currently plague the West and its people are either directly or indirectly caused by Jewish policy and actions. From Sal of Tarsus to Franz Boas and Trotsky, Jews have played an unequaled role in the creation of malicious actions directly leveled against us. This forum simply, and unapologetically, chronicles them for all to see and consider.
Please reconsider a donation, wont you?
I won’t donate to an organisation that demonises me and other jews(shockingly the children are not even spared).
Once i was willing to be anti-semitic. Hell, if hitler’s accusations against the jews were correct, then mass extermination would have been necessary. But i looked into the matter: it’s all bs– from holocaust denial to.
My comment went a little ballistic…
… From holocaust denial to jewish bolshevism.
Karl, if you’re Jewish, I don’t want your help. Obviously, we can’t join with Jews when an essential part of our agenda is to completely separate ourselves from them.
Given his chutzpah in asking that Counter-Currents drop its anti-Semitism, I had my suspicions that “Karl” was actually a Jew, and that suspicion turns out to be correct. “Oi veh! Why the hate!” such Jews will whine. “Why are we persecuted?”
Curiously, “Karl” kvetches that “the children are not even spared,” an odd phrase which is out of place in this context and sounds like it has been copied and pasted from some other context.
“Karl” is probably just a self-important child of Israel seeking to wind up goyim. Such Jews are fairly easy to spot and brush off. However, it seems likely that Jewish trolls will become more sophisticated over time. As the following article shows, the state of Israel employs a significant number of trolls:
http://rt.com/news/israel-recruit-students-undercover-509/
Given that these trolls are professionally organized, directed, and funded, given the increasing importance of social media, and given the cunning of the Jews, we can expect that Jewish trolls will become increasingly insidious and will increasingly work collectively rather than individually. Working collectively doesn’t necessarily mean having many Jews deliver kosher spam to a particular target at the same time; they could divide work among themselves so as to derail discussion and foment division, with some acting as concern trolls and others acting as reckless extremists. The Jews wouldn’t necessarily seek to be the biggest trolls around, but they would seek to effectively enlist others as trolls by creating and polarizing divisions, after which these divisions have a life of their own. These “synthetic trolls” can then do the bulk of their work. After all, Jews think of themselves as managers rather than laborers.
Nope, not a troll. I am a genuinely honest person who wants to know what the truth is. I once toyed with being an anti-semite (a self-hating jews, i guess), but it turned out that anti-semitism is empirically wrong.
That said, your camp does have some valid points. I agree in principle with your not wanting jews in your society. We have a tendency to dominate the societies we inhabit — financially, intellectually, scientifically, artistically, etc. Clearly anyone who wants a society that is demographically white and that is culturally white cannot have a class of people who dominate the culture and identify as non-white. I totally get it. I’m on your side.
This is basically what the late Lawrence Auster said. However, where he drew the line was the idea that jews are responsible for all the ills; and that all jews are interconnected in a conspiracy to bring down the west. As i said, i would be willing to believe this … if it were true. Do you even believe this? See, i don’t know what your camps believes any more. Do you still deny the holocaust? Mark weber doesn’t…
My point is that your critique of jews is too broad and too muddled; it’s too easy for your enemies to draw false conclusions about your views, which will ultimately be to your detriment. Come out with a concise manifesto on the jewish problem.
Anyway, i might yet donate. We will see.
Karl, you obviously have not even read this website or my writings elsewhere, which for a scrupulous person would be a prerequisite for criticizing this project.
In particular, I suggest you read “Our Fault?” https://counter-currents.com/2012/04/our-fault/ and ask yourself if I hold that “jews are responsible for all the ills.” No, they are responsible for a lot of them, but not all of them.
Read “White Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism” https://counter-currents.com/2011/08/white-nationalism-jewish-nationalism/ and ask yourself if I hold that “all jews are interconnected in a conspiracy to bring down the west.” No, not “all” Jews are the problem, but from a pragmatic point of view, we need to assume that they all are, to protect ourselves from Jewish infiltrators.
Read my “Dealing with the Holocaust” http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/07/dealing-with-the-holocaust/ if you want my views of revisionism. Even if the revisionists are right about every particular, there is still “holocaust enough” left over. So instead of shrinking the holocaust, I think White Nationalists need to innoculate ourselves against all holocaust-based emotional and moral blackmail and also focus on drawing our own pro-white lessons from the holocaust rather than having anti-white lessons continually foisted on us.
A common thread runs through my outlook on all these points: a pragmatic orientation toward pactice, toward the future–not a merely theoretical orientation toward facts, toward what has already happened. Understanding what really happened is important, but ultimately I am more focused on the future. My goal is to create a white homeland. From that perspective, arguing too much about the past has diminishing returns, since we are interested in creating a new world, not in cataloging to the last iota the properties of the old one we wish to replace.
For instance, after we determine that Jews play a large role in our ongoing racial decline, it is foolish to get lost in quibbles about the details. From my point of view, the undeniable Jewish role in our decline is far less important than the fact that, in the here and now, organized Jewry is the single greatest impediment to whites taking control of our destiny and solving our racial problems. Once you look at the Jewish problem from the point of view of pactice, from the point of view of giving our race a future again, it comes into much clearer focus, and the questions about causality and blame lose their urgency, beyond a certain point.
From my point of view, it is absurd to agonize about whether “some Jews” are good. Of course some are good. (Not enough, but some.) Yet, from a pragmatic point of view, so what? If we are going to free ourselves, we must exclude all Jews from our movement and our homeland, since (1) Jews seek to infiltrate and control their opposition, (2) we can’t tell sincerely good Jews from bad infiltrators, and (3) the hour is too late for any more foolishness. Again, once one adopts a future-oriented, practical point of view, certain fine details just do not matter. They are nothing but nerd bait.
As for revisionism about the holocaust, it is a wholly legitimate enterprise which should be entirely legal. But from a pragmatic point of view, I don’t think it matters that much to the White Nationalist project. If our project hinged on what happened during World War II, then we are in real trouble, because no matter how dramatic their results, the revisionists are still not going to reduce the number of innocent Jewish dead to zero. There will always be “holocaust enough” to stop us, IF we can be stopped by that sort of thing. But I can’t and won’t be stopped by it, because even if the Holocaust is everything Eli Wiesel says it is, it does not change the fact that, today, it is whites who are the victims of genocide, and Jews are overrepresented among the perpetrators and the people standing in the way of our salvation.
Lawrence Auster spent years of his life lying about white nationalism in the service of his tribe. Karl’s comments show the impact of Auster’s work at poisoning discourse on jewish matters.
White Republican,
they could divide work among themselves so as to derail discussion and foment division, with some acting as concern trolls and others acting as reckless extremists. The Jews wouldn’t necessarily seek to be the biggest trolls around, but they would seek to effectively enlist others as trolls by creating and polarizing divisions, after which these divisions have a life of their own
There are probably few matters that jews take more seriously than undermining white cohesion. In line with this premise, I suspect that jews also work at the exact opposite. Rather than promoting white division, they promote white unity but unity based on flawed in-group definition.
With the divide and rule approach, the goal is to keep whites fighting with each other by promoting divisive topics (religion, sub-ethnicity, etc.). With the reverse approach, the goal would be to keep whites committed to in-group definitions based on anything other than race/ethnicity. Both approaches undermine white cohesion, and like the “concern troll”-“violent extremist” pairing they naturally complement each other.
I suspect that at least some of the comments that follow this general pattern in the firmament of rightist web sites are trolls:
White nationalism/ethno-nationalism is good ideal. But it’s not feasible because of X, so we must do Y instead.
Invariably, X is something false but superficially plausible, and Y is always an encouragement for whites to define their in-groups in creedal, abstract, propositional or otherwise non-racial terms.
Discourse poisoning is definitely something that should be examined in depth.
I recently looked at Eric Cole’s book, Advanced Persistent Threat (Waltham, MA: Syngress, 2013). While the book is concerned with hacking, some of its ideas on “advanced persistent threats” appear relevant to discourse poisoning. We’re certainly dealing with an “advanced persistent threat” in the form of the Jews.
For reasons stated above, I think that discourse poisoning will increasingly be conducted by “advanced persistent threats” rather than by “traditional threats,” threats which will be organized, advanced, adaptive, persistent, stealthy, and highly targeted. Cole writes (p. 24):
“The APT is not an individual or a small hacker cell that was used with traditional threats. Today they are very well organized, well-structured organizations. The steps of the attack are broken down into clear division of labor and each person on the team is well trained in their respective skill. Think of a Fortune 500 company focused on offensive operations and you are starting to understand the structure of these organizations. Many of the attack methods are under strict change management and are constantly updated to increase the success rate and decrease the chance of being caught.”
Cole also writes (p. 20):
“Advanced does not stand for the sophistication of the attack, it stands for the sophistication of the attacker. The adversary, originally used to refer to attacks from China, is very advanced in what they are capable of doing. However they are going to launch targeted attacks and focus on what works. While the adversary is very advanced the methods they use are very standard, common and most importantly they work.”
The techniques that attackers use may be quite simple in themselves. But a collectivity can use such techniques in a way which is intelligent, targeted, concentrated, continuous, and adaptive: the best minds among the bands of discourse poisoners issue the prescriptions, the targets are carefully chosen, the attacks are concentrated and persistent, and the techniques used are perfected over time.