2,417 words
Part 2 of 2 (part 1 here)
Translations: French, Polish, Spanish
“This ain’t no party. This ain’t no disco.
This ain’t no foolin’ around.”
—Talking Heads, “Life During Wartime”
Alternatives to Bourgeois Man
Fortunately, not all men are of the Bourgeois type. In terms of Plato’s psychology, the alternatives to desire-driven Bourgeois man are men who are ruled by reason and by spiritedness, i.e., intellectuals and warriors. If Bourgeois man corresponds to the Hindu Vaishya (merchant) and Sudra (laboring) castes, then the man ruled by reason is the Brahmin, and the spirited man is the Kshatriya.
The intellectual’s highest values are the true, the good, and the beautiful. He hates the dishonest, sordid, and ugly more than death itself. Thus he is willing to die for matters of principle. The warrior’s highest value is honor, and he fears dishonor more than death itself. Thus warriors are willing to die over matters of honor. If intellectuals and warriors can conquer the fear of death over matters of principle and honor, then they can conquer all lesser fears as well.
This makes intellectuals and warriors much harder to rule than Bourgeois types. Thus the leadership of any effective revolutionary movement needs to be composed of intellectuals and warriors rather than Bourgeois producer-consumers. Specifically, they need to be intellectuals and warriors by nature, in terms of their deepest values and moral psychology, not merely in terms of their professions. There are businessmen and bricklayers who are warriors and intellectuals by nature.
Intellectuals come in two kinds: those who are interested in pure theory and those who have practical commitments and aims. According to Cicero:
When Pythagoras was once asked who philosophers were, he replied that life seemed to him to resemble the games in the Olympic festival: some men sought glory, others to buy and sell at the games, and some men had come neither for gain nor applause, but for the sake of the spectacle and to understand what was done and how it was done. In the same way, in life, some are slaves of ambition or money, but others are interested in understanding life itself. These give themselves the name of philosophers (lovers of wisdom), and they value the contemplation and discovery of nature beyond all other pursuits. (Tusculan Disputations V, III, 8)
Here we have the three Platonic types: the spirited men competing for honor, the appetitive men hawking sausages, and the intellectual men watching from the stands. Pythagoras’s point is that the pure intellectual is a spectator not a participant in the great game of life, including politics.
Pure theorists, however, do not make revolutions. Thus in the metapolitical context, intellectual and warrior types may be distinct, but they should not be separate. Each type needs the other. Thus they should work together and strive to embody one another’s virtues.
Intellectuals naturally love ideas. To prevent them from becoming unmoored among abstractions, they need to remind themselves of the concrete groups to which they belong and for which they are fighting.
Warrior types are naturally attached to concrete groups and predisposed to take offense and fight over matters of honor. But intellectual discretion is the better part of valor: one has to know who one’s friends are, who one’s enemies are, and when and how to fight effectively.
A Moral Case for White Nationalism
Offering a moral case for White Nationalism combines the virtues of the intellectual and the warrior, because it is an intellectual defense for loving one’s own people and fighting for them. This is not the place to set forth an ethical theory. But I will at least sketch a few of its desirable elements in broad strokes.
1. Objectivity
I believe that moral theories and moral judgments can be founded on facts and supported by reason. Thus they can be true if they meet objective criteria—or false if they do not measure up.
2. Biological Foundations
Following Plato and Aristotle, I believe that an objective morality can be founded in human nature, specifically an account of human self-actualization. Since man is both an individual and a social being, objective morality deals with both individual and collective self-actualization.
3. Universality
If moral and political right and wrong are based on human nature, what are the ethical implications of the diversity of human nature? Namely, the differences between men, women, and children, and the differences between the races and sub-races of mankind? At minimum, we can say that there will be some universal moral principles, in view of our common humanity. For our purposes, two universal principles stand out.
First, it is natural, normal, and good for all people love one’s own—to be partial to people and places that are close to you—to have stronger or weaker obligations based on proximity or distance (including genetic distance) from one’s self. These spirited attachments—suitably refined and enlightened by the intellect—are the proper basis of political nationalism.
Second, the group has metaphysical and moral priority over the individual. The preservation of the group is more important than the preservation of the individual, because the individual is an offshoot of his people, and, when his finite existence is over, he lives on through his people. Thus, when faced with the choice of sacrificing oneself for the good of one’s people or living on at their expense, one should choose self-sacrifice for the greater good. This is the foundation of effective White Nationalist politics, since men who are willing to make sacrifices—and even court death—for their people are far harder for the system to cow and control than Bourgeois types, who value their own lives and comfort over the existence of their people.
4. Objective Pluralism
To the extent that there is a common human nature, there are universal moral principles. To the extent that human nature is diversified by age, sex, and race, we should expect variations and particularities among moral principles.
First of all, we would expect universal principles to be applied differently in different cases. For instance, it makes sense that self-sacrifice for the group should fall more to males than females, since individual males are more expendable from a reproductive point of view. Furthermore, although it makes sense for the young and strong to fight, it also make sense that self-sacrifice among males should fall more to older males, since they have less life ahead of them anyway, and to males who have reproduced rather than those who have not.
Second, we should expect different particular rights and duties for men, women, and children. Furthermore, when we look at the fine-grained norms of social life, we should expect these to vary between races and sub-races, for if their natures are truly different, then the conditions of their actualization will be different as well.
But this does not imply moral relativism if that means that the right way of life is merely a matter of subjective choice. Instead, what we have here is a completely objective form of relativism, in the same way that the most comfortable pair of shoes varies from foot to foot, but in completely objective ways.
The objective pluralism of some moral principles means that there is not a “one-size-fits-all” way of life for all peoples. It implies that any attempt to create a one-size-fits-all system will be about as comfortable and elegant as one-size-fits-all shoes and clothes. Objective moral pluralism is thus one of the foundations of political pluralism—including ethnonationalism—whereas one-world globalism is the political equivalent of outfitting the world in totalitarian boiler suits and flip flops.
5. Reciprocity
The Golden Rule of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” counsels taking a certain moral risk in behaving towards others not as they are actually behaving toward you, but as you would like them to. This sort of risk is necessary to expand one’s moral community, and it is richly rewarded when one’s moral dealings are reciprocated in kind.
But because morality is about self-actualization, individual and collective, one should not allow one’s moral risks to turn into moral exploitation and parasitism. Nothing is more obscene than exploiting people through their virtues. Thus, at a certain point, it is necessary to demand reciprocity as a condition for further dealings. Since white dispossession involves a host of non-reciprocal moral demands—for instance, only white countries are under the alleged moral obligation to destroy themselves through immigration—simply demanding moral reciprocity would bring many of our problems to a screaming halt.
Moral Seriousness
I have been involved with the White Nationalist scene since the year 2000. My experience has been overwhelmingly positive, but not entirely so. The hardest thing to take has not been the crooks and crazies, but the pervasive lack of moral seriousness, even among the best-informed and most principled White Nationalists. I know people who sincerely believe that our race is being subjected to an intentional policy of genocide engineered by the organized Jewish community. Yet when faced with a horror of this magnitude, they lead lives of consummate vanity, silliness, and self-indulgence.
I am convinced that more people will get involved with our cause if we follow two rules: (1) each person gets to determine his own level of explicitness and involvement, and (2) the rest of us have to respect those decisions. But our cause will never move forward unless we can also persuade people to (1) do everything they can within their own individually determined comfort zones, and (2) expand their comfort zones, so they are willing to take greater risks for the cause. But to do that, we need to grapple with the issue of moral seriousness.
I know White Nationalists who would run down the street in broad daylight shouting “thief!” at the top of their lungs if their car were being stolen. But when confronted with the theft of our whole civilization and the very future of our race, they merely mutter euphemisms in the shadows.
I know White Nationalists who are fully appraised of the gravity of the Jewish problem, who have seen the Jewish takeover and subversion of one Right-wing institution after another, and yet still think that they can somehow “use” Jews.
I know White Nationalists who are fully aware of the corruption of the political establishment yet still get caught up in election campaigns. I know outright National Socialists who have donated far more to Republicans than they have to the movement.
I know White Nationalists who spend $50,000 a year on drinks and lap dances—or $30,000 a year dining out—or $25,000 a year on their wardrobes—or $100,000 on a wedding, yet bitterly complain about the lack of progress in the movement.
I know White Nationalists who tithe significant portions of their income to churches which pursue anti-white policies, yet never consider regular donations to the pro-white cause.
I know people with convictions to the right of Hitler who argue that we should never claim that we are fighting for the white race or against Jewish power, but who still think that somehow our people will want to follow us rather than 10,000 other race-blind, Jew-friendly conservative groups.
I know White Nationalists who believe that our race is being exterminated, yet insist that our enemies “know not what they do,” that they are deceiving themselves, that they are fundamentally people of good will, and that this is all some sort of ghastly misunderstanding.
I know White Nationalists who would never admit to hating anyone or anything, even the vulture gnawing at their entrails.
None of them are being forced to behave this way. All of them are operating within their self-defined comfort zones. All of them could do more, even within their comfort zones. So why do they fail to comport themselves with the urgency and moral seriousness called for by the destruction of everything we hold dear?
I want to suggest two explanations. First, deep in their hearts, they don’t believe that we can win, so they aren’t really trying. Second, and more importantly, they are still wedded to the Bourgeois model of life.
People display their true priorities when facing death.
The true intellectual values truth more than life itself. Socrates is a hero to intellectuals because when forced to choose between giving up philosophy or death, he chose death. Most intellectuals do not face that choice, but if they do, they hope they are capable of heroism too, for nothing reveals fidelity to truth more clearly than a martyr’s death.
The true warrior values honor more than life itself. Leonidas and the 300 are heroes to warriors because when faced with death or dishonor, they preferred death. Again, not every warrior faces the choice so starkly, but if he does, he hopes he will choose a glorious death, for nothing reveals fidelity to honor more clearly than a heroic death.
Bourgeois man values nothing higher than life itself. He fears nothing more than a violent death. Therefore, there is no form of heroic death that demonstrates true fidelity to Bourgeois values. The true intellectual dies a martyr. The true warrior dies on the battlefield. The true Bourgeois looks forward to a comfortable retirement and dying in bed.
Yes, countless American soldiers have died fighting for “freedom,” “democracy,” and college money. But they have been suckered out of their lives by men who think there is nothing worth dying for, so that the Bourgeoisie can make money, play golf, and die in bed.
You only have one death. Thus even people who would glory in heroic martyrdom have to choose their battles wisely and make their deaths count. Yes, you have to pace yourself. Yes, you have to save yourself. Yes, you can’t live as if every day were your last.
But these truisms easily serve as rationalizations for cowardice. Because, at a certain point, you have to ask what you are saving yourself for. You can’t take it with you. And ultimately, accomplishments do not come from saving ourselves but from spending ourselves. What we do not give, will be taken by death in the end.
Yet the whole Bourgeois dream is premised on evading this simple, grim reality. Bourgeois man seeks eternal springtime and perpetual peace, a “happily ever after” on sunlit putting greens, free of tragic choices and tragic grandeur, free of ideals that can pierce his heart and shed his blood.
But you can’t do battle with Sauron while playing it safe. You can’t overthrow a system you are invested in. You can’t challenge the rulers of this world and count on reaching retirement age. In the face of world-annihilating evil, we can no longer afford to be such men.
10 Comments
Words of Fire to warm the Soul and motivate the Body. We’re not getting out of this alive. Why fall on our swords and pens when we can use them? As the Book of the Law says, “From gold forge steel.”
This was beautifully written. I strongly agree with Mr. Johnson’s description of what is moral. A question that comes to mind is, however, what makes this moral theory more than just a personal opinion? The proponents of universalist moral theories can also put forth a strong counter argument against White Nationalism, supported by influential writers and theorists (even the last few popes). Where does the warrant or authority for this moral theory emanate from? If its moral authority derives from the flow of logic or its agreement with ancient philosophers, it rests on a shaky foundation.
I propose that morality ultimately derives its authority from a higher power, and where this is lacking, the cause is uninspired. This is especially the case when significant sacrifice is called for. For example, it is difficult to conceive of Leonidas and his 300 willing to march off and sacrifice themselves on the field of battle for an obscure philosophical principle or simply for fame and honor. The Spartan cause was revealed by the Delphic oracle to have divine sanction, and their sacrifice would prevent the destruction of Sparta. While warriors have sacrificed themselves for honor, in duels or engagements, that has always tended to be a rare thing. As this article indicates, rationality is a small part of the human experience; the human soul needs emotion, a feeling of rightness and goodness to be inspired to great deeds. Certainly in the U.S., every great cause or undertaking requiring sacrifice, from the Revolutionary War to Manifest Destiny to the Crusade in Europe, has been seen as being God’s purpose.
This suggests that atheism is unhelpful. Of course, calls to a higher power are probably inappropriate for a venue of intellectual discourse such as Counter Currents. However, to communicate this moral theory to the masses, for it to compete with universalist theories, it must have that same divine sanction. White Nationalism is right and moral because the almighty Creator himself wills the survival of his European children as a healthy and distinct population group. This is evident in the greater mass of scripture, in natural law, seen in universal principles throughout the fabric of life. That is the authority that this moral theory must ultimately own to be triumphant.
I disagree. The (White) world is moving away from relying on belief in God for people to be generally good people, make moral arguments, and make sacrifices for each other.
Greg has taken the NANR position of pluralism on this issue. By avoiding the ultimate authority being some vague, abstract, spiritual mumbo-jumbo Greg’s argument has remained open to those sober-minded pro-Whites who don’t require some higher power and pie-in-the-sky afterlife to make sacrifices for their people. At the same time, as your comment makes perfectly clear, your position remains an open possibility for those inclined to it.
The NANR position counts on individuals such as yourself to make Greg’s points to people who agree with you. We want pro-Whites with every remotely reconcilable belief to have a place at the table, agreeing with us on the basics. We warmly welcome and encourage representatives of every kind of group to make these arguments in terms that speak to their respective group and get them on the same page. You should avoid attacking Greg’s approach (and others who have adopted it to their group) and focus on adapting it to reach your audience. This is the path to success, comrade.
I assume that you are opposed to the Alex Linders of the world mocking and excoriating the Sam Francises of the world for not taking public stands on the Jewish problem. But how, exactly, do you propose to persuade people to expand their comfort zones? And really, isn’t the who comfort-zone thing primarily about dealing with the Jewish problem?
It is an asshole move to badger people to make potentially harmful declarations in public forums, and then conclude from their reluctance that they are bad people or enemy collaborators. It never occurs to such creeps that maybe their target agrees with them substantially but is not in a secure enough position to take a public stance on a toxic issue. Or maybe he is playing a long game, and his effectiveness as an agent for the cause would be compromised by gratifying someone’s desire to draw him out in public for a single, ineffectual avowal of anti-Semitism. If everyone who agreed with us publicly declared their allegiance and lost their jobs and social standing, the system would be stronger and the movement would be weaker.
Since you mentioned Sam Francis, he was one of the founders of The Occidental Quarterly, which takes a very strong line on the Jewish question. Yet Francis himself did not devote his columns to that topic. Why? Because he judged he could do more good by reaching more people on race and conservative political issues than by speaking about the Jewish question to a much smaller audience. That was his decision, and we should respect that. But we should also note that he died with the credibility he was hoarding fully intact. But again, our achievements come from spending ourselves, not saving ourselves, and what we do not give is taken by death in the end.
The best way to expand people’s comfort zones is to get to know them, earn their trust, find our their life situations, their limits, their long-term goals, etc. Then one is in a position to urge them to do and say more. But that takes more than just online “community.”
Loath though I am to become involved in Board Wars, on this topic you have raised one issue where I have more than a dog in the fight.
I, and many of us, have a kennel of dogs in this fight. Greg Johnson addressed the most salient of issues. I would like to address one or two equally salient points.
Sutton Who? in blockquote:
Dr. Francis paid a horribly high price for the implicit criticism of Judaism that he wrote. He was banned from professional employment, shunned by his former “Conservative,” “right wing” allies, and died horribly alone in miserable, grinding poverty.
For a mere hint of criticism of one small aspect of things Judaica, Dr. Francis became an object lesson for those who dared to follow in his footsteps. If he had bent the knee the slightest bit, and burned the smallest pinch of incense on the altar, Dr. Francis would have retired a tenured faculty member at any number of Southern colleges and universities.
A lot of people look to us and say, “Get in the ring! You and him duke it out!”
Yet, Brother Who?, you do not post under your own name. In this, many of us follow your example, and for much the same reasons.
Their comfort zones will be removed by a collapsing real economy. They will look for answers, particularly in time, the strongest and most flex answer – a metapolitical philosophy that can transform a Culture, starting where they are.
The best answer is a new Mindset. That’s where we come in.
No, it isn’t, and you have raised an excellent question.
Jews, many tell us, are the disease. Again, like puppies, we chase our tales around a statement of philosophy that makes us into helpless victims, always on the defense, always wondering what just hit us, and how did it do that? How did they do it without firing a shot?
In that framework, called Movement Past, we are simply helpless victims of the vast Jewish Conspiracy. In fact, we MUST shift our thinking to a more politically and philosophically correct statement: WE LET THIS HAPPEN TO US.
Let’s assume Space Aliens come to Earth tomorrow, and took all of the Jews to Israel.
I ask the Covington Question: “And THEN What?”
The Jews have the power over you you allowed them to have over you. Reversing that energy flow, and replacing it with a light of Higher Truth, is the work of today, and the rest of this lifetime.
Focusing on what the Jews did to us – with our implicit approval – without replacing it with a solution that effectively empowers us, reduced us to a permanent Child-like state. Let’s call it Movement Past.
By plugging the energy leaks, we can build a critical mass of resources needed to effect deep social change. The first step is to build that mass within your spirit. The second step is to send money to counter-currents, each and every month, without fail. ALL of us can afford twenty dollars a month; some, more, and some, much more.
The Third Step is up to you. An excellent conceptual framework was developed by Harold Covington, with his Northwest Republic Analytical Framework. In my case, for example, I see myself as the Ambassador from the Future Northwest Republic. From that starting place, I look at the news and ask myself, “How would we address these problems in the Northwest Republic?” It expands my feelings of effectiveness. as I walk from the professional victim model to a better, brighter future, one step at a time, one day at a time, and one contribution to counter-currents at a time.
Especially the contributions to counter-currents part.
“An excellent conceptual framework was developed by Harold Covington, with his Northwest Republic Analytical Framework.”
This is why the white nationalist eurosphere is stalled in first gear, and cannot shift into second, third, and high speed: the persistent assertion by a few people that “we have the solution, the ONLY solution, and there are no better options available – or even conceivable. One must ask: who are YOU to make such an assertion? Other than existing as yet another anonymous ‘screen-name’, sans any WN credentials, sans any known accomplishments, does it not seem a trifle presumptuous to boast of some coming victory based on some imagined future events that have never been adequately scrutinized by the larger body of WN leadership? For whatever Mr. Covington’s merits, to say that his ideas or the be all and end all of WN discourse, tactics, strategy, as well as the very foundations needed for building a future WN nation-state is utterly and unconscionably premature.
Consider, if you will, that this same drama has – and is – being played out in other WN venues, both of the crass and crude and the lofty and intellectual, as well as everywhere in between. Again, and yet again, the same refrain is heard: WE have the ONLY answer. That insistent arrogance is WHY the white nationalist movement has become little more than a collection of frat houses scattered across the Internet, each with its own smug members boasting of their own superior ideas – all the while expecting all the other frat houses will ultimately submit to their oh-so-superior rule.
Thus, you fail to realize something: no one is EVER going to follow Mr. Covington to any degree that will matter. History has judged him, and the verdict is in. No, the answer lies further afield, further ahead, beyond this horizon. We have yet a long way to go. Even so, we will find the Answer. But the time for boastful proclamations is not now. There is yet too much work to be done.
Tying it all back to a moral factor, my thanks to Lord Kitchener for a substantial reply, which deserves another, no less substantial, reply.
Lord Kitchener in blockquotes:
FofC: “An excellent conceptual framework was developed by Harold Covington, with his Northwest Republic Analytical Framework.”
The “WN europshere” hopes to make it to first gear. People who acted as if their purpose in life was to place what THEY defined as “White Nationalism” in the worst possible light – ununiform uniforms of the failed Third Reich, satin bedsheets with matching pillow cases as formal organizational attire, “street walks” that ended up testing the limits of the WNists Blue Cross” – again, all seem calculated to drain the energy from what might have moved from a Cause to a Movement.
The Northwest Republic offers the best hope, for several reasons. The most salient of these reasons is this: it does not assume magic will come to save us from what we allowed to be created. It places responsibility where it belongs – on us – and will supply the power needed to meet those responsibilities, those duties to our Ancestors, and our Posterity. It treats the nation-state from a mature political perspective, including the organizational frameworks all too many of us assume will magically fll into place. It even has a draft Constitution. Above all, it looks to the past without being trapped into adopting archaic forms, which will not work in a modern time, much less the future we choose to create. It then ends, in his novels, with communications from our Mars Colony.
Just for fun, go find Pierce’s “White Zion” speech, and see how easily it would be, under the best developed alternative vision to Covington’s, to INTENTIONALLY place us in little island-like Bantustans, surrounded by the demographic tide which would unite solely in their open and active contempt for us.
Against the best alternative thinker in this area, William Pierce, the Northwest Republic wins – game, set and match point.
I might be wrong. Perhaps we can visit Turkey Buzzard Point, or Leith, North Dakota. No, better not. The one is too depressing, the other is too cold.
I, like you, am anonymous. I have already paid a high price for simply mentioning how the NSDAP economic policies worked to a reader of the Carto newspaper. So, we are equal in THAT aspect. Yet, as to the Northwest Republic Analytical Model being “adequately scrutinized by the larger body of WN leadership,” this has been the topic of full and open discussion here, with any and all rational critics welcomed to criticize. They tried, and they failed. They tried, and didn’t get one on the scoreboard. It seems to reflect the Multiplicative Identity of White Nationalist Leadership: Anything times zero is zero. Covington won the debate, as Team Zero staggered on the field, and staggered off.
Nobody has ever I repeat ever said Covington’s ideas are anything other than the best choices we have. Covington himself has simply provided a framework, and we have an opportunity to fill in the blanks with the substance of our lives. It remains the best framework, and calls the bluffs of all alternative Visions for our future.
If you, or anyone, has something better, then, by all means, bring it. If, on the other hand, you, like so many WNist implicitly seem to believe, are waiting for Sky God Pierce or Sky God Uncle Adolf to return from the skies and save us from what we have created, then we shall continue to live like small, helpless Children, waiting for the New Renaissance in vain.
Our Children, and their Children, deserve better, much damn better.
As do we.
“…superior ideas?” This is a joke, right?
Are you referring to Frat House Turkey Buzzard Point, West Virginia, or Frat House Leith, North Dakota?
I do not care if anyone does or does not follow Mr. Covington. You make the Childish mistake of personalizing deeper Adult issues. It’s Covington’s IDEAS that I want people to, if not follow, at least consider and offer better Ideas in their stead. Nobody can, and some have tried, with the usual lack of success one would expect from the Child acting out the role of the Adult, without the painfully gained experience and wisdom of the Adult.
“Work,” absent a greater context, is merely activity without productivity. The necessary but not sufficient first step in such “work” is to send money to counter-currents, each and every month. The greatest context is the overarching goal we work towards; in my case, it is having our Mars Colony receive the first communication from our expedition to Alpha Centauri, where a young lady with my last name captains the ship, and crew.
My Plans and Dreams for the Culture, and the Race, makes that necessary. This is the outworking in the material world of the highest morality possible, to return to from where we came, and to have our Children walk “Among The Stars.” (HT: Kevin Alfred Strom)
The Northwest Republic, as an analytical model with an explicitly metapolitical foundation, is the only framework that makes it remotely possible.
Bravo. Yes, it is the ideas, not personal inclinations.
Excellent article by Mr. Johnson. I believe he is correct in saying that people should be welcomed to act within their comfort zones; once they are acting, the zones tend to get bigger.
The most discouraging thing about any of this is the simple fact that if you decide “to take on the enemy”, you will quite often never get near him before your own people shoot you down.
There are probably three fatal flaws that keep WN’s marginalized, and all three flaws are within us.
One, is the innate idealism of the White race. All those PC lessons and social engineering, often at a simple level of “don’t judge anyone by his race or color”, would never have worked if White people didn’t have a sense of fairplay and equality as big as all outdoors. It’s been cunningly used as a Trojan Horse, well documented elsewhere.
Two, susceptibility to the Bourgeois model. If a man can accumulate enough capital to give his wife and children a comfortable living, he usually (unconsciously, perhaps) considers his obligation to his race fulfilled. For we aren’t only working for our own pleasures and comforts, we are usually working for our families. The family as well as oneself, is put at risk if the enemy is confronted (or even acknowledged as an enemy). This fear of losing his family and their continued comfort and safety has tamed many a WN.
Three, I know there are exceptions, and I know some will hate this last point, but our White women have let us down. They have embraced the ideology of equality, and special treatment for “oppressed minorities”; they have encouraged their men to value material accomplishment over spiritual attainment; and worst of all, they have mated shamelessly with other races, often perversely, proudly so. The fact that nature failed to make black/white pairings infertile is the biggest tragedy of all. But if our women had held strong (or maybe if we had held them to certain standards), even that fertility potential would not have endangered our survival.
I’ve lost a job due to a PC firing for speaking out; no Jew ever got near me, though. The entire thing was handled by either well-meaning or fearful Whites. So forgive my pessimistic outlook.