Counter-Currents
“The White Race Does Not Deserve to Survive” (White Version)
Andrew Hamilton
1,328 words
French translation here
It is a commonplace today that the white race does not deserve to survive. That and philo-Semitism are the two primary pillars of mainstream[1] ideology and public policy. There are many reasons to assert the contrary, but fundamentally, as National Alliance founder William Pierce said with regard to a slightly different version of the statement phrased as a question, “Why should we survive?” is like asking “Why is good better than evil?”
I will deal with this quasi-official Jewish/elite/government doctrine some other time. Today I want to focus on the same statement expressed by frustrated white racialists—in other words, by persons not motivated by hatred and a determination to commit genocide, but dedicated to our survival.
I have not made a catalogue of how many times I’ve seen this particular declaration by whites, but it recurs frequently. Here is a real-life example: “Any population group that doesn’t want to live deserves to die.”
This commonly-encountered argument should be rejected out of hand. Fundamentally, it is an unsupportable type of “self-” (i.e., “blame whites”) flagellation, which takes many forms and is extremely popular. Another example of the impulse is the widespread insistence that no blame may be assigned to Jews, even though the most rudimentary observation demands it.
The assertion also appears to be highly correlated with a strong belief, or rather faith, in either Darwinian evolution or social Darwinism.
Thus, Glenn Miller, 73, a highly capable and courageous street activist, proclaims, “If it is our self-imposed fate to remain irreversible cowards, then our Race does not deserve to live.”
In his case the link with evolutionary thought is explicit:
In her divine wisdom, Mother Nature demands that cowardly species become extinct. Even rats and virus bugs fight to defend their space, and for their right to procreate what they are. But as we are now, the sooner we die out, the better off this world will be, an undeniable fact of nature, proven throughout the natural order imposed on this planet—the natural order that [has] always weeded out, thru extinction, cowardly species one day or another to benefit the fittest.
Note how deeply infused with normative judgments Miller’s evolutionary statement is (“divine wisdom,” “Mother Nature demands,” “cowardly species,” “the sooner we die out, the better off this world will be,” “to benefit the fittest”—given his beliefs, he has to mean Jews, Negroes, and other non-whites), as well as overly-insistent (“an undeniable fact of nature, proven throughout the natural order,” “that [has] always weeded out, thru extinction, cowardly species”).
Miller is hopelessly confused, because he simultaneously maintains:
To blame White people is to blame the victims. Instead, despise the disease spreaders, not those whom the diseases sicken. Despise the Jew parasites! Not the bodies, minds, and souls that these Jew parasites attach themselves to and suck the life’s blood from their unsuspecting victims, draining their sap, strength and very will to resist.
The second statement, though basically correct (collaborators, of course, have also played an indispensable role in genocide), is logically inconsistent with the evolutionary one.
The “deserves to die” viewpoint is expressed as well by William Pierce in “Does America Deserve to Live?” (1975). I have added italics to separate unsupportable value judgments from more or less objective statements which are not italicized:
There have always been only a tiny few who have been willing to take the chances and make the sacrifices upon which the fates of all their fellows have depended.
So long as those few were enough, the nations survived and prospered. When those few were too few, they went under. . . .
And, from the long viewpoint of History, that was right and proper. Those nations live which deserve to live, and those die which deserve to die.
Does America—does the West—deserve to live? Does our race deserve to live?
That question has not yet been answered, but History is deciding the verdict now, and we will know it soon enough. . . .
In the days ahead the righteous will be separated from the unrighteous, and there will be a counting of heads. Then we will see whether the few are too few.
And if they are too few, then nothing will save us. Our souls will have been tried and found wanting. Our race will become amalgamated with the mud-races of this earth, and the Great Experiment will be over. And justice will have been done.
(Attack! newspaper, issue No. 41, 1975; reprinted in Kevin Alfred Strom, ed., The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, 1970-1982 [1984], pp. 57-58).
The irony of Pierce’s position is that, unlike many people who claim to be pro-white, he explicitly and without hesitation acknowledged and thoroughly examined the key role played by Jews in our race’s destruction. He candidly admitted that genocide was to a great extent the consequence of culture distortion, not some mysterious, utterly inexplicable form of collective madness never seen before.
Yet so reflexive and overwhelming is the ingrained tendency to moralistic punishment that Pierce perceived the elimination of our people, should it occur, as being “just.” Compare his “self-”accusatory mindset with that of the Jews, who never blame themselves for anything, but always point a condemnatory finger at others. What a contrast!
The main point to grasp about these “whites deserve to die” assertions is that no such ought follows from any is. Ought is a consequence of the moral or immoral judgments of human actors.
It is objectively the case that whites will not survive (some happy accident aside) if they cannot overthrow the existing order, which has walled itself off from free discussion via the suppression of speech, association, and democracy (which is predicated upon open debate), and thereafter embrace and assert the will to live. Nature, however, does not assign any positive or negative value to the outcome. Life or death simply is. Genocide is never “justified” by nature, history, or evolution.
In no other area would most people make such arguments. Take the Mafia, for example. In various times and places it has possessed power analogous to, though of course far more limited in scope than, what Jews and governments exercise today, and formerly did under Communism.
Did Mafia victims or the tens of millions of victims of the Communists “deserve” to die? Once the Mafia or the Communist Party achieved a certain level of unchecked power, countless people were bound to be oppressed and killed. But did they “deserve” their fate by some writ of “nature”?
How about the victims of ordinary murderers? Do they “deserve” to die? Are their deaths the consequence of “divine” “Mother Nature” working out her evolutionary will in order to weed out cowards and weaklings to benefit the “fittest,” thereby making the world “better off”?
If whites do not—possibly by now they cannot, thanks to overwhelming forces beyond their control—survive, then they will perish from the face of the Earth. But only in the minds of our race’s enemies, and a few of its partisans, will this be considered right and proper.
The fact is, nature as such is utterly indifferent, just as it would be if Jews were coldly eradicated by an equally malevolent force.
Note
1. While proofreading, I decided to look up “mainstream.” The closest dictionary at hand was from 1955. To my surprise, the word was not in there. This means that it did not exist in its current sense, or was relatively rarely used. Next I checked my large, heavy, unabridged, 2,662-page Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the main text of which is copyright 1961. It contained a brief entry: “The prevailing current or direction of activity or influence (‘within the mainstream of the western democratic tradition’).” This was a noun. The dictionary also has a 1981 addenda section with new words and meanings that had appeared in the interim. Usage of the term had obviously altered, for a new entry for mainstream as an adjective had been added: “Having, reflecting, or being compatible with the prevailing attitudes and values of a society or group.”
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
20 comments
Perhaps “Nature” is indifferent-if by that we mean the more or less blind forces that govern birth, growth, death, etc. I refuse to believe that the Cosmos is indifferent, and I believe/sense/intuit that a Divine plan is being worked through, and one that does not include our extinction as a people. In fact, I believe we will surpass what we have achieved as a race so far.
Thank you Mr. Hamilton for your thoughts on this particular matter. I always enjoy and appreciate your pieces. As to expressions of self-flagellation on the part of whites it probably is more accurate to view it as the expressor, in fierce exasperation, desiring in some symbolical sense to flog other whites for their seeming mindless indifference and that with respect to something that could truly not be more important. If in the name of all that is virtuous they are too stupified to care about their own well-being how is it they can be so virtuous-less to care nothing for the agony their own progeny are headed for. Nevertheless, such sentiments are obviously self-defeating. Hopelessness is no virtue either. And, as already alluded to, one should fight to the last for one’s own blood if for nothing else if he is to justly exclude himself from the said symbolically “flogged.”
“Mainstream” from Google Ngram:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=mainstream&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmainstream%3B%2Cc0
An amazing visual, tracking what my dictionaries showed, except that the frequency of use has risen steeply since 1981.
Of course, this is partially dependent upon what the figures on the left side of the graph represent, which is not stated. In absolute terms they appear to be pretty small decimal values.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that in recent years “mainstream” has become a commonly-used term in its new, adjectival form. It connotes a conformist norm, departure from which is implicitly marginal and deviant. It is interesting that supposedly “conformist” white America did not utilize it.
It is up to Western Man, and only WM, to sustain and nourish Western Civilization. It is suicidally naive to expect other races to not be indifferent to, if not openly despise, a culture different from their own. If WM does not wake up to this unavoidable fact, then he does indeed ‘deserve’ to become extinct in the same sense that the Neanderthals ‘deserved’ to become extinct for failing to compete with prehistoric man.
If WM disappears from the earth, it will be his own fault. Revilo Oliver wrote at length on this subject. From ‘The Jewish Strategy’:
“If our race is ever to be liberated from its present masters,
our independence will not be won by tirades against the Jews,
wild declamations about their wickedness in serving their own
interests instead of ours, idle and tautological boasts of our supe-
riority in terms of our own values, or frantic diatribes about a
“synagogue of Satan” and a hope that some supernatural power
will kindly do for us what we refuse to do for ourselves. We must
begin with a rational understanding of our own situation and of
ourselves.
We must, first of all, understand that in the real world the
only test of biological superiority is the ability of a species to sur-
vive and extend its power, necessarily at the expense of other spe-
cies. It thus becomes immediately apparent that the international
race has very solid grounds for its confidence that it is vastly supe-
rior to all other races. “
Chad makes a strong point – quoting, wisely, Dr. Oliver – on a difference that may be more than a distinction between Mr. Miller’s position and the position of Mr. Hamilton.
Ultimately, Nature is always working; the process of evolution is continuing on all levels, as is the process of devolution. We, in being in a social order that worships the external manifestations of Equality, miss entirely the internal sources of Inequality, of excellence and, to put it bluntly, devolution.
I believe that, if the White race disappears from the face of the Earth, the best of us shall continue the work of Civilization in other Realms, on higher Planes of Consciousness. A brilliant teacher of mine ran Bertrand de Juvenal’s model forward, applying it to the NSDAP Cultural Moment. He figured the Moon Colony by 1955, and the Mars Colony by 1960. At some point, the Zeuss computer technology would develop to the point that the beginnings of biological computation would be feasible. By 2000, genetic engineering would be practicable.
The Souls that turned the Hell of the collapsed Weimar Republic into the most sophisticated outworking of Western Civilization, particularly from the perspective of technics, are still quite alive, working and waiting for the moment they can help us fulfill the Destiny that is at once our Birthright, and our Duty.
Let’s not mince words. Kubrick was much more aware of more than he could state verbally; I believe he, and Clarke, and others, “saw” that evolutionary anomalies could only be accounted for by exogenous variables. Homo sapiens, as Clarke implied in the beginning of 2001, was genetically engineered, as part of a Plan that would take hundreds of thousands of years to unfold. The nature of the Planners is left as an exercise for the student.
Clarke ended the 2001 book series with the Overseers of the Solar System telling Humanity that it could colonize all of the planets, except for Europa, where what seemed to us to be living seaweed was in the process of evolution. He also noted – and this ties back to Mr. Miller’s point – that the Overseers had not made up their minds as to what would be the dominant intelligence in the Solar System to come; us, or what we saw as (barely) intelligent seaweed.
Covington has it right: we always have our Duty to the needs of the Cultural Moment, regardless of how that Cultural Moment may unfold in time. The preeminent theme of Covington’s writings in this area focus solely on our DUTY, to do what we can, starting where we are, to offer the opportunity for the highest and best to develop further. Again, I see the Northwest Republic as the temporal bridge from where we are, to the launching of our expedition to Alpha Centauri.
Savitri had something to say along these lines, as well.
She was right, as well.
I find it an increasingly rare experience to come across a fresh perspective on the condition of White people. It is too easy to become accustomed to the oft-repeated refrain. I am enjoying the opportunity to reflect upon my own attitude towards Whites deserving what they tolerate. However, if the judgment is rejected with what do you replace it?
He expressed that point of view in 1975, but he may have refrained from saying the same thing in 2000. For example, he wrote in 2001 :
At first, Pierce doesn’t even say that the stupid conservatives or leftists deserve to die. He says they need to be whacked on the head to bring them back to their senses. Then, he becomes even more charitable and says that they simply need to be given new authority figures. It seems that by 2001, he put less emphasis on the power of free will.
We like the idea of relying on sheer courage and will power to do great things. After all, “Mother Nature demands that cowardly species become extinct”. But we also know that the government can interfere with how we come to our moral beliefs and how we muster our will. In fact, it was already true two hundred years ago and White people at that time were not threatened as a race. No degeneration of the race has occurred since then. At least, not in our DNA. The problem is that the Jews are now in charge. So, when we take power back, we may punish a few people for their betrayal of our race, but there will be no need to cull our brothers who used to be indifferent to the destruction of their own race. They simply need to be given new authority figures.
The thought that the white race will not survive agonizes me. It all began when that malodorous materialistic creed chistianity was allowed to spread among our people. I have made my donations for the month but this website will not let me order a book, can you check it out? I am trying to order Julius Evola’s “Fascism Viewed From The Right.”
The cart should be working now. Try again, and let us know if there are any problems.
A huge majority of people of all races are lemmings. It isn’t just a white thing. The problem is that the enemy is in charge and that they have targeted white people first.
It is funny, I was along these lines this morning. Yockey was right: during times of racial threat, the super-organism – the race – produces people who struggle for their own people.
A question: is the White man tough enough to survive? I would say yes. That yes, though, has conditions; I think the White man has to go against his nature to defeat his enemies.
We have to be empirical, agreed? Ok, if we are empirical, we have to admit that the White man is a natural coward – agreed? If he wasn’t you wouldn’t get skinny little Negros walking around behaving like they are tough when, in reality, many White men have the ability to tear them apart.
Through self-discipline, there has to be a strata of White nationalists who train themselves to cope with fear, pain and struggle who the White man can mimic and the White woman can admire. You don’t always have to win the fight, but it does matter how you lose.
Maybe I don’t have the intelligence to understand how culture effects the individual, but I reckon — apart from individualism-consumerism — the constant displays of weakness by our people creates a ”who cares” attitude amongst the White masses.
The nationalist movement needs strong, fit, determined role models to guide the masses. Using things such a beauty (don’t ask me for God’s sake), YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE WHITE RACE REASONS TO WANT TO ENSURE THEIR RACIAL SURVIVAL.
I hope I’ve helped.
Yes, we need masculine social athletic clubs: fight clubs, gangs, manerbunds, secret societies, and tribes. The gentleman thug, who can read and think as well as ride and shoot, must become our Ideal. Then take it to the streets to sell our newspapers and fight any who don’t like it, verbally or physically. The fighting will do the selling for us – and begin to create a new self image in all who watch. It has worked for the Nation of Islam and other groups in the past.
Do you know what, you’re right. We need to develop an ideal; a way of existing that we can all aspire to.
I remember reading The CofC and learning that the Jews propagated the ideal type of person for their interests: the unattached liberal. This creature, a creation of the Frankfurt School, doesn’t value his culture, nation, family or race; but he holds a high value for general liberal ideals to be upheld by the state.
This leftist philosophy views the human animal as a base creature that can be shaped by law, culture and education to reach a rational mode of existence. Eurocentric, they see progress as the world becoming like them. The Jews used this insane philosophy (developed during The Enlightenment) against us.
Yes, if we could propagate and become a new type of person I think that could change the course of the movement. I think the warrior virtues of our pre-Christian forebearers should be the ones we aspire to: loyalty, industriousness, honor, truth, warriorship, and kindness.
As Gandhi said, ”Be the change….”
Does anything I have written here make sense?
Roger in blockquote:
Yes, it does.
I am all for being proactive in the development of the best in our selves, while developing personally in support of the best collectively, racially.
Start with your self, and start where you are. To his credit, Pierce did, and the best of the rest of us did, as well.
The grandest of intentions are nothing, however, compared to the smallest of good deeds.
Good deeds, like contributing to counter-currents, each and every month.
THAT is the best place to start.
Having a copy of the Marine Corp height-weight requirements over your bathroom mirror, and on your refrigerator door, is the logical next step.
If nature weeds out the weak and lower intelligent, then wouldn’t the blacks and aborigines be only a memory?
The reason it doesn’t work that way is that there is a fixation on IQ-type intelligence, which produces techology and comfort for all but no sense of self-preservation. In general, the abos and blacks are not all that weak. They do indeed have something we don’t.
I have a question and Counter Currents is one of the few places that it can be addressed:
Why did the ideologies which once sustained Western Civilization/White Man fail?
If we go back a mere century, we’d see that what are today called “white nationalism” and “race realism” were essentially the prevailing ideologies in the Western world. And not just ideologies, but state policies. A mere 60 years ago would see these ideologies (and policies) still dominant: in the American South, French Algeria, Africa from Angola to the Cape. Yet they failed to maintain their dominance.
Why?
I am not asking about various anti-Western/White forces. Its easy enough to blame the enemy. But why was there a failure of the people who believed in Western/White ideologies.
For example, was the problem “organizational?” That is, did pro-Western/White leaders and organizations lack the resources to conduct agitprop and recruit a new generation?
Was there some “tactical” issue, a faulty political line which ended up alienating the mainstream?
Was their a failure of institutions?
If you go back to the American South during the 1950s, there were plenty of colleges, newspapers, radio stations and political groups which promoted the pro-White position. And let’s note they had considerable scientific and legal evidence to back their positions.
If so, what happened to those institutions, media, and etc?
It’s just staggering that Western/White man could go from global domination to being besieged in his own cities. And all this while his governments possess military and economic supremacy over the competition. What is even more staggering is that this process has accelerated since the collapse of Soviet communism, which you’d think would have righted the balance in favor of the West.
This bears on how the dilemma of Western/White suicide is to be addressed. If there were an incorrect political line, or faulty organizational tactics, they can be corrected. What would be better tactics for the future?
Anyway, I’d like to see articles analyzing the various pro-West/White movements during the latter half of the 20th century. And see what lessons are to be learned.
** If we go back a mere century, we’d see that what are today called “white nationalism” and “race realism” were essentially the prevailing ideologies in the Western world. **
It it still the prevailing worldview in places where people don’t watch TV. If you go back a mere century, you notice that there was no television, most people still lived in the countryside, didn’t go to college, and the world was much less centralized. And if you go back a century and a half, you notice that there were far fewer Jews around in the United States and in Western Europe. They were still living in Russia. So, there is no big mystery. The answer to your question is simply that the number of Jews increased in Russia and many of them moved to the West. Both in Russia and in the West, they managed to take advantage of the modernization and centralization of society.
“I urge all white people in this era to look into the mirror and to ask themselves, “What do you know about what you are?” And if you don’t know enough, put your hand on that mirror, and move towards greater knowledge of what you can become.” ~ Jonathan Bowden
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment