- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

“The White Race Does Not Deserve to Survive” (White Version)

familyphoto [1]1,328 words

French translation here [2]

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 [3] 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 [4], “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?” [5] (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.


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.”