Counter-Currents
2,099 words
The United States on the Fourth of July 2014, 238 years after its declaration of independence from Great Britain, presents a revolting spectacle. For sheer vileness, the US, with its universal surveillance, police state mentality, hatred of freedom, anti-white discrimination, lawless replacement migration, and torture, matches its fraternal twin and wartime ally Communism, and bastard child, Zionism. It’s as if the Mafia, a comparable criminal conspiracy, had gobbled up the local, state, and federal governments, remade them in its own image, and extended its tentacles globally.
At least the Mafia did not lecture its victims about the virtuousness of evil or the viciousness of good. Unhappily, Americans are subject to endless sermons preached by the scum of humanity on that subject daily.
If you plug “Fourth of July oration” into the Jewish monopoly search engine Google, the top results are Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech inquiring, “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?”
I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
The successful and well-to-do Douglass had a white father (though you can’t tell it from his photograph), married his 20-years-younger white secretary, and maintained a radical Left-wing German Jewish mistress on the side.
Yet things like his 1852 speech are force-fed ceaselessly to a society that worships Jews. The fact is, whites (at least when they aren’t playing the servile sycophant) can’t hold a candle to God’s chosen—the Catholics’ so-called “fathers in the faith”[1]—in the crimes-against-humanity-department. For that matter, Jews played a big role in slavery.
* * *
I harbor no rancor for the American experiment. America was no utopia, but neither was (or is) anyplace else. Utopia has never existed and never will exist. America was a noble endeavor while it lasted.
It is unreasonable to lay at the feet of the founding fathers everything that subsequently went wrong. Things went particularly haywire from the early 20th century on, accelerating greatly in 1933 and again with the Great Leap Backward of the mid-1960s to early 1970s. A fish rots from the head down, so most putrefaction remained invisible to the bulk of ordinary Americans as late as the early 1960s.
In short, America’s founders were responsible for their actions, not everybody else’s. I understand that many object to the Revolution ab initio on philosophical grounds, but that is not my position.
Imagine if history selected you to be part of a body of white men today, with all the differing factions, contradictory convictions, opinions, and values that entailed, and compelled you to collectively devise a just, realistic, workable, non-utopian state (no fantasy or philosophical or ideological castles-in-the-air allowed). You would not get your way in everything, probably not even in much.
Could such a hypothetical group devise something, implement it, and make it work? And in a hostile world?
Then, fast forward 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, 238 years—long after you and everyone else had passed away, new generations had taken your place one after another, each dying in turn, and history (and, assuming a new order and free discussion, incomprehensible technological innovations and vastly changed ideas and values) had radically transformed the world in unforeseeable ways.
Obviously, you would be unable to control what happened in the future, how subsequent generations thought and behaved, or what choices they made, all of which necessarily entailed far-reaching ramifications of their own. It is a very complex process with many moving parts and contingencies.
So, how would you “freeze” your initial, imperfect system (the product of compromise between individuals and factions) to handle everything I’ve mentioned, while simultaneously preserving fundamental values intact?
In an attempt to anticipate such issues, the Constitution was designed with such devices as hybrid representative/deliberative institutions (citizen and elite assemblies, courts, freedom of association, speech, and press), amendability, vertical allocation of power among federal, state, and local units of government, and horizontal separation of powers at the federal and state levels between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. All of this was implemented, not badly, with open consent, among quarrelsome, fractious, socially, economically, and intellectually dissimilar whites in the real world, not simply on paper or in the study, think tank, or secret academic-NGO-government conclave.
I don’t know how to perpetuate a particular form of government or set of fundamental values indefinitely into the distant future, but I am at least aware of the problem. Somehow you must establish not just a successful order, but a workable process or dynamic.
To require more of the founding generation than what it accomplished is unreasonable. Old Europe, and the major overseas colonies (Canada, Rhodesia, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand), fared no better than the US. What happened long after 1776 or 1787 was the responsibility of subsequent generations.
* * *
Many things, of course, did go wrong, notably slavery and immigration.
It is interesting that the litany of complaints brought against the King of England by colonial leaders in the Declaration of Independence in justification of American secession included the charge that “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither . . .”
I have never seen this clause quoted by Leftists, despite the fact that it could easily be manipulated for propaganda purposes (which is how they utilize history). In all likelihood elites have not done so because they are unfamiliar with the Declaration and have not read it.
Confronted with such a provision I would inquire, “What did they mean?” Presumably I would discover a scatter, or range, of opinions among individuals, quite disparate at the extremes but clustering around some central consensus.
My initial hypothesis would be that they had in mind primarily Protestants from the British Isles, mainly England, not Irish Catholics or Northern or Continental Europeans who did not speak English—never mind Latin Americans, Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners, and so on.
Benjamin Franklin, for one, presciently envisioned America growing into a great power surpassing even England in strength. Yet he thought this would occur primarily through the natural increase of white Englishmen. As early as 1782 he wrote a pamphlet, Information to Those Who Would Remove to America, attempting to discourage Europeans from immigrating, and in 1751 had penned a trenchant denunciation of England’s habit of exporting felons to America, which he clearly did not want, comparing them to poisonous snakes. (Exporting of Felons to the Colonies.)
I draw attention to this provision of the Declaration only because we know in retrospect that immigration became such an enormous problem, even as early as the 1830s, not that it should have been anticipated in 1776. But if, for some reason, the founders did think too carelessly about immigration, we now know that the mistake must be corrected, not that their beliefs or behavior should be blindly aped despite overwhelming evidence that they were wrong.
The fundamental problem, however, the 80-20 part of the difficulty (again, in retrospect), was the emergence of the Ashkenazim as the dominant race in the West and their monopolization of wholly new forms of mass media of news and entertainment in the early 20th century—a monopoly they exercise to this day. In their hands, control of the media eventuated in control of the democratic process, and curtailment of intellectual inquiry and freedom of speech and association. Ultimately, this proved disastrous for the entire American polity.
People who wave the flag, as well as those who denigrate them, do not grasp that today’s America has virtually no connection whatsoever to the historic American nation. Long ago—in 1917, in 1933, in the late ’60s and early ’70s—there were a series of “revolutions within the form” altering society beyond recognition.[2]
Frankly, pigs scarfing down Nathan’s hot dogs on Coney Island is a more appropriate form of celebration than waving the flag, attending parades, and watching fireworks: Jews degrading and making public sport of Gentiles, an apt metaphor for what the country now represents.
* * *
I stand on the shore of the lake where I spent many carefree hours of my boyhood exploring, playing, swimming, canoeing, fishing, and rafting, and where my father’s ashes were later scattered, gazing across the water at the courthouse spire and little clump of buildings poking above the far-off trees, thinking, You failed.
By which I mean they, my fellow whites, failed. They failed miserably, abysmally, even on the simplest things, and in the most fundamental manner. Was it too much to expect rudimentary decency and justice from them? Was that—is that—too much to ask?
Instead of doing what was right, they did what was wrong, and continue to do it. There is no evil they will not countenance or crime they will not commit as long as it is sanctioned by government. Conformity and blind obedience to perceived authority are their lodestars. About the countless, unspeakable crimes and millions upon millions of victims for whose suffering and deaths they are partly responsible they care nothing.
“The family is the cornerstone of women’s continuing oppression in our society,” we are told. As for government sponsored sexual license, pornography, miscegenation, sex trafficking, prostitution, below replacement fertility, sterilization, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, the “transgendered”: slaughter Muslims and others in their homelands so you can shove your glorious values down their throats. “USA! USA! USA!”
There is no fundamental moral difference between myself and them. The only thing that separates us are the choices we made: to embrace evil, facilitate it, or to reject it. At least, that’s what I’ve always assumed. William Pierce ultimately deduced that most people really have no moral compass. “Morality” is whatever the culture tells them it is. The same with “evil.”
He believed that part of a racialist’s job is to provide hope (though not false hope) and encouragement, so he gamely tried to explain why such conformity is not altogether bad. But his innumerable references, dripping with sarcasm, to “lemmings,” leave little doubt that he remained unconvinced by his own argument. After all, there is little good one can say about people who mindlessly harm the innocent or eagerly rush over the cliff to their collective doom simply because aliens who hate them tell them to do so.
Pierce was probably correct that the vast majority of whites (really, all human beings) lack a moral compass. At the very least it is overwhelmed by the massive force-field emanating from alien rulers in control of the mass media—a phenomenon new under the sun, historically speaking. The media masters completely dominate the centralized state and culture, including public discourse.
To ignore this reality is to ignore a rudimentary element of power in the contemporary world. It is like ignoring the NSA, the FBI, Homeland Security, the ADL, the SPLC, or antifa domestic terrorists. How can any serious resistance proceed in such a manner?
As long ago as 1841 Thomas Carlyle observed in On Heroes and Hero Worship, “[Edmund] Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”
* * *
Is worse really better, as the old racist adage goes? Well, if it is, things are getting “better” and “better” all the time.
Personally, I think worse is just worse.
Notes
1. In 2010 Pope Benedict explained “why he no longer calls Jews ‘our elder brothers’ but rather ‘fathers in the faith,’ stating that ‘the phrase “elder brothers,” which had already been used by [Pope] John XXIII, is not so welcome to Jews.’”
2. “America has experienced what Garet Garrett, following Aristotle, called ‘revolution within the form’—an invisible and unacknowledged change in its basic nature, which few of the ruled realize has changed at all. The revolutionaries realize that their power depends on the illusion of continuity. The overturning of fundamental principles, the destruction of tradition, the creation of new powers—these must all be presented as mere ‘reforms.’” Joseph Sobran, “Not Again!” March 10, 2005.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
8 comments
I love the visual of that rainbow/US flag because I cant figure out which one of the two I find more disgusting and distasteful.
I applaud Andrew Hamilton on this article and all of his articles. He never minces words, he never qualifies, where it’s not neccessary, he simply gets right to the point on issues that should be of extreme interest to every European-American. I mentioned Counter-Currrents to a buddy of mine who just graduated with a degree in philosophy, and he was blown away by the quality of the articles and Mr. Johnson’s management and contributions. Peace.
Definitely a brilliant essay. I was at a restaurant recently where fox news was playing, and over the hour that I was there, I would occasionally glance up to see their endless tribute to “America’s Birthday”, where just about every fox news star in turn was expounding on the greatness of America ad nauseum. Almost all were Europeans. I then begin reading Mr. Hamilton’s article and was initially shocked to see America described as a vile abomination, and celebrating it as a revolting spectacle. Of course, sadly, Mr. Hamilton is all too correct. The irony of how applicable the title of Douglas speech is to Europeans now amazes me: “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?”
I wanted to add that perhaps the most important “revolution from within”, if I understand the term correctly happened during the civil war, with the nation’s legal system and political organization transformed from a loose confederation of states to a centralized empire.
I also agree that the founders did an excellent job of creating a nation, which though not perfect, was probably about the best that could have been created under the many pressing circumstances of the day. It was impossible for them to foresee what was coming from their vantage point. The structure they created allowed for the conquest of this new world by Western Europeans, while adding vast numbers to our population. It certainly was a life-giving boon to my ancestors and me.
Where I may differ with Mr. Hamilton is in the characterization of Europeans as lacking a moral compass. On the whole, most Europeans (probably now in the range of 55% of the population) are moral in the sense of following the social expectations and moral codes that they have been taught and trained to follow. Most American Europeans have IQs in the neighborhood of 100 or so, perhaps half of them with less than that. At this level, most people aren’t really capable of generating the higher-level cognition to think very far past their social programming. In my view, its not so much a matter of them lacking morality as having completely accepted and internalized their indoctrination, which started for most in preschool. This is really what human beings are designed to do, to accept their cultural teachings and the leadership of their elites. If there is blame to be laid, it is primarily to be placed on the heads of the Europeans who are natural elites, who do have the cognitive powers to see, understand and develop the abilities to lead, but have failed to do so.
I also wanted to mention that worse can be better (not always though) if you are observing events from a long-term (ie many decades) bird’s-eye vantage point. The election of Obama was worse for European Americans than Romney from the perspective of moving the U.S. closer to socialism and a weaker international and economic position. But it is better in the sense of helping to awaken European’s realization of losing their position of dominance in the U.S. and so forth. It is better that European Americans face more pain sooner to assist them in developing the need and will to organize ethnically. Its going to get worse, but at some point, when the pain is great enough, Europeans will be forced to organize. If your goal is saving the U.S., then worse might very well be worse, but if your goal is the survival of some part of the European gene pool in a relative pure form 100-200 years from now, worse is often better.
Great quote!
“…the US, with its universal surveillance, police state mentality, hatred of freedom, anti-white discrimination, lawless replacement migration, and torture, matches its fraternal twin and wartime ally Communism, and bastard child, Zionism. It’s as if the Mafia, a comparable criminal conspiracy, had gobbled up the local, state, and federal governments, remade them in its own image, and extended its tentacles globally.” – Andrew Hamilton
The Three American Eras
by Revilo P. Oliver – Liberty Bell, January, 1983
THE JEWS ARE a unique race, parasitic and predatory, evidently formed from hybrid stock (including, according to Mourant’s haematological analysis, c. 10% of Congoid blood) in the way described in Sir Arthur Keith’s theory of human evolution.
The parasites find, seemingly by instinct, and attack every inherent weakness in our racial stock and exploit our vices, so that it is often difficult to fix a boundary between our innate deficiencies and the parasites’ exacerbation of them. Our current religion is one of their many weapons: The superstition infects our race through its appeal to our racial proclivity toward romantic sentimentality, transcendental mysteries, and even a certain heroism: the willingness of men to sacrifice themselves for their people, which is perverted into asceticism and an itch to serve “all mankind.” That has been a deadly infection, encouraging both the survival of the unfit of our own race by preventing the natural process by which viable species eliminate their degenerates, and by encouraging a fatuous toleration of racial enemies.
Whittaker Chambers seems to have been right when he decided (for some of the wrong reasons) that our people are driven by a subconscious, but irresistible, death-wish. At least, the racial mind of most of our contemporaries, rotted by fifteen centuries of a superstition designed by the Jews to paralyse goyim, seems no longer capable of perceiving reality, let alone of coping with it.
For those Americans who do wish to perceive reality, it is useful to divide our country’s history into three eras, viz.:
I. The First Republic, established as result of the Civil War (the only one in our history) in the British colonies, 1775-1783, which made the several colonies independent states. This republic, based on the Constitution, lasted from 1789 until 1860, when it was forever destroyed by the war of aggression launched by a league of Northern states and their invasion of the South.
II. The Second Republic, established by the Northern conquest, 1865 to 1932. Some parts of the original Constitution were salvaged and adapted to a regime of “democracy” and political corruption that was fundamentally incompatible with that Constitution, although the boobs were made to believe that that document had been preserved by being destroyed.
III. The Ochlocracy, sometimes called the Dictatorship of (the thugs who own) the Proletariat, 1932-present. Established by the Jews’ capture of the government of the Second Republic in 1932 and the gradual assimilation of the United States to the governmental system used in the Soviet Union, including the establishment of the Revolutionary Tribunal in Washington (still called the Supreme Court), which has repeatedly made it clear that ‘Constitution’ has become merely a word that is used in bad jokes. No one should be misled by the fact that the management still stages elections to amuse the boobs, some of whom find them almost as exciting as football games.
The future of our stultified and brutalized race depends on so many imponderables that it would be rash to venture any forecast. The only hope, as I see it, is that the present owners will make the blunder of precipitating or permitting a total collapse so drastic and sudden that its physical effects will penetrate to the consciousness of the boobs and induce something like thought, and that if and when that happens, there will be a nucleus of men who understand the situation and have the courage and intelligence to organize and lead the boobs to regain independence from the world-conquerors.
I continue to write, at constant sacrifice of my own convenience and peace; to write, in the hope that I may possibly contribute a little to the formation of such a nucleus that will be able to act intelligently when the time comes — if it ever does.
* * *
How can any serious resistance proceed in such a manner?
Look at the American South in the decade following the Civil War. You had the North impose the regime of Reconstruction on the defeated Confederacy. And in the Northern states, there was a wave of what today would be considered liberal civil rights laws. Yet within two mere decades, all of that was swept away and the USA became a white racialist state. And this was not the only time there was a Great Awakening. Someone might write up an analysis of how these dramatic turnarounds have happened.
Yes, but I meant how can any serious resistance proceed without constantly taking key nodes of Establishment power into account, both intellectually and as a practical matter? It isn’t realistic to ignore such things, to not even think about them, and hope to be successful, since they affect everything that occurs. Hope alone, or waiting for someone else to do something, won’t cut it. At least intellectually, the reality of oppressive power and how things actually work in the contemporary world must always be in the forefront of the resister’s mind.
The post-war South pushed back by extra-legal means (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan), effectively limiting the franchise, and so forth. They certainly took enemy power into account, and played the type of hardball necessary to counter it.
In the 1960s, though they tried to resist desegregation by similar means, including extra-legal ones, the people in power had changed, sophisticated, tightly-controlled mass media had come into existence, and Communist techniques of suppression were resorted to by the federal government and secret police. That time the South failed.
There’s a lot to be learned from winning. And more to be learned from losing. Look at two of the major errors the South made during the 1950s-60s civil rights struggle:
1. The failure to account for the impact of television. At this time, television was a new media technology–one which the segregationists failed to appreciate until too late. TV was ruthlessly exploited by the civil rights movement to demonize the South and promote King and company.
2. The failure to develop countermeasures to civil disobedience tactics. The civil rights movement created situations where segregationists would respond with violence (thereby again demonizing Southerners) and promoting King and company. Look at the Edmund Pettus Bridge and any other number of incidents.
What can be learned?
1. It is vital to control cutting edge media technologies. By “control” I don’t mean sitting in the chairs of the board of directors. Just be able to manipulate the “narrative” (as the left would put it). Today there’s the Internet. It’s vital that this be kept free because white nationalist/alternative right/race realist narratives are getting through via it.
But it has to go further. The right has to create its own new media technology. Something like the Internet or You Tube, but which would leave them in the dust. Some tech that would be a quantum leap forward. You can speculate on any number of such technologies, and it would probably take some major resources to pull it off. Perhaps it could be subsidized by the European nationalist parties who have the cash and personnel. The thing is, it would have to be a media which could not be shut down or taken over by hostile management.
One can speculate on any number of technologies, from what appears in WIRED magazine to gizmos out of popular science fiction series. Wearable tech? Home holography? Once you control the means of information, you control the society around it.
2. The right today is in the position to seize the moral highground. The right is fighting for freedom against oppression. For free speech and right of association against the soft totalitarianism of the multicult. For national freedom against the harder totalitarianism of globalist elites.
There have been any number of movements which have succeeded over the last several decades in the face of state power. The thing is to look at what has worked, and see what it is that can be exploited. And yes, look at what has failed, and see what can be done to avoid repeating the errors of the past.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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