Counter-Currents
Neutralizing the Power of Anti-White Historical Narratives
Greg Paulson
Aim for the man, not the cape.
563 words
Author’s Note:
I borrowed a lot from Greg Johnson’s essay, “Dealing with the Holocaust,” which I think is important for a deeper understanding of the issue in general and for the position I advocate.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but a common mistake pro-White advocates make in combating White genocide is disputing the alleged facts of anti-White historical narratives.
By challenging the details of anti-White historical narratives, whether it be the Holocaust, the Black slave trade, genocide of American Indians or the various other alleged crimes committed by Whites against non-White populations, pro-White advocates are missing and implicitly accepting the premise: “If white racism, nationalism, self-assertion, etc. led to the holocaust, the slave trade, Jim Crow, etc., then they are evil”—the underlying argument used to justify White genocide.
A far more effective point of argument is that regardless of the (alleged) crimes committed by White people in the past, they do not justify White genocide or any of its anti-White components.
Besides actually being a morally true statement, it registers as such to the vast majority of White people who were taught since childhood that, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” This is a far more effective approach than trying to convince someone to question the historical “facts” that influenced the formation of their worldview and/or understanding of the world.
Greg Johnson points out that
As a general rule, moral and political arguments are more convincing than historical or scientific arguments, because the latter require specialized knowledge and lengthy explanations, whereas the former can be pithily formulated and draw upon common moral and political intuitions—and generally people’s moral intuitions are healthier than the toxic moral swill ladled out by the churches, schools, and mass media.
Not only is it more effective and efficient, but it also works for every anti-White historical narrative anti-Whites use, and any more that may be invented in the future. So not only does the average White person we are trying to reach not need to spend hours researching a specific historical instance to justify what he feels is right, it also inoculates him against all other and future attempts at manipulation via anti-White historical narratives.
Additionally—and this is important—it brings the focus back to the present genocidal conditions faced by our people. It interrupts the autistic proclivity to get lost in the past and technicalities that understandably bore and annoy most people. We cannot afford to get distracted and bogged down in the past and lengthy explanations. We need that lightning focus that clearly and succinctly defeats anti-White arguments, exposing them for what they are. If we can do that and simultaneously help inoculate White people against this powerful demoralizing weapon, why wouldn’t we?
It is our own people’s grandiose propensity toward collective guilt and self-abasement that is the ultimate source of the power anti-White narratives have over us. To borrow further from Greg Johnson’s excellent essay, attacking the moral dimension of the problem is like hacking at the trunk of a tree, whereas revising historical narratives is akin to merely trimming the branches.
Once we have stopped the genocide of our people, our historians can determine what was true in the past. Until then, I encourage all of my fellow pro-White advocates to stop trimming the branches and join me in hacking away at the trunk.
12 comments
Once we have stopped the genocide of our people, our historians can determine what was true in the past. Until then, I encourage all of my fellow pro-White advocates to stop trimming the branches and join me in hacking away at the trunk.
Bad approach. It is the bad branches that have been grafted into the healthy plant that is killing it. Those branches need to be removed.
Your approach ignores the tainting of the true narrative of history and what people believe about it. Such a strategy simply makes it even less likely of our success.
imo
The anti-White historical narrative is not a healthy tree. We need to cut the whole damn thing down. As previously stated, one of the benefits of this approach is that it negates and applies to all of the anti-White historical justifications. This approach is meant to appeal to the average White person, not intellectuals or history enthusiasts.
I agree with much of the sentiment here, although I also believe we should continue with an “all of the above” approach. I agree that trying to talk to whites about historical falsehoods will largely be a fruitless endeavor, as their version of reality is so far removed from the truth, they simply cannot accept actual reality. I take different approaches with different people depending on their current belief systems. It seems that what works best for most people is to utilize that which they have seen, such as racial/ethnic group differences, and point out how hopelessly inconsistent these truths exposed by their eyes and ears are with their own accepted versions of a reality that places stock in a multiculturalist view. Getting people to accept group differences is a must while ALSO pointing out the moral failings of the white guilt narrative (as discussed in the above article). The questions of history involve partially answering the “how” this has occurred, while going even deeper into the radical leftist and organized Jewish role helps answer the “why.” Of course, this is the very last piece of the puzzle, and it can only be shared with those who accept HBD and how it has come to pass that our people’s altruism have been turned against them. Nonetheless, everything is a work in progress, although one thing is very important in seeking the support of most white people. Morals tend to be very important to them, so any white advocacy that will appeal to them will do so in a way that is morally right. Our cause is morally right. It seeks not to harm ANY group of people but merely wishes to stop harm against our own. We have to convince our people that love for each other is not equivalent to hate for all others. After all, because I prefer my own children to those of others does not mean I hate and wish to harm all other children. I like to use a “micro” version of multiculturalism to convey a point about society in general. For example, if we were to take a father from one family, a mother from another, a child from another family, and another child from yet another family, and we put these four people into one house, given their diversity, would they be the strongest family in the neighborhood? Of course not. Additionally, if we had taken each one of these individuals from a different racial/cultural background, the family would be even more weak. This same principle applies to neighborhoods, towns, cities, and even countries. There is a reason all people (and virtually all organisms of any kind) prefer like others. Mixing people up robs them of their sense of family, community, and nation. Anyway, I am rambling, so I will end my thought here. I appreciate the work that all the various branches of white advocacy represent. Thank you.
The problem with this approach is that people will interpret it as “Whites don’t even deny their historic genocides, the rape of Africa, slavery, plundering the world’s resources, they just think that if they have to live with any brown people, it’s ‘white genocide,’ what a bunch of hypocrites and babies!”
I still find a lot of value in rejecting the “uniqueness of white evil” narrative that seems to be the sum of K-12 education these days. Pointing out the disconnect between the Alex “the plagiarist” Haley, or Harriet Beecher Stowe’s account of slavery, vs. the historical “A Southside View of Slavery,” or the Works Progress Administration Slave interviews from the 30’s, is worthwhile. So is discussing figures like Gezu, King of Dahomey, who fell into conflict with the British Empire, in a desire to retain the slave trade, when Wilberforce led them to abolition.
Just pointing out the near ubiquity of slavery in Africa from accounts of explorers (detailed in “Negroes in Negroland” by Hinton Helper), the Arab slave trade, the vast majority of slaves in the western hemisphere not going to North America, the ongoing slave trade in Africa in this very year, or Native, Jewish, and Black slave ownership, helps demystify the usual person’s misconceptions about slavery.
Pointing out that disease, not “white brutality” killed most natives, and whites were the first and only race to ever tackle disease, also worthwhile. The Holocaust may require some…easing in, but boy is there a wealth of material there to dispel the common myths about it.
This needn’t be presented as “these things aren’t true, therefore white genocide isn’t legit.” You can both point out the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the argument AND disprove the historic premises. “Whites did all this horrible stuff,” and a perception of a well-deserved payback by the breeding brown hordes of the world, simply can not be allowed to spread as it has, given the complete falsity of that narrative. The moral arguments are fine, but presented as you suggest can just be turned into “whites did all this stuff and now he thinks they should just be able to get away with it.”
While I mainly agree with you, your approach seems to rest on the assumption that just by telling White people today that they have a right to exist, that the message will get through, and that all the historical anti-White narratives are just incidental to their blindness to that fact. The problem is that, at least in my experience, White people are not on a regular basis explicitly told that they don’t have the right to exist. Rather they are bombarded by anti-White narratives in the media and in school, and asked to fill in the blanks for themselves. This is a devastatingly effective approach, and the reason why so many White people do not already recognize their right to exist as a group, in spite of everything that has been occurring in the Western world recently.
Thus I think it’s important to deconstruct the usual anti-White narratives in order to disarm them.
The idea behind these narratives is to justify the genocide of White people. Exposing their rhetoric as being consistently anti-White and pointing out the horrible things they are trying to justify puts the target on them and gives you the moral high ground.
One thing to keep in mind is the audience. This essay is speaking to pro-White advocates that are primarily targeting Whites who are only implicitly pro-White and still largely “blue-pilled.” It is not geared towards those of us who are “preaching to the choir.” Obviously, there is an incredible level of historical inaccuracy in anti-White narratives. I am not opposed to these inaccuracies being exposed. What I am opposed to is the implicit acceptance of the underlying mechanism used to undermine White identity and White interests in all of these cases.
The point is, even if we discovered some or all of the “crimes” committed by White people in the past were true, it wouldn’t change my opposition to White genocide, and it shouldn’t change yours either. Just because Black people have committed numerous atrocities doesn’t justify calls or attempts to wipe them out. It doesn’t take a philosopher to make that deduction. We need to appeal to White people on moral grounds, and it can’t require a minor in a pro-White version of history.
If we were to take the “require a minor in pro-White historical revisionism” approach, we would doom our movement to failure. The fact of the matter is that most White people are not and will not be interested in doing vigorous historical research. That’s why history needs to be taught in school and it isn’t just assumed people will study it on their own. We should have this information available to White people when they are ready for it. That is why I am happy numerous sites exist that promote this information. What I am against is basing and framing our arguments on what is essentially “specialized information” that is not necessary to come to the desired conclusions.
I am generally supportive of a pluralistic approach ending White genocide. We need people coming from different perspectives so that our ideas appeal to a wide spectrum and eventually become hegemonic like anti-White ideas are today. That said, I also think we need to use common sense to determine who our audience is and what arguments and appeals are appropriate for them. We should always be careful and aware of who are audience is and ensure that our arguments are tailored to that audience, sharing common premises and warrants.
“Just because Black people have committed numerous atrocities doesn’t justify calls or attempts to wipe them out.”
The problem is that the narrative is deliberately constructed to give White people the impression that they and only they are (or have been) exceptionally evil as a race. This is done by exaggerating every historical wrongdoing that Whites have committed and ignoring any that non-Whites have. You seem to think that this narrative is entirely incidental to White people’s attitudes about race, which is puzzling.
Yes I can see the importance of moral arguments (I for one agree that a people has the right to exist regardless of what they may or may not have done in the past), yes I can see that overloading people with information is not a good approach, but that still doesn’t mean we can just sidestep the anti-White narratives. They are entirely integral to White people’s complacency, and even self-loathing, as a race. We have to at least suggest to people that these narratives are not built on solid foundations, to plant the seed of doubt and get the ball rolling, and hopefully reel them in to further deconstruct the anti-White propaganda they’ve been bombarded with since childhood.
I agree that we as a collective shouldn’t ignore anti-White narratives. We should undermine and expose them, but the questions of when and where are more important here. When in the midst of a debate or exchange it often isn’t a good use of your time to try to correct the numerous and dense lies and exaggerations about our peoples past. I’m arguing that it is most beneficial to simply point out the stupidity and concealed hatred within their argument and continue applying the pressure and going on the offensive. This way we are the ones controlling the conversation, hitting hard (sound bites), and shaming/humiliating our opponents, and discussing the topics WE want to discuss that are relevant to White people today.
Here’s a thought: the next time we are faced with an anti-white diatribe, respond like this: “Yes, it is so that white people have in the past conquered entire continents, wiped out indigenous peoples and discriminated against others on the basis of race. True, and we were also willing to bomb entire cities into rubble during World War II, including dropping a couple of atomic bombs. Given this, I would suggest you stop messing with white people because we did it before and we can do it again–starting with you! ”
A basic principle of psychological warfare is that you have to constantly be on the offensive. If you stop to defend yourself, then you cede the initiative to the enemy. Check out any of the US Army psychological warfare/information operations manuals on the Internet.
Non-whites have no moral basis for attacking whites. Non-white civilization have been marked by endless despotism, slave raiding, ethnic massacres, and wars of conquest. Europeans have had to put up with invasions of Huns, Muslims, Mongols and Turks for centuries. They’ve also had to put up with Islamic slave raiding in the past as well as the destruction of everything Europeans have built in cities as far flung as Johannesburg, Detroit and Malmo.
And let’s note it has been white peoples who ended the slave trade and pushed human rights internationally. Not to mention white people creating all the technologies which non-whites freely use. Much of the anti-white critique is really jealousy; jealous over their inability to reach the same heights as white civilization. That, and an excuse for third worlders to invade and pillage ancient white territories (as we see in the current “refugee crisis” whether in Europa or along the Rio Grande.
If anything, white people need to be attacking third worlders using with PSYWAR. And, if third worlders do not vacate white territories, attack them with full force. Europeans have gone to war in the past to defend their territory and civilization, we can do it again!
Let me note that we need to also deal with treasonable elements among white elites.
I couldn’t disagree more. If someone says to me ‘The Jews killed all your ancestors, but hey don’t be angry two wrongs don’t make a right’ I would tell them to get knotted. Bad argument.
Go out there and TRY IT. Whenever an anti-white brings up history say “How does that justify white genocide TODAY?” or ‘That doesn’t justify white genocide NOW” or “Nothing that happened in World War Two justifies white genocide” or “You’re only bringing up history to try to justify white genocide now, so you obviously know it’s happening and want it to happen.” or “ALL races have conquered and enslaved, but anti-whites like you say ONLY white children should hate themselves for it.”
If you haven’t tried it, you’re not in a position to criticize it.
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
Edit your comment