1,722 words
I have a confession to make.
As insightful, reasonable, and well-written as most articles are at Counter-Currents, I really don’t enjoy reading them. The same goes for articles found on American Renaissance, VDARE, and similar sites. Who would enjoy the kinds of articles published by the Alt Right these days? These sites reveal not only how genetic differences among human races lead inexorably to discord, strife, and violence, but also how the mainstream (and mostly white) elites of Western civilization continue to ignore this central fact of life despite the discord, strife, and violence piling up all around them.
No one likes being told they are unequal to others. No one likes to see their hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow buried under the wet blanket of genetic fatalism. No one enjoys watching their own kind creep its way to extinction with open borders, cultural Marxism, and unhinged liberal policies.
I don’t read the Alt Right for enjoyment. I read it for Truth.
I read it for evidence and arguments with which I can bolster the political beliefs that I wish I didn’t have. In fact, I wish the liberals were correct in many of their views. I feel like I’m traipsing through a Beach Boys song as I think about it. All races are equal. Wouldn’t it be nice? We’re all descended from Rousseau’s noble savage? Wouldn’t it be nice. Free college, free cellphones, free healthcare, free money, free everything for everybody. Wouldn’t that be nice!
So what this amounts to, in my life at least, is my well-educated, well-read, well-intentioned liberal friends constantly offering pleasing evidence to show how they are right, while I counter with evidence that absolutely sucks to show how I’m right. Essentially, it’s Walter Sellars’ “Wrong and Wromantics” against “Right and Repulsive” me.
Good times.
A case in point is the topic of what to do after the Brussels bombing. A friend of mine argued that the key to beating ISIS is to understand that ISIS targets Muslims more often than non-Muslims. He claims we need to ally ourselves with these “good” Muslims and fully integrate them into our society in order to prevent Muslims from ever wanting to commit acts of terror in the first place. Then we can starve ISIS and other terror organizations of oxygen until they desiccate and disappear. A nice story, isn’t it?
I, on the other hand, responded by saying that the key to beating ISIS is to keep killing them until they aren’t around anymore.
Pretty big difference, wouldn’t you say?
Anyway, as “evidence” my friend presented an astonishingly stupid and dishonest Politico article called “Inside the FBI’s Secret Muslim Network.” It basically told him everything he wanted to hear, namely that when Muslims are woven into the multi-ethnic, rainbow-colored AIDS quilt of liberal America, they start ratting on each other. They become our allies. They become one of us.
The article sings the praises of Dearborn, Michigan, a town with a large Muslim population and a Muslim chief of police, one Ron Haddad. Dearborn, the article claims, could not be more different than Molenbeek, Brussels, the Muslim neighborhood which harbored a Muslim terrorist after the Paris attacks. In Dearborn, for example, the police chief
makes regular visits to Dearborn’s 38 schools and its many mosques. He sponsors a program called “Stepping Up,” which includes an annual awards ceremony . . . for residents reporting crime. At least twice in the past several years, fearing influence from ISIL or online propaganda on their children, Haddad says, Muslim fathers have turned in their own sons. In another case, it was students at a largely Muslim high school calling about a troubled peer.
Twice in the past several years, huh? According to the religionofpeace.com, as of March 30th, 2016, there have been 28,052 deadly Muslim terror attacks in the 5,313 days since 9-11. So let’s do the math. That’s nearly 5.3 attacks per day. Assuming that each of these wayward sons intended to launch an attack of his own, the Dearborn Muslims have reduced this rate by 3.76 x 10-4.
So, I’m feeling safer. How about you?
I love how the article mentions crime. We in America are not really concerned about Muslim crime per se. We have the blacks and the Hispanics for that. We are worried more about Muslim terror. 9-11, Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, that kind of thing. We are also worried about how the threat of terror makes Muslims more intimidating when they encroach upon our culture and way of life.
Notice also how the article refers to a potential terrorist as “troubled.” No, a troubled youth is someone who dies her hair purple and sticks safety pins in her cheeks because she’s overweight and has given up on being popular. Someone who seriously contemplates Jihad at age 14, on the other hand, is not troubled. He’s psychotic.
The article then claims how US Muslim communities “on the whole” have been cooperative with US law enforcement vis-à-vis reporting terror, as if this were a good thing. What does “on the whole” mean anyway? 80 percent? 90 percent? These numbers are too low. We should not be prepared for anything less than 100 percent cooperation with US law enforcement when it comes to entire communities. That was the attitude we took at Waco, Texas in the early 1990s, wasn’t it? Well, why not now with Muslims? This article is basically saying that there are some Muslim communities in America that don’t cooperate with law enforcement. On the whole, isn’t that a bad thing?
Essentially, we have to abandon the idea of the glass being half-empty or half full with regards to Muslims. Given their blood-soaked recent history, we can’t afford to. Instead, we need to view the glass as either full or not full. 98 percent ain’t gonna cut it. You’re either on board 100 percent or you’re the enemy.
Here’s another gem from the article:
The result, U.S. officials say, is that Muslim neighborhoods here are cooperating against Islamist terrorists to a degree that can’t be found among their counterparts in Europe.
Is this supposed to be reassuring?
First of all, there are a lot more Muslims in Europe than in America. So that might account a wee bit for some of the differences we’re seeing. Secondly, Islamic terror, violence, and cultural encroachment are really bad in Europe and getting worse daily. So we deserve pats on the back because compared to Brussels we’re doing pretty well?
The article then delves into how law enforcement plans to
get closer to the source of alienation, and “off-ramp” young people drawn by ISIS or other radical propaganda, bringing them back to society with therapy and counseling before it’s too late.
To accomplish this, the FBI will be forming “Shared Responsibility Committees” which will join forces with an all-unicorn team of therapists, social workers, educators, and religious leaders across the country in order to “come up with intervention strategies” to deal with potential terrorists. Given the trail of blood that Muslims leave behind everywhere they go, such an approach is jaw-droppingly stupid. This is something Muslim mothers and fathers should be doing to their kids when they’re four. It’s not our responsibility. It’s their responsibility.
Of course, the article fails to mention how much this well-meaning outreach is going to cost the taxpayers.
Ernst Seger, Lion, Bismarck Fountain, Wroclaw, Poland
The article continues by tut-tutting law enforcement for entrapping Muslims like the Newburgh Four and complaining absurdly that such hardline tactics only create more terrorists. It then concludes by claiming that the (relatively mild) anti-Muslim rhetoric of the GOP is threatening to harsh the carefully-laid mellow that law enforcement believes it has achieved with American Muslims. The article points to two whole instances of terror attacks being spoiled by American Muslims, one in 2010 and the other in 2014. It also offers a quote from a Department of Homeland Security official who claims “unequivocally” that “Arab Muslim and South Asian communities across this country have become one of the greatest resources of protecting homeland security.” This official, one George Selim, has an Arabic name and is presumably an Arab and a Muslim himself.
Insert sarcastic comment about how much we believe this person .
What the article does not include (and what would be most frightening to read) is that Muslims, who, according to the article, make up less than one percent of the US population, have been responsible for nearly 50 percent of American deaths caused by terror attacks since 9-11. If you include 9-11, then that percentage rises to something like 98 percent. And if you include all terror-related deaths of American servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq, well, then we’d be able to draw a nice asymptotic line towards 100, wouldn’t we?
The point here is that whatever our law enforcement is doing with the miniscule amount of Muslims we already have in America, it isn’t working. And if one percent of the population is responsible for fifty percent of our terror deaths, then it is reasonable to conclude that five percent would be responsible for five times that number, or 83.3 percent.
So, wouldn’t it make sense to ban all Muslim immigration indefinitely to keep this from happening? Wouldn’t it also make sense to investigate and police Muslim Americans enough to make the ones prone to terror want to leave the country, thereby reducing this number even further? Wouldn’t this all cost less and be more effective than Ph.D. group hugs from Shared Responsibility Committees?
Yes, this is bad news. But we on the Alt Right have to be vigilant these days about being the bearers of bad news. We cannot let up with the wet blanket on all the wromanticism of well-meaning liberals. We cannot shy away from being repulsive. For instance, if there were fewer Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics in America and we returned to the 90 percent white majority we had in 1965, America would be a safer, stronger, wealthier, and more cohesive country. This is a true statement. There is no reason why it shouldn’t be said, regardless of how repulsive it may sound to some.
This reminds me of an encounter I had with another liberal friend. After I barraged her with arguments similar to the ones above, she shuddered and complained that what I was saying was distasteful.
I responded by saying, “Yes, it is. Yes, it is.”
23 comments
The problem is not that you aren’t correct, it’s that you are on the losing side of history, presently.
Hitler didn’t defeat the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union lasted for how much longer? Some 40 to 50 tortuous years, and its legacy other than a few space satellites is basically nil.
Our system probably has a few decades at most. I know, we’ve been saying this for awhile. But I observe the state of the world and it really has the look and smell that we are nearing the end.
Everything that we talk about here, the problem is that we are still too early. The same could be said for peak oil and environmental doomers, preppers, etc., though they may be looking at things from a different angle. It’s going to take some time, but when the reversal comes it will be epic.
A much better counter argument would be to explain to your liberal friends what is the Kalergi Plan and why it doesn’t matter if they succeeded in turn every extremist Muslim into a moderate ones..
I had the same reaction, and the same response, to the same article, brought to my attention in the same context (liberal friend sharing on social media).
To the larger issue, of our movement as the bearer of bad news–also something upon which I’ve remarked. We can’t abandon our messenger role, but to win, we need a myth, a story, that functions outside of the gritty, depressing facts. We are not going to gain power through rational debate. We need to inspire people with a narrative about who we are and where we’re going, a narrative that gets them to do the things necessary to survive and thrive.
Evan, I concur.
Briliant article!! I have often thought myself how much I wish what the liberals said were true and then we could just spend whatever amount for one more big Great Society program and everything would be fixed. But the problem is that what they say isn’t true and following their policy prescriptions just makes things worse. Reality is what it is and true beliefs are what they are because they agree with reality (i.e. straight correspondence theory of truth going all the way back to Aristotle at least). Liberals are kind of like the man who says “wouldn’t it be nice to simply step out of the window on the top story of the John Hancock Building in Chicago and float gently to the ground. It is so much easier than fighting with the elevator and escalators”. It might indeed be easier but you won’t float gently to the ground because reality is not like that.
I think you understate the case about Muslim violence. It goes all the way back to Mohammed. It is an inherent and essential part of their religion.
Thank you, Jud! I worked hard on this article. And you are correct about Islam and violence. It has been there since the beginning.
Never had that reaction myself. I tend towards the glass half empty view, so I have always regarded racial change as a supremely negative portent. I knew things would get much worse; I declaimed loudly against all forms of PC since the mid-80s (when I recognized one mustn’t mention the darkies, even before the PC label was coined); I supported anti-immigration causes; I made a nuisance of myself (and thus got disinvited from many liberal gatherings). I now find I cannot even stand the company of liberals, nor can I date liberal women, no matter how attractive some might be.
And I understand liberalism exclusively in racial terms – always. It is the essence. Everything else can be tolerated in an amused or bemused fashion (who really cares about gay marriage per se?). But race liberalism is where the viciousness and treason really get bared.
Things will get much worse in a few years time.
From the Quran sura 8:65
“O Prophet urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundreds, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons, they will overcome a thousand”
Muslims interpret this verse as meaning that when they reach ten percent of a nation’s population they should abandon the policy of taqqiya and launch an all-out takeover.
The Muslim perception of 10 percent is correct. It took a handful to found Rome, or the Swede Rus tribe to put the kingdom together that founded Russia among the native slavs. Never mind Norman domination of England and Sicily. Less that 10 percent won the US from England.
Most people will stand on the side lines…it’s always been like that.
Bringing up countervailing facts to the utopian multicultural narrative is not actually that useful in itself. The story of your conversations with your liberal friends shows just how easily the same facts can be spun in the direction of rationalizing demands for more “diversity”, “integration” etc… The people for whom facts and logic are enough to convince them will always be a minority.
The last exchange the author had is very revealing. It all comes down which side is considered “distasteful”. Until the aura of distastefulness and repulsiveness can be put on the other side, there will be no possibility of significant change in attitudes toward race. Under no circumstances should any of us accept these labels. Every effort should be made towards putting our opponents morally on the defensive. I would say that the most encouraging thing within the alt right over the past few years has been the development of a vocabulary that does just that. In particular, but not limited to, the so called “mantra”, the cuckservative meme etc… The more we can develop this approach the more traction we will get.
Thank you, Kilroy. I agree with everything you wrote. The ‘cuckservative’ label I think really stung the mainstream right, forcing them to take us seriously. The more they do this, the more our ideas will infiltrate the mainstream. And since we have truth on our side, this can only help us draw more people to our cause.
Most Muslim honor killings do not get reported in the US. The media if anything will leave that detail out. There have been a few reports recently though.
Eventually, the pendulum of history will swing again. During the interim I rather enjoy watching liberal news reporters being hit by cars, having rocks thrown at them and otherwise attacked by the pets they coddle.
At least the Muslims are running the Jews out of France. I love seeing the Jews become the victims of the multicultural policies they push for in Western nations. Every cloud has a silver lining as they say.
I remember an episode of RAMZPAUL, where he says his favorite website is American Renaissance. However, sometimes he can’t handle the amount of daily updates because of the fact how horrifying and terrible society really is. At first, I thought to myself, “What is so bad about the news?”
Two years later, reading daily updates of Amren like an addiction, I can see the sadness and doom society is facing.
Is it perverted to like dooming news?
Everyday normies would read Gawker, Buzzfeed, Jezebel, or anything that confirms personal beliefs and opinions. Otherwise, no one would want the read a piece that is not entertaining.
The Daily Stormer / The Right Stuff might be out there for entertainment. It is so easy to get into. “Truth” can also be perverted. For example, an obnoxious Professor who reads Arts and Letters daily. Truthful, yes. But entertaining? Hard to do that. To be a so-called “intellect” requires perversion.
Sometimes, Truth is not entertaining. It may be a duty to read American Renaissance daily. But does it really help us as a collective people, or do will fall in the cul-de-sac of whites sniffing off “intellectualism” like cocaine.
Intellectualism, Logic, Metaphysics, Rational thinking, and Philosophy, tends to create an atomized individual. More of a computer, less like a human.
Is this one our greatest problems as a people? How can we control it if it is so natural with us?
Intellectualism, Logic, Metaphysics, Rational thinking, and Philosophy, tends to create an atomized individual. More of a computer, less like a human.
Is this one our greatest problems as a people? How can we control it if it is so natural with us?
I would really like to hear Greg’s take on this
And if you include all terror-related deaths of American servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq, well, then we’d be able to draw a nice asymptotic line towards 100, wouldn’t we?
What’s the difference between “terror” related deaths at the hands of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and American servicemen making wars where they should not be in the first place?
I have been so heartsick, for reasons similar to those described by the author, that I have scarcely even visited this website in recent months; nor AmRen nor TRS nor even Takimag. Repellent, depressing reports have taken their toll and my fingers just refuse to tap in the URL…
Ah, but NationalReview.com! Different story there. Lots of pie-eyed constitutionalists and libertarians who know that if we just get lower taxes and more freedomz (legalize pot & underage sex) all will be just jim-dandy. Invasion by the colored hordes? Not on this site, bro!
An excellent reason to be a Conservative, isn’t it? Much less depressing.
I feel what you’re saying, Margot. It is depressing. But I believe it would be much less depressing once whites wake up and start feeling good and proud about themselves again. Ironically, once that happens and we create a homeland for ourselves (or vastly improve the ones we have now), all the nonwhites are going to see how good it is and want to take part. And they will identify as white as much as they can to do it.
As for the National Review folks, they get most everything right, except for the most important thing: race. That’s why I’m always frustrated reading them.
An interesting read. One of the ticks of a hyper-ethical liberalized post-society in decline is the public fantasy, not only of liberal moral high ground; but also that of a sophisticated aesthetic, which often includes overly sensitive conversation and argumentative styles. Originality, solid method and authentic moral concern are easily eschewed as; outre, other, ugly, false or lacking consensus. If the tyranny of this dialectic affectation strategically silencing all but the not-icky is not entertained, the redux to bolshevik brutalism soon gathers quorum and bears down en masse upon our most basic dialogues.
Mantras and memes are useful, and I agree that a story is needed. By way of Christopher Booker’s advanced study of plot, perhaps a tragedy such as Oedipus from Sophocles — not the orientalist interpretation, but the real tale.
Harvey, that is an interesting take. Yes, many of these sophisticated liberals avoid the direct, ‘brute force’ argument for more clever, intricate sophistry that flatters their naive and carefully constructed worldviews.
And I have to admit, I do enjoy dumping the brute force on them and watching them squirm.
Although recommending books is slightly annoying — almost as much so as unread books in a personal collection; Christopher Booker’s “The Seven Basic Plots” hits very hard. His assay of western literature along the axis of plot, including a close treatment of Sophocles, took him thirty-five years to perfect. His treatment of the tale of Oedipus is liberating, especially in our modern shadows with so many semitic slave trade psychotherapeutic inversions pervading our own appreciation.
The clear solution is to get rid of your liberal friends.
We also need to get rid of all muslims in western countries.
I wish it were as easy as that, Robin! Anyway, if I didn’t have liberal friends, I wouldn’t have been able to write this article. But yes, I do see your point. It’s something I’m sure many of us struggle with.
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.