1,171 words
Spanish translation here
Ever since I got involved with White Nationalism, I have been hearing the same speech. I call it the “Tough Talk,” which is invariably delivered by a “Hard Man” (usually borrowing his language and persona from the military and/or football).
The gist of the “Tough Talk” is twofold.
First, whites are never going to regain control of our destiny simply by talk; we will have to use violence. A related claim is that we can’t win simply by producing online content. We have to take the struggle to the real world.
Second, since violence is inevitable, the time for talk is over. No more effete intellectualism. No more virtual activism. We need to get out in the real world right now. We need to get some tough guys together, preferably with police and military experience, and start killing people. Or maybe we can just go it alone, Hunter-style.
Of course the “Tough Talk” is itself talk, not action, and it is not delivered in the real world, but on the internet. Responses fall into two categories. First, there are the “Attaboys” and “Fuck yeahs!” — also typed on a keyboard. Second, there are the people who have reservations, including those who wonder if these tough guys are agents provocateurs (some surely are) and those who think their conclusions don’t quite follow.
Generally, I ban tough talkers from commenting at Counter-Currents and ignore them elsewhere on the web. Engaging them only gives them unearned readership and credibility. Besides, eventually they just fall silent. Some of them are drunks and depressives on a downward slide. Some of them become burnt out and embittered. A few, like the loathsome Glenn Miller, go on killing sprees. And some of them might even grow out of it. It is hard to know which ones go which way, because they are pretty much all anonymously typing their verbal bile into the cybervoid.
But for the record, here are my reservations.
First, literally nobody believes that whites will regain control of our destiny without the use of force. After all, White Nationalists want political power. We want to create a new pro-white legal and social order. And every law is accompanied by the threat of force. So the use of force is self-evident implication of every political program, and to suggest that one’s opponents are unaware of this is to erect a straw man.
The question is not whether we will use force after we gain power, but whether we will have to use force in order to gain power in the first place. Can we gain power through the existing political systems, or will we have to overthrow them in violent revolutions and coups, or will it be a little bit of both? The answer will obviously depend upon circumstances that vary from time to time and place to place. It is perfectly conceivable that White Nationalists can come to power in democratic systems. But if a system does not allow a peaceful and democratic transfer of power, then violence is inevitable.
Second, if the real question is not whether we will use force, but when and how, this brings us to the second issue. There’s a rather great leap from the premise that politics by its nature involves force to the idea that now is the time to stop talking and start fighting, especially fighting in the way that the tough talkers imagine, namely forming guerrilla bands or terrorist cells, or simply going on shooting sprees.
Only fools pick fights they cannot win, and White Nationalists cannot win a war against the armies, police forces, or even the mall cops of any contemporary society. So under the present circumstances, armed struggle is stupid.
However, while our enemies have never been stronger in terms of the force they wield, they have never been morally and intellectually weaker. White Nationalists, on the other hand, may be weak in terms of force, but the moral and intellectual case for our views has never been stronger.
So the tough talkers want us to abandon our best weapons and attack the enemy where he is strongest. This only hurts whites and helps anti-whites. If people like this did not already exist, the enemy would simply create them.
Our enemies are so keen on shaping public opinion because they know that public opinion is the foundation of political power. So if we want to change the political system, we have to change people’s values and beliefs. Metapolitics comes before politics, because we have to change people’s worldviews before we can change the political order. So it has never been a better time for metapolitics, or a worse time for violent action. And of course, the “Tough Talk” on the internet is itself a form of metapolitics, just a stupid and ineffective one.
When somebody launches into a version of the “Tough Talk” on the internet, he is imagining himself in the real world giving a rousing speech to soldiers before a battle or athletes before a match. But if he actually delivered his speech to his friends and neighbors, they would regard him as stupid, crazy, or evil. Why?
Because a speech is only intelligible to people who share a common set of beliefs. A course of action only seems moral if one’s audience shares one’s values. And today, our people’s beliefs and values have been provided by the Left, who have set us on the road to cultural decadence and racial extinction.
In order for the “Tough Talk” to be intelligible to the general public, they need to be reeducated. In order for White Nationalism to seem moral, we must change people’s values. And if violent insurrection is not going to be crushed by society, most people need to think that it is moral. But, then again, if most people think our cause is just, we probably will not need to resort to revolution.
Now, to be crystal clear, I am not opposed to Tough Talk or Hard Men as such. Like I said, every political order requires the use of force, and sometimes we will have to use force to capture political power. Someday, white leaders will have to rally the masses with Tough Talk to crush their enemies and defend their interests. The ongoing Muslim invasion of Europe will make that day come sooner than I ever imagined. But Tough Talk is only useful if people have ears to hear. The purpose of metapolitics is to make whites receptive to the message that taking our own side in a battle to the death is the right thing to do.
We’re not there yet, but signs are encouraging. Our leaders have never been more corrupt, decadent, and out of touch with what’s true and good. Our movement, by contrast, is on the side of truth and justice, and we are attracting highly intelligent and righteous individuals. They are in decline. We are on the ascent. When those two trajectories cross, a new order will be born.
* * *
Since the beginning of the migrant crisis last year, Counter-Currents’ traffic has increased enormously. More of our people are listening than ever before. So we have to get our message to them. I have to get more articles, more podcasts, more videos, more translations, and more books out there. I need to travel more, network more, and bring more people together. But I can’t do it without your help.
2016 is off to a strong start, but we need your help to maintain momentum. Counter-Currents reached 1,244,485 unique visitors in 2015, but we had only 331 unique donors keeping the whole thing afloat. Yes, I know, the great thing about the internet is all the free content. But consuming free content means being a free rider on other people’s generosity. This year, one of my resolutions is to convert more free riders to donors and book buyers.
If you want Counter-Currents to thrive, make a donation today.
If you want to send a non-tax deductible donation to Counter-Currents Publishing, you can make two different types of donations:
- A single donation of any size.
- A recurring donation of any size.
Recurring donations are particularly helpful, since they allow us better to predict and plan for the future. We have several levels for recurring donations. Please visit our Donations page for more information.
We can also customize the amount of a monthly donation.
There are several ways to make one-time donations:
- The easiest is with PayPal. Just use the following button:
- You can send check, money order, or credit card payment by mail. Just print out our donation form in Word or PDF.
- You can make a secure credit card donation direct from our Donation page.
Also, as we first announced in October of 2015, you now have two possible destinations for your donations: Counter-Currents Publishing and the Counter-Currents Foundation. The Counter-Currents Foundation is a US 501c3 educational corporation. Donations to it are deductible from US federal income taxes. The purpose of the Counter-Currents Foundation is specifically to promote scholarship and translations connected to the European New Right and allied movements. If you wish to earmark a donation to the Counter-Currents Foundation, or to discuss a particular project you would like to support, please contact me in advance at [email protected].Please give generously!
Thank you for your loyal readership and support.
Greg Johnson
38 Comments
So if I stand on my rooftop and scream “14/88 – niggerdeath” that will not bring people over to our side? Sites like Renegade claim that is the best way to convert people
This is a great site, which I found last year by chance together with the Alt-Right in general. I have always been interested in the history of ideas, specifically those of the Right. I also like how you write, Greg (if you don’t mind the familiarity), a very clear style. The podcasts are equally top-notch.
Aside from donating, is buying some of the books helpful as well? I am Spanish, I don’t know if they can be sent over here.
I can send books to Spain. Thanks for your kind words.
These kinds of commentators are rare these days, and the ones who indulge in this kind of language, one suspects, are usually doing so tongue-in-cheek and for laughs. Far more dangerous are the Alt Right figures who publish endless academic essays and tell their followers to eschew political action. Apathy is our worst enemy. Let’s get our people to put down their laptops and take to the streets!
Stop writing and take to the streets. No mention of what one will do there, though. Sorry, you’re part of the problem.
I have taken to the streets. You won’t even show your face.
Taking to the streets is not necessarily productive. Did you accomplish anything?
I generally disagree with the notion that anything changes because of hippy style protests or so-called “people power revolution” marches. After all, 30+ years after the Yellow Revolution of the Philippines, we have an authoritarian (Not necessarily bad, mind you) Punisher who is very much contrary to the Cory or her dimwitted son as leader of that country. See also the failure of the Arab Spring and Occupy.
Now, if you are hitting streets, I’d better see you providing a superior security and community organizing apparatus. It’s worked wonders for Golden Dawn and it’s why they continue being a viable force.
I don’t think he was telling people to eschew political action but rather to do away with the phony tough talk that calls for violence on the internet.
Those “Alt Right” figures you speak of are largely highly ineffective NRX types who continue to spout excessively from a theoretical standpoint, as opposed to the practical apolitea that most Alt Right sites advocate for.
As for Greg’s main point, I haven’t encountered these people in my readings through our sphere. Then again, I do generally avoid renegade and stormfront. Must be coming mostly from there.
You don’t encounter them here, because I delete such comments whenever they appear.
Nor have I encountered them in most of the discussions I frequent.
Greg,
Do you think that there may come a time when a good cop-bad cop routine may be useful? Something on the order of: acquiesce to our moderate proposal for the total ethnic rehabilitation of the west but if you don’t there are some scary dudes over here who may hurt you (but they are “completely unaffiliated with us”). Sort of like IRA and Sinn Fienn?
Also I would like to support your fine work and I intend to give you a paypal donation, but I was wondering: if I buy your books from Amazon is that just as good as buying your books from CC?
Yes, that’s what I was alluding to here: “Can we gain power through the existing political systems, or will we have to overthrow them in violent revolutions and coups, or will it be a little bit of both?”
We get a bit more money if you buy books direct. But either way makes us happy.
I have drawn a list of the ten websites that I consider key assets in the struggle. I support them by sending each one 5 btc every year.
CC is on this list and in light of this post I’ve just sent you 2 btc ahead of schedule. The remaining 3 btc I’ll send after my next btc buy.
It’s a good thing you have a btc address because it allows those of us employed by big biz and government to do their part.
Thank you so much for your princely gift. It really comes at a time of need.
As I always say: our problem is our OWN people, not an enemy people ! It´s our OWN people who are not ethno-identitarian WNs. So hw would violence change that? In order to win our fight, we simply have to make our own people pro-white. That is the task, not to fight a foreign people.
I would also like to add that, in my personal history, the strongest effect in my awakenining was information (in my case, essays about the true causes of WW I +II)! Plus that this information was presented in a very civil and quality setting whereas I was brainwashed to think that such views were held only by what we “know” as “Nazis” from the media. Therefore, I expect that it´ll be information that wakes up more Whites; violence however apparently makes no sense at all: to make more Whites be pro-white instead of self-hating anti-whites… how does violence effect that?
Another question is: why are Whites not pro-White? One of the most important effects here his: experience. Expose Whites to vibrancy and they become pro-Whites.
But there is another point that I´m pestering the WN scene with and that makes me unpopular: pro-White is associated with right-wing groups: and I, e.g., am not right-wing. I´m libertarian-leftish; I have various quite fundamental issues with right-wing views and I imagine that that´s the case with many Whites. For a long time now, I try to inspire: we need to tap into the potential of leftie Whites who are racialist but not right-wingers ! IMO, this could be a possibly huge potential to gain for our cause. I suspect that the authoritarianism of the Right pisses off lots of Whites who simply don´t like tyranny. Spite and dogmatism mustn´t prevent that the pro-White cause gets all the support it can, from all parts of our people, not only from the Right !
Don’t forget that although there are people, like you and me, who value information in the form of facts, most people are driven by emotion. In essence also the people who value the facts. What if the facts said that white people are evil and would be better of driven from their homelands? I wouldn’t accept that. In the end all that matters is that we want our own homelands for our people.
Regarding your leftist standpoint. Leftist ideologies is what got us in this situation, so I fully understand the desire for more authoritarian systems. I don’t see how we could prevent it happening again if we adhere to the same leftist ideology.
Greg I agree with every point you made. It’s easy to be keyboard warriors for a cause, while knocking mercilessly, the important and essential work of those who create the foundations and organization of the cause. I do sympathize however, with some of the ” frustrated keyboard warriors and other people who see the injustices and plain evil going on, in the same way I sympathize with people who finally get some satisfaction even if it’s illusory, with the Charles Bronson and other revenge type movies of the 1980’s, where the creeps and those doing pure evil, finally get theirs.
I belonged to a political activist organization a few years ago. I was on the leadership board.
I was told to be aware that they had previously had a government agent infiltrate the organization.
The agent specifically advocated for more violence and illegal actions rather than ‘talk’ to get the organization advancement. When it became clear they would not engage in illegal activity, he suspiciously left.
This is how they try to destroy you. Advocate illegality and get the state apparatus to readily destroy you. Don’t fall for.
We were always aware of this technique and on guard for infiltrators using these methods.
Be wise.
Agreed.
But nevertheless: prepare, prepare, prepare!
I just turned 55. This last year I have joined boxing practice beside my already existing fitness training, I have started practising with pistols with the aim to purchase one for regularly training (a lot of x-military out there will be delighted to help you increase your skills). The pistol will supply my big game hunting rifles. And these gatherings of weapons enthusiast is not a bad place to start building a network. The next is to hit the forest to take up my survival skills again.
As for the tough talk, I try to do it in moderation, and only with my male friends. Telling them that I see a conflict coming, and stating matter of factly that I hope we will have enough of a ‘rule of law’ left to avoid a downright massacre of todays traitors from within. It does sink in if I do not overdo my argumentation, which I have a tendency do, believe it or not :-).
I do appreciate c-c a lot, but the moment of truth will first arrive when the conflict turns physical. And I’d rather demolish the out-of-control muslim before he rapes my daughter than after.
Phew… How am I after this to convince anybody that I really meant the first word I wrote in my comment here…?
Silly article neglected to point out the importance of in-person engagement, whether it’s at demonstrations, or just at the mall. This is the primary point of the tough talk people, I surmise. Political revolutions are always street affairs. Always. And no site is as fraught with effete pseudo intellectualism as this one, though there are occasional gems here – this article isn’t one.
You’re being snarky and disingenuous, which proves to me that the article hit home.
Another insightful and spot on essay. I wish I had a billion dollars to give to Counter-Currents and other new right white nationalist organisations.
Toughers are probably just scared. They are scared the numbers are slipping out of our favor by the hour. They are scared being idle and seemingly helpless as the problem worsens. They are scared we are going to lose something either way. They are scared some cousin or neighbor goes the other way, or already has. They are scared watching the CoS scenario play out in Europe. (If 35 million colored people show up in MT or WI tonight, does MT or WI even exist?) They are scared some anti-bullet technology will be implemented reducing our chances even more. They are scared we are all known and will be the first 50k clipped.
And let’s be honest … We all are scared of exactly those things.
So, you are the leaders of this alt-right. Everyone has a talent in the scope of the larger goals. As of Monday 5/23, how will you best utilize this resource that is available – the Toughers? There’s literally hundreds of thousands of hours of effort that could be used.
Put ’em to work boss. You know what the devil does with idle hands…
Well, there’s always the next election. Seriously, if you think that losing by a tiny margin is an argument against the democratic path, that merely convicts you of having a defeating, black-pilled, half-empty mentality.
Has there been any previous elections where it got this close?
Also, not many people are willing to fight at this moment. All we’ve got to gain power is elections. In the meantime we have to convert more people to our cause and maybe next time we will win elections. Just like in the 1930s, Hitler did not need a violent revolution, he was elected.
To the OP’s point, and with regard to the states: the enemy will likely never be weaker with the 100+ languages spoken, the ultra-low IQs, women in more than half of the leadership positions, and very small and tightly packed territories that are essentially surrounded. But…
To the author’s point: the democratic approach ultimately yields validity. A quick back-of-the-napkin calculation shows that a majority of Austrians “did” vote for freedom. Now you just need to win over another 10-15% of men and women to create a super-majority and offset the pinko hard-leftists & the colored imports. The pinkos have used his approach in just about every white country btw – offset the nationalistic citizens with colored imports.
With respect to either side of the argument, it needs to be recognized that these ideas/approaches/strategies/etc. have a shelf-life that’s due to expire sooner than later.
Be patient a bit longer. Don’t make the mistakes of Bundy, the colored church shooter in the Carolinas, the Nordic camp shooter, other fed building bombers, etc. These people took themselves off-the-field at a time when their teammates need them most.
One small, but very important subject that doesn’t get much attention in nationalist circles, is the electoral system.
In plurality electoral systems (where the victor is the one who gets the most votes in a multi-party contest,) nationalists can prevail – as evinced by the victory of the Hindu nationalists in India in 2014, and more recently by the victory of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines recently.
In majoritarian electoral systems – those in which the victor must obtain over 50% of the vote, the radical right tends to lose, since the rest of the political spectrum rallies against them in the run-off vote. We’ve seen this in France, both in the 2002 presidential elections and in local elections recently – and of course, in Austria.
(The US system is closer to the majoritarian one, but only because there are two predominant parties; if a third one were to emerge, it would become a plurality system).
Change the electoral system, and you change the chances of coming to power via the ballot box.
Iraq and Afghanistan have been pretty much destroyed as societies by the US. I am sorry, but I can’t call it a victory for their side, just because victory as we defined it — which is apparently turning kebabs into European democrats — eluded us. If we defined victory as destroying those societies and pushing them into the 4th world, which is what the neocons wanted, then we won handily. I certainly would not count it a victory against the present regime if America were turned into 4th world hellhole. Arguably, that’s actually their plan.
The way to “take it to the streets” is to engage and talk to other white people (and even some non white people), first in your circle and then eventually branching out to strangers in everyday life. Dropping hints, innuendos and then switching it up to blunt talk on new items are all methods. I have started this in the past year and am surprised by how many people admit to sensing that something is wrong. Its a start. Weev had some great observations on the podcast with Greg on
methods and such.
Something as simple as pointing out the anti-white/male trends in radio commercials at work is a quick, low risk and high dividend way to plant a seed. You have to know who you are talking to, sure, but one can be creative in how one goes about it. I mean they are giving us plenty of ammo (figuratively speaking, of course).
Rarely if ever have I encountered the kind of ‘hard men’ you describe; who advocate violence in such an unnuanced way. Granted, apparently The Daily Stormer does that kind of stuff, but my impression is that it’s purposefully over-the-top and not intended to be taken completely seriously.
But whatever the case with violence, there’s a growing trend in ‘the movement’ of setting up a strawman to make one’s point; either to signal to the mainstream, to fight some personal vendetta, or simply to construct an argument (‘unlike THESE guys, I think this and that’).
I don’t see what the mention of “burnt out and embittered […] drunks and depressives” contributes to the overall argument you’re making regarding violence. It’s not a personal attack on you, but an observation of a very petty and time-consuming trend.
Sorry, but I am not going to pull punches. Those descriptions are accurate. There is nothing to be gained from softening the blow.
I don’t dispute that in a lot of cases this description will be accurate – and you’ll know that better than I do. However – and not to sound like I feel so tremendously important to preach to anyone or that I’m so above this kind of stuff myself – the amount of infighting is ridiculous. That’s because we often make our points by at the same time also condemning, dismissing or ridiculing people who disagree with us on that particular issue, but who are nonetheless on the same side in the grand scheme of things.
One more thing regarding ‘lowlifes’ (people who don’t have their shit together in their personal life, and maybe start drinking a.s.): we should be somewhat careful with our judgement, and not dismiss their opinions simply cos they’re prolly ‘frustrated’, ‘embittered’ or whatever. You were lucky, in a way, to have had your ‘awakening’ after your formal education, and things like that, was already completed, and were able to make your passion your ‘work’. But I can assure you that once ‘awake’ it’s super-hard to motivate oneself to get things done in ones personal life in the traditional sense, thus career, business, family etc. I’ve struggled with it myself for a while, and threw away some opportunities initially, but luckily regained my priority-perspective in time, as I’m still fairly young. But I can now really understand good and capable people becoming ‘lowlifes’ if they don’t self-reflect and interfere before it’s too late, and so my perspective has changed in that regard. If someone makes sense, he makes sense, ‘lowlife’ or not. Okay, time to stop rambling.
Andrew Anglin has a disclaimer on the front page of The Daily Stormer saying that anyone who advocates violence in his comment threads will have their comment deleted and account banned. Anglin’s a pretty funny guy, and more astute than first impressions might suggest. His is probably one of the most effective metapolitical platforms on the ‘net. I recommend checking out the site. It may not be a daily read, but it’s good for a laugh.
Bought some Evola earlier in the week. No idea where the money went. Spent all week trying to get my charismatic commie friend (who has an infant) to listen to the Bowden lecture on Evola, no progress yet. He assures me he’s open minded.
The only way to achieve cultural hegemony is to produce cultural texts of any form. People from the Right generally seem to be more interested in historical, economical and political books. In my opinion there is enough of these genres on the market. Claus M. Wolfschlag is a writer of the German New Right and has published a unique book on “Visions of the Future and Doomsday in Science- Fiction- Movies”. The book is basically about how filmmakers envision the future, create alternative societies and what kind of political ideology their movies are based on. It would be great to translate this book into English. Maybe Martin Lichtmesz could help to make it happen.
The only way to achieve cultural hegemony is to produce cultural texts of any form. People from the Right generally seem to be more interested in historical, economical and political books. In my opinion there is enough of these genres on the market.
Claus M. Wolfschlag is a writer of the German New Right and has published a unique book on “Visions of the Future and Doomsday in Science- Fiction- Movies”. The book is basically about how filmmakers envision the future, create alternative societies and what kind of political ideology their movies are based on.
It would be great to translate this book into English. Maybe Martin Lichtmesz could help to make it happen.
Bye the way, the original German title of the book is “Traumstadt und Armageddon. Zukunftsvision und Weltuntergang im Science-Fiction-Film. Ares-Verlag, Graz 2007, ISBN 978-3-902475-38-1.”