Counter-Currents
3,120 words
What do we want? A white ethnostate. Much has been written about this elusive state, and I am sure there is much controversy and difference of opinion about it, so I won’t attempt to define it here. Suffice to say that the ethnostate will be a nation state founded by whites, for whites, and it will be free of the racial chaos and strife which has come to characterize multi-racial societies. White Nationalism may have many goals, but the ethnostate is the first and most important one, and to achieve it will be to win. So far so good.
We could spend time explaining why whites must separate from other races. We could point to the low average IQs and the high rates of crime among blacks and Hispanics. We could argue that Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East are not immigrants but invaders who wish to establish a caliphate wherever they go. We could also question the motives and loyalty of higher-IQ people from various parts of Asia. John Derbyshire once quoted a Chinese man who described America not as a country but a place you go to make money. Can we trust the Chinese and the South Asians to hunker down with us and fight the blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims once we’re outnumbered 3-to-2? Or will they all flee to their homelands as soon as the going gets tough? I would bet on the latter, given that their loyalty to America is mostly based on economic opportunity. If they could do better in their home countries, they probably will.
These arguments and others lead to excellent reasons why whites are better off going it alone, and constitute what I call the Reactionary Argument for White Nationalism.
But the Reactionary Argument is not the most persuasive argument for White Nationalism at this point in time. Imagine a racial sensitivity bell curve for the white (or any) population. One end consists of the people who are most sensitive and defensive about their own race (that would be the Alt Right and everyone to the right of us), the other end consists of the people who are excessively critical or self-loathing about their race (for example, extreme leftists and social justice warriors). In the middle, to varying degrees you have the people who are less concerned about race. That is, the majority of the population.
The Reactionary Argument works wonders on the extreme ends of the curve. And yes, the Left has its own version as well. Where on the Right, we say, “Look at all the problems non-whites create. Let’s form a white ethnostate!” On the Left, they say, “Look at all the historic problems whites have created. Let’s destroy the white ethnostate!” So, a person who is born with a certain racial sensitivity will naturally incline towards either version of the Reactionary Argument, even when multi-racialism is at an incipient or otherwise less-than-consequential stage.
A great example is Wilmost Robertson’s nigh-forgotten magazine Instauration, which, by the 1980s, was promoting abortion as a way to limit the American black population. Joe Sobran, when he was a senior editor for National Review, wrote that Instauration “is openly and almost unremittingly hostile to blacks, Jews, and Mexican and Oriental immigrants.” Sobran went on to say that Instauration “assumes a world of Hobbesian conflict at the racial level: every race against every race. Knowing racial harmony is hard, Instauration takes a fatal step further and gives up on it.”
This was written in 1980s, back when whites made up a significantly larger proportion of the American population than it does now. Imagine how sensitive to race one would have to be to subscribe to such beliefs back then!
The further one travels up the bell curve towards its bulging center, however, the less effect the Reactionary Argument will have. Whether the argument is sound or unsound, or true or false, is irrelevant. People in the middle of the curve tend not to like thinking about race unless they have to, and we are not yet at that point in history which will force everyone to think about race for their very survival. Therefore, coming at such people with something along the lines of, “Goddamn kikes! They’re at it again!” will have no persuasive value. Just the opposite, actually.
This point was perfected illustrated in an interview Gavin McInnes had with actress and cartoonist Emily Youcis back in October of this year. I consider McInnes, as an online comedic personality and contributor to Taki’s Magazine, a member of what Vox Day refers to as the “Alt West.” Along these lines, Michael Bell included McInnes in the Third Tier of his “Caste System of the Alt Right,” published by Counter-Currents this past September. Third Tier Alt Westers are essentially race-realist, Right-wing, Western chauvinists who are still normie enough to shy away from their white identities and not look too critically at diaspora Jews. They are a little higher up on the bell curve than the Alt Right is.
Based on her behavior during the interview, however, Youcis is a red-pilled member of the Alt Right. She had been invited once before on McInnes’ show, and the entire conversation was friendly, even flirty, as McInnes complemented Youcis on her looks and repeated several times that he liked her not just as a friend. (Unrelated: perhaps this kind of frank voyeurism is not quite as edgy as McInnes thinks it is, but I still find it endearing, both on his part, and on Youcis’ who was a good sport about it.)
When these two met on McInnes’ show in October however, Youcis ambushed him with the Jewish Question midway through. Right away, McInnes became extremely uncomfortable. He admitted to liking Jews and held up Ezra Levant as a particularly righteous example (I agree. Levant is a Mensch). No matter what Youcis tried to tell him about the negative effects of Jews upon the white race, McInnes wouldn’t budge.
There was something else just as telling. They discussed interracial adoption, whites couples adopting black babies. Youcis was predictably against the practice, while McInnes had no problem with it, given the dearth of white babies available for adoption. Now, in this aspect, McInnes is correct. Parents who wish to adopt white babies often have to wait years to find one, whereas black babies are more readily available. Still, as part normie, McInnes was loath to reject the practice as malum in se. A White Nationalist would reject it, of course, on the grounds that, despite the humanitarian concerns (which are not nothing) interracial intimacy of any kind is counter-productive to the stated goals of White Nationalism. Therefore, white couples should not adopt black babies. McInnes does not agree with this because he does not (yet) see the necessity of White Nationalism. He still seems to think that whites and blacks and other races can get along indefinitely, despite their genetic differences.
When Youcis pressed him to recite the famous “Fourteen Words,” McInnes did, but when it came time to say “white” he interpolated the word “western.” For those who don’t know, here they are, all fourteen of them: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Nothing to object to here, right? Only, McInnes sort of did. He just could bring himself to identify strongly with his own race. As with most on the Alt West, McInnes is more anti-anti-white than explicitly pro-white, which we all know is not the same thing.
After the interview, McInnes summed it up by saying that Youcis had “OD’ed on red pills.”
So how to get through to these people? This is an important question because it could ultimately save lives. I have always stated that White Nationalism is a perspective of peace because it is the only perspective which attempts to stave off the coming civil war in America. This multi-racial business cannot stand indefinitely. Once whites become a minority in America, we will finally see the ugly faces of the non-whites we have enfranchised in our society. Mark my words, they will oppress us, just like they oppress their own kinds in their own countries. By that point, most whites (including our skittish friend Gavin McInnes) will be identifying as white by necessity, but by that point there will more non-whites than whites in our country. This state of affairs will require a lot of bloodshed to sort out, blood that will be spilled by our children and grandchildren. And there is no telling if the whites will emerge victorious from that struggle or not.
Put simply, we cannot afford to wait on historical evolution to bring us to White Nationalism. Instead, we have to anticipate this evolution in order to control it and steer it in a more humane direction. White Nationalism today (and not mañana) will allow the current system to correct itself, with strict immigration laws, mass-deportations, mass-self-deportations, and a return to a self-conscious white identity being the proper and dominant identity of the United States. Donald Trump’s victory last month over Hillary Clinton could possibly represent an inchoate version of this—time will tell.
To achieve White Nationalism now, we need to increase our numbers in order to increase our influence and financial strength. And the first people we need to convert are the people closest to us, namely, the Alt West: race-realist, conservative, Right-wing white people who are partly Alt Right to begin with. If we can’t convert these people, then we can’t convert anyone. But how do we do this when the Reactionary Argument fails with them every time we use it? How can we bring them to our way of thinking without sacrificing any of our principles?
We do it with a new argument, an argument which I call the Axiomatic Argument for White Nationalism. It focuses on the positive aspects of whites rather than the negative aspects of non-whites. It basically goes like this:
The white race, like all races, is inherently a Good Thing. Therefore it must be preserved at all costs. Multi-racialism in historically white nations—through the tribal and bellicose nature of all humans, through the temptation of miscegenation, and through the accelerated breeding patterns of many non-whites, among other things—threatens the survival of white people. It threatens to make them minorities in their own countries. And from there, if historical patterns hold up, whites will find themselves oppressed, despised, and eventually bred or hounded out of existence. Although this could take a long time, it is reasonable to conclude the process will be impossible to reverse after a certain point.
I don’t think that the eventual genocide of any race can be applauded by any rational person. Thus, the Axiomatic Argument concludes that if the end result of multi-racialism is evil and if we can show how multi-racialism leads to such an end, then we can confidently claim that multi-racialism in itself is evil even when certain specifics of it are not evil. McInnes’ white couple’s adopting that black baby, for example. It may seem like they’re doing something noble, but they’re really not.
Note that it is not necessary to hate non-whites to hold this view. In fact, our opinions of non-whites are completely irrelevant to the Axiomatic Argument. One can theoretically have great admiration for the Chinese, the Indians, and yes, even the Jews and still be a White Nationalist in good standing . . . as long as one supports the idea of racial identity, racial self-determination, and ethnonationalism. Once the separation occurs, it really doesn’t matter what we think of other races, does it? Love ’em or hate ’em, it doesn’t matter.
Of course, I must add the caveat that a white ethnostate—or any ethnostate for that matter—which wages war on other races for imperialist reasons violates the very idea of ethnonationalism. I never get tired of saying this: White Nationalism is an ideology of peace. White Nationalists don’t want Nigeria to be any less Nigerian. We don’t want Japan to be any less Japanese. By the same token, we don’t want Europe or the United States to be any less European. We have lost the arrogance of our forefathers who colonized the non-white world in an effort to make it more white. But now that these efforts are boomeranging back towards us, we see that the arrogant ones today are the non-whites who wish to make white world less white. Essentially, multi-racialism cannot continue for the same reason that European imperialism could not continue. It violates the idea of ethnonationalism.
I believe that the Axiomatic Argument will prove more palatable for the Alt West because it does not reflect badly on other races. In fact, it can be applied equally with them as it can with us. The closer people are to the center of the bell curve, the more they will appreciate both of these points. They are both reasonable and reveal that we don’t have an ax to grind. And I assure you, nothing is uglier to a normie than a white person with a racial ax to grind. I’m not saying some axes shouldn’t be ground. I’m saying we probably shouldn’t lead with our ax when speaking with the Gavin McInneses of the world the way Emily Youcis did. It will scare them off, and make no mistake, they have great fear of us, two world wars worth of fear. But since the Axiomatic Argument is less scary but no less true than the Reactionary Argument, why not lead with it?
The Axiomatic Argument applies nicely with most races, given our obvious phenotypic and temperamental differences. But its great sticking point, of course, will be with the Jews. It will always come down to the Jews, which, unfortunately, will be a deal breaker with most in the Alt West. Any whiff of anti-Semitism from us will send them running. “Aren’t Jews white?” The typical Alt Wester will ask in protest. “Don’t the Jews also deserve a place in the great white ethnostate?”
Of course, the answer has to be no . . . as much as it would be with any non-white race in a white ethnostate. The Reactionary Argument will bolster this assertion by providing a list of all the negative qualities of Jews we’ve all heard a thousand times before (they’re clannish, they’re disloyal, they’re left-wing, they promote immigration, they wield disproportionate control, etc.). Therefore, to avoid all this bad stuff, Jews gotta go.
But consider how much more deftly the Axiomatic Argument handles this question and how it universalizes the answer in order to cater to people who aren’t obsessed with race. To the question “Are Jews white?” the Axiomatic Argument answers in the negative and then reverses the question: “Are whites Jews?” If you ask this of a Jewish person, or, even better, an Israeli, their answer will also have to be no. Don’t white people also deserve a place in the Jewish ethnostate? Well, of course not. Any Jew, Israeli or no, will have to answer in this fashion. Furthermore, whites certainly don’t take it personally for being excluded from Israel. It’s not like excluding whites from Israel according to the dictates of ethnonationalism can be considered anti-Gentilism, right? So then, by the same token, why is it anti-Semitic for whites to also exclude Jews? Whites are only doing unto Jews what Jews do unto them.
In its last-ditched resistance, the philo-Semitic Alt West may ask, “Well, how do you know Jews are a separate race from European whites? They look so much like us.” It is this phenotypic resemblance and the Jews’ expert facility at assimilation which may make it difficult for some whites to part with them. This is perfectly understandable.
However, if we can scientifically prove that Jews and whites are racially heterogeneous, then that will go a long way to strengthen the Axiomatic Argument while making its proponents seem more persuasive. Fortunately, with advanced DNA sequencing, we can now do this. According to Nicholas Wade in chapter eight his 2014 book A Troublesome Inheritance:
DNA analysis shows that Jews are a definable set of populations and that Ashkenazi Jews, at least, can be distinguished genetically from other Europeans. With each Jewish community, there has been some intermarriage with local populations but at a very slow rate. This neatly explains the observation by Jewish anthropologists that Jews from all over the world resemble one another yet also resemble their host populations.
Wade writes later:
As to European Jews, or Ashkenazim, genetics show that there has been a 5% to 8% admixture with Europeans since the founding of the Ashkenazi population in about 900 AD, which is equivalent to 0.05% per generation. Researchers using a SNP chip that tests the genome at 550,000 sites report that they were able to distinguish with complete accuracy between Ashkenazim and non-Jewish Europeans. This is a test applicable to populations, not individuals, since it depends on seeing how individuals cluster together in terms of statistical differences in their genome sequences. Still, it shows that Ashkenzaim are a distinctive population and therefore could have been subjected to forces of natural selection different from those acting on other Europeans. [Emphasis mine]
Conclusive evidence like this places the onus back on philo-Semitic whites to prove that Jews and whites belong to the same race. And I predict they won’t be able to do it.
Remember, the point of all this is to win, to achieve that white ethnostate. In order to do this, of course, we must unite whites under the same White Nationalist banner. And in order to do that we must answer the Jewish Question. The Reactionary Argument tries to do this by bringing up all the bad things Jews do. But this argument can be countered by bringing up all the good things Jews do. And what follows is invariably an ugly mess.
The Axiomatic Argument, on the other hand, takes an Alexandrian sword to this Gordian knot. It shows us that the best way to answer the Jewish Question is to simply not ask it. As members of a different race, Jews will be treated in the same way as all non-whites. How can that possibly be anti-Semitic? Who cares if a non-white in a non-white homeland is Jewish or Arab or Chinese or whatever? The Axiomatic position is all about being pro-white, a position which is good in of itself.
The best analogy I can think of for replacing the Reactionary Argument with the Axiomatic Argument is that by doing so whites could finally get their cake and eat it too, only with a different flavor of icing and a different message on top. Either way, the cake gets eaten.
Small price to pay for winning.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
25 comments
This would make a lot of sense IF the people closer to the center of the bell curve were free to think rationally about these issues. Alas, they are not.
I see your arguments as well constructed and effective because I am willing to listen to you, and I am willing to listen to you because I’m not afraid of the places your arguments may lead to.
But THEY are. They are very much afraid. Afraid of conflict, afraid of losing social status (that’s what framing healthy and normal racial preferences as a moral sin is all about after all), afraid of losing revenue, whatever.
The Axiomatic Argument is basically the RamZPaul argument, which seeks to appeal to less race-sensitive people by leveraging a form of egalitarianism: “ALL races deserve to have their own sovereign territory, Whites are a race like any other, therefore they deserve White nations”.
I don’t really agree with the assumptions in that argument, but let’s consider it on the merit of its persuasive power.
With most of the intended targets, I think the Axiomatic Argument would fail for the same reason everything else fails: they have been programmed to believe White Nationalism is bad in and of itself, so everything that LEADS to White Nationalism must be bad as well. If a destination is bad, then implicitly all roads that lead to it are bad, no matter how fair and innocuous they may appear.
I just saw a CNN segment where a woman interviewing and then commenting about Richard Spencer said something to the effect of “he appears very calm, reasonable and kind, and THEREFORE we cannot allow ourselves to have a rational conversation with him”. Translation: the road appears so good in itself, that it may actually persuade us and lead us to that bad bad bad destination. By this “logic”, the Axiomatic Argument could easily be perceived as a sneaky, disingenuous way to “trick” people into accepting White Nationalism.
Here’s the segment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rDE11mWjUo
I have had people tell me the same thing many times: “You sound very intelligent, and I can’t really object to what you’re saying, but I just KNOW it’s bad.”
Rational arguments can almost never override instinctual, emotional drives. We are not White Nationalists because we applied formal logic to the problem and dispassionately concluded that White Nationalism is the correct solution. We are White Nationalists because certain experiences caused us discomfort and led us to research the matter more deeply, discover facts that caused us even more discomfort, and THEN we connected all these dots rationally, to make sure we were not just upset, but rightfully upset.
Arguing for White Nationalism today is a bit like arguing for paedophilia: unless you are predisposed to accept it on a much deeper level, a level that involves parts of the brain that have nothing to do with rational thought, you will always find it repulsive, no matter how good the argument is from the logical point of view. Arguments only serve as post-facto aids to rationalizATION.
It’s basically the r/K selection divide: you cannot persuade someone to be r or K, you can only alter the environmental stimuli to promote an r or a K mentality. Granted, we are not trying to convert rs into Ks, but merely to bring Ks a little further up the spectrum in the direction of K. Still, I very much doubt rational arguments can do the trick; they may, at most, serve as post-facto justification for positions that one has already assumed on a gut level.
In summary, rational discourse is only a very superficial level of this conflict; since we are playing to win, I suggest that we look for ways to appeal to more basic levels of the psyche, AT LEAST as much as we rationalize our positions.
Take, for example, the “cuckservative” meme. Using the good old male shaming tactic, more has been accomplished by a single word than by decades of carefully crafted argumentation.
As someone recently said on The Daily Shoah, “You can be a White Nationalist, or you can be someone else’s BITCH”. How’s that for an axiom? Now the white male must weigh two perceived evils: being labeled as a racist, or being labeled as a feminine subservient loser.
If we were to research and apply this kind of approach with the same care we use to construct a rational framework, I can almost guarantee we would see much greater improvements.
To conclude: by all means let’s provide the people in the process of being red-pilled with left-brained aids to rationalization, but never forget the real persuasion happens at gut level.
Yes, I think you grasp the reality of the situation, that the “gut” does play a determining role in converting people. I have experienced this when I am around leftists(my entire day), it is often nearly impossible to get them to see the world from our perspective. It’s just not in them to do so.
Its quite ironic that white nationalists study human races, the differences, skills and traits, compare IQs, crime rates, etc and yet fail to understand irrationality of human nature. Humans have very limited capacity to see things the way they really are, our mind constantly creates parallel realities – delusions. Deep down we are just primates.
Sure. But that is not an argument for being completely irrational about choosing the means by which we appeal to people’s irrational nature.
Another way of using the “irrational” approach would be to stress esthetics : the beauty of the White race and the immense contributions it has made in the realm of art. All of this would be lost if the White race would disappear.
Obviously not, and that’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely saying, very few people can be reasonable about this, and most respond far better to more visceral stimuli, so let’s take that into account when we look for ways to persuade them.
A robust intellectual framework is indispensable in a strategy that aims for cultural hegemony; specifically our new elite should strongly identify with that framework. That doesn’t mean that rational arguments are the best or even an adequate conversion tool for the masses, especially at a time when people are “literally shaking” in anger and fear.
Frankly, I doubt even the opinion leaders of the Alt-Lite can ever be swayed that way. A taboo is a taboo is a taboo. The Trump phenomenon only serves to prove that people don’t need rational arguments to come on our side, if only implicitly. After all, looking out for your own interests is the most natural thing in the world, and only decades of unrelenting (((brainwashing))) and (((social engineering))) can push that instinct into dormancy. What people need is simply PERMISSION from an authority figure.
Perhaps sadly for intellectual types like us, I think the most persuasive approach (during peace time) is just a mixture of a) being successful as people, attaining high social status in every way we can, and then b) gradually start behaving as if our ideas were perfectly normal and acceptable. In short, be popular, and “just call them niggers”.
Intellectual types have the advantage of a powerful and often detached mind; let’s not waste that advantage by assuming that our target audience has the same mental capacity.
Renzo,
Thank you for your commentary. In some ways I wish what you’re saying isn’t true, but it could very well be. When I am talking about arguing for WN, I mean speaking with people with above average intelligence and insight. I was “red-pilled” not through any adverse experience but through argument and reason. I can only assume I am not the only one. On the other hand, your point is well taken that the majority of folks will need that adverse experience to change their minds about anything. I continue to hope that persuasion will increase our numbers enough to make a difference when it matters. Time will tell.
Good article and the approach is definitely worth a try. As someone who arrived in the alt-right from far left ideology, a process that took less than two years, I’d say that the alt-west are not our only recruits and perhaps not even our easiest recruits (their major faces usually have non-white spouses, or in the case of Vox Day identify as mixed themselves).
Rational arguments didn’t convince me that multiculturalism and feminism was destroying our societies, first hand exposure to multiculturalism and feminism did. The truth of alt-right arguments merely retained and engaged me.
Reminds me of the economic maxim: The cure for high prices is high prices. Meaning that high prices bring in competitors who then drive down the prices.
Likewise, the cure for Diversity is Diversity. The more diverse the society the more white nationalism becomes inevitable.
Interesting & appreciated article, however at least two points of departure / disagreement:
1) What is considered “moderate” or the middle of the “bell curve”, has varied over time. It is not some static thing, but moves when subjected to forces.
2) “Imperialism”, has far more history to it, than an envisioned world of peaceful entho-Nationalisms / separate ethno-states. “Imperialism” is also present across kinds of human social organizations from competing hunter-gatherers to sedentary agrarian societies. Imperialism is more in-line with adaptation pressures and changing environments.
…In essence: don’t substitute one erroneous Religion for another.
White Nationalism & esp. the notion of a peaceful World of defined and bounded ethno-nations, is just another human religion. There is only one “religion” which has consistency, and it is not that of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, contemporary Multiculturalism & Universal Human Rights, and nor would it be your vision of White Nationalism.
Rather, it is of “Nature”.
“Natural Laws”, supersede human law & religion, it just may require a longer preview than most people take, know, care for, study, or consider.
What are “Natural Laws”; esp. with regards to humans as individuals and their societies/ forms of social organization?
Such Laws or better termed theory, require considerable study across time, place, perspectives, and present-day academic disciplines, to hone in on consistencies.
Yet, this is what can “hold water”, and be more defensible.
In sum for my 2nd disagreement, “imperialism”, I contend, is more defensible, and IS, rather than some peaceful world of segregated ethno-nationalisms & states as idealized in the article.
“Natural Law” in the vegetable, animal and human kingdoms of life is that living beings collectively not only strive to survive but also to expand. In the human kingdom the latter is called “imperialism” when it happens in an advanced state of social organization, i.e. on the level of a state, but it also occurs on the level of tribal social organization. As such “imperialism” is as old as humanity itself, but on our overpopulated planet where every territory has already be claimed by states, further pursuit of this “natural law” would be catastrophic, so I think we rather should settle for a “Utopian” form of ethno-nationalism, where every ethnic group lives in its own territory without ambition of any further expansion, whether that is “natural” or not.
‘on our overpopulated planet where every territory has already be claimed by states, further pursuit of this “natural law” would be catastrophic, so I think we rather should settle for a “Utopian” form of ethno-nationalism, where every ethnic group lives in its own territory without ambition of any further expansion, whether that is “natural” or not.”
Such an arrangement presupposes a fair degree of homogeneity in thought, agreement, and culture/law. Even if there were bounded states, law would have to better incorporate biology, such that gene flows across geopolitical borders would be controlled. And, in this system, there couldn’t be deviants, otherwise violence would be necessary again, to control such mutant nations & preserve the status quo.
There is an aura of pacifism among some here on CC.
Yet, this, too is a dogma, which may obstruct questions & thought…
Erik,
Maybe there are instances in which imperialism is appropriate. However, I had in mind imperialism for imperialism’s sake, which wouldn’t be a good thing for a white ethnostate, I think.
Praising the Israeli government’s nationalist practices seems like another good angle.
A blackpill hail Mary is to point out that we are on track to become the new Jews and need a home
Eh, I won’t get into that “peacefulness” stuff because I do understand you try to appeal to The Eternal Normie ™ . But otherwise people can be asked whether they agree to certain statements in succession:
1. White people have right to exist
2. White people, by all relevant and irrelevant statistics are disappearing, which means, moving towards cessation of their existence unambiguously
3. That 14th words are nothing but a summation of our desire to prevent the above mentioned
4. That White Ethnostate is the optimal, and increasingly becoming the only possible solution to achieving preservation of Whites in North America (and Europe, though we have here national states).
Luka,
*Someone* has to try to reach out to the normies, right? So why not me? At any rate, I agree with your commentary. Thanks.
There’s another aspect of reframing White Nationalism based on the fact that nationalism is neither a right-wing nor left-wing viewpoint.
Most often, nationalists focus on aspects from a “right wing” perspective. But, it is strategically useful to “take the wind out of the sails” of your opponents as well. That would mean reframing White Nationalism in leftist terms.
For example, White Nationalism can be framed as a human rights issue and White Nationalists as representing the human rights of whites for their own ethnicity, nationality and self determination. Therefore, White Nationalists are human rights advocates.
Racial realism can be incorporated by emphasizing the fact that race is an indispensable part of our ethno-cultural identity but that other aspects of our culture are important as well.
Ultimately, I think that there is strong value in considering the implications of this approach. For one, it provides a larger cultural emphasis for ourselves in our organizations.
Doing this makes the White Nationalist message more accessible and meaningful to a much larger audience.
I’m not saying that one needs to eliminate the issues that are important to oneself and our immediate supporters, but only that, when possible, in public advocacy, ideas of leftist nationalism can be included to perform “outreach” beyond those who already agree with your nationalist viewpoint and work to develop a larger nationalist community.
Thanks, Ed. I wrote an article about that very topic a few months ago.
https://counter-currents.com/2016/05/on-liberals-and-the-white-ethnostate/
That’s a great picture. A meme in itself.
American Jews can be relocated to Long Island which will be renamed West Israel in the future North American ethnostate.
Why not leave (((them))) in the epicenter of the sprawling urban metropolitan madness – Manhattan Island? Long Island is a rather beautiful place to be – sans a healthy portion of the current population…some enclaves here and there. Plentiful beaches; accessible in both Summer and Winter. Hiking trails galore…albeit a bit flat…with an abundant amount of unique flora and fauna.
Besides, it’s a bit early to plan the specifics of the Ethnostate…let’s talk about getting some permanent foot-holds. (((They))) can have the infernally tempered Florida.
I am relatively new to the movement and have just been a silent observer, but one thing that I have noticed is the absence of woman in these discussions and in the movement in general. Being from the Deep South, I was born racially conscience but so much has changed in the South, and women have been a large part in the shifting racial attitudes in the South. I can’t tell you how many older white couples that I know who are raising black grandchildren because of their white daughters relationship with black men. I know this was completely off topic, but to me winning the women over is the key to growing the movement.
Peace is a nullity. All creatures great and small are constantly at war. Politics is just a war of words. All creatures need a territory to survive. Allowing any invaders in will kill you all. You will find, that in the end there are NO GOOD ONES. Its you and them, and NOTHING IN BETWEEN. The inferior gravitate to the Strong Horse. Most people are lemmings following the prevailing authority. Ideas, maxims, and culture are NOTHING. RACE IS EVERYTHING. In the end, the Strong survive, and the Weak submit or die off. THERE CAN BE NO NEGOTIATION.
I would highly recommend reading Human Factors: Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies.
It’s a Cold War era US Army manual on insurgency/counterinsurgency with an excellent analysis of why people join radical movements. This applies across the boards to peacetime political activism. There are lots of lessons to be learned. PART II: Motivation and Behavior is especially useful.
Only a small number of people join a movement because of reasoned argument and ideology. The major factors are:
* Grievances: people want revenge for real (or imagined) persecution by the government.
* Personal fulfillment: people want the movement to give them status and/or a job.
* Social pressures: people want to be part of what appears to be the winning side and gain peer group approval (aka the Bandwagon Effect).
The Left is very good at this. Look at the grievance industry which mobilizes minorities (400 years of slavery-segregation-microaggressions!). Activist organizations engage in rent-seeking behavior (get that job as a campus diversity coordinator today, next year it’s the revolution, man!). And I need not comment on how many incipient activists will rally to whatever trendy cause is on the menu (cf the recent CC article on Standing Rock).
Similarly, what are reasons for people joining the cause of Alt Right/White Nationalism/Race Realism? One of the most common postings is: “I used to be a moderate on race until I (or a family member) was mugged by a minority/lost a job to an affirmative action hire/name the atrocity.” Similarly, the Identitarian movement provides a sense of group membership while giving an opportunity to strike back at the invaders and their enablers. And TRS pool parties are peer groups in action.
This is not to say that ideology doesn’t play a role in forming a movement. There is an intellectual sector who will be attracted by reasoned arguments. And ideology is useful as a means for cadres to provide guidance and unity to a larger movement. But you are not going to create a mass movement out of an ideology per se. A movement needs to provide a sense of group membership which gives individual lives meaning as part of a greater cause.
We have seen something like this play out with the Vast Alt Right Troll Army. Even if isolated in the proverbial parents’ basement, the activist is part of a movement which can strike back against that anti-White Globalized-Technocratic System. There’s also the romantic element of being part of a clandestine underground. In the 1970s the Sandinistas might have had Commandante Zero; in the 2010s the Alt Right has Pepe. The very absurdity of the Pepe / Kek meme, unleashing chaos against a stultified System, makes it work. By participating in these online campaigns, you are on the winning side.
As always, the dilemma is in translating this explosion in energy from the virtual to the real world. Which is one reason to read up on what the experts have to say…it’s all there in the manual.
Human Factors… can be found online at:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/735332.pdf
https://archive.org/stream/milmanual-pa-550-104-human-factor-considerations-of-undergrounds-in-in/pa_550-104_human_factor_considerations_of_undergrounds_in_insurgencies_djvu.txt
You can also get a copy via Amazon. The original was written in the 1960s but I understand there’s a more recent version. And you have to factor in today’s network-centric operations and information warfare. Regardless, it’s well worth a read.
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
Lost your password?Edit your comment