Counter-Currents
Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, Quebec City Mayor Regis Labeaume, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair commemorating the victims of the Quebec City mosque shooting.
798 words
The art of politics in the modern age seems to be about holding up the worst representative of a rival group to define that group. Rather than just comparing groups, as Herrnstein and Murray do in The Bell Curve or as the American Renaissance publication The Color of Crime does, the media seems to want to play a game of tag.
In this game, the latest person to commit a mass shooting or terrorist attack is held up as the quintessential member of his group. That group is now “it” and must defend itself in light of the tragedy. For example, users of the Confederate flag became “it” after the Dylann Roof shooting. Muslims became “it” after the Orlando massacre. Now it seems anti-Muslims are “it” following the recent massacre in Quebec.
This game is a vain endeavor. The fact that a member of a group commits a terrorist attack should not vilify the entire group, because all groups have crazy people, even the Chosen People (most notably Baruch Goldstein). The only reasonable comparison to be made is a per-capita one, specifically, how likely a group member is to commit a bad deed, which somewhat reflects on the group’s overall profile. However, media outlets routinely opt for comparing the misdeeds of the white majority with those of minority groups to make the latter appear less likely to do evil. By eschewing per-capita standards, the media capitalizes on the fact that the average reader scans only for headlines and does not dig deeper to discover the misleading nature of the articles. There is a kind of asymmetry of information which the press cynically exploits to further an anti-white political agenda.
Avoiding per-capita reality is misleading, but playing the game of “tag” is even worse. For one, it puts things in a context which normies can understand, but which doesn’t actually reveal any truth. A normie is tied to a very basic, human-centric environment. He can’t conceptualize ratios, statistical likelihood, and so on. But he understands a story about an individual shooting at people. Thus, he can be spooked by the scary story and sleep a little less soundly after he thinks about it. He can be influenced to vote a certain way or to think a certain way. There is absolutely no rational assessment of anything involved in such an assessment. It is all based on fear. An accurate understanding of the risks posed by the group in question is entirely lacking.
Even comparing terrorist attacks doesn’t give one the whole picture. When comparing groups, it is better to make use of a holistic conceptualization rather than tally its members’ worst deeds. By this method, it becomes clear, in light of the prevalence of white flight, that whites are happiest living among people like themselves. The trouble is that non-whites also want to live near them, thus creating friction between whites who want to be left alone and non-whites who want to be around them (or at least become part of their economies).
Granted, if whites had a country of their own, it would not be a utopia bereft of all mass shootings. It’s possible that the Quebec shooter, if he lived a century ago in a nearly all-white Canada, might have opened fire for other reasons. For example, perhaps he would have been a Marxist shooting up a meeting of capitalist factory owners. However, if diversity leads to an increase in the number of mass shooters, then it’s possible that he is one of the marginal people who would not have committed an act of violence had he lived in a non-diverse environment. Whether there would be fewer mass shooters in an all-white country is debatable, but what is certain is that the people’s overall quality of life would be better. Whites prefer cities bereft of rampant violent crime and an economy which doesn’t have to bear the deadweight of affirmative action.
While it would be ideal to focus on a narrative involving a whole culture, at the very least summaries of per-capita wrongdoing such as The Color of Crime show that a white/Asian nation is better in many respects than a multicultural one. But, alas, the media controls what normies hear on a daily basis. Sometimes the drudgery of the ongoing game of tag might even upset one of them so much that he turns to a White Nationalist site for a more intelligent viewpoint. He might even start down a path which leads him to lose his normie identity. And that’s why I’ve written this article, as an act of judo (or rather jujitsu, to be technically correct) using the media’s focus on the Alexandre Bissonnette shooting to hopefully lead white people to a better understanding of the type of society in which they will be happiest.
5 comments
Overall good length for what you’re intending, but it would be a good idea to edit it so that “Alexandre Bissonnette shooting” appears at least 3 times in the body and once in the title. Of course, you shouldn’t expect to make google’s top results even if you apply these changes, but your article might just pop up in the first 4-5 pages for a hypothetical discernible searcher to click on.
The media, supported by the big banking institutions, makes the following an express aim:
-to portray blacks in the best possible light, regardless of reality
-to portray all non-whites in a good light, but of course if they are foreigners, American empire has the right to dominate them indiscriminately (but if they come to America, they are now Americans living in a multiracial utopia)
-to portray liberal and corporate whites in a positive light as long as they tow the line
-to portray every white with an independent opinion in the worst possible light, even going so far as to ridicule them and portray them as “stupid” which is of course the opposite of reality
How does the Left deal with its terrorists? Look at the way that Che Guevara was made into an iconic figure, and Nelson Mandela duly beatified. Or consider the post-Trump election Leftist meltdown in which open calls for violence are being made by even mainstream liberals – and such calls are answered in the streets of DC and campuses such as Berkeley.
But of course, the Left is dealing from a much stronger hand than is the Right. The Left has a considerable apparatus with its media, its dominance of academia, its mass based front organizations, its corporate financiers, and the general cuckiness of those conservatives who march to its beat.
The Alt Right is starting from ground zero. It currently lacks the media saturation, the boots on the ground, the corporate sponsorship to gain full spectrum dominance. But the Alt Right is making its presence felt, largely via the Internet and Social Media. It’s demonstrated a mastery of meme warfare. And to give credit where it is due, Milo’s (and Spencer’s) appearances at UC Berkeley and points east have garnered much publicity for the Alt Right.
The dilemma is how to translate the memes and the publicity into a viable movement. To give one example: supposing young master Bissonnette had come to an Alternative Right website and said: “I want to enlist. What can I do for your organization?”
Well, it would be nice to think there would be something useful for him. Like writing online articles. Or making videos. Or joining an agitprop team to put up posters around campus. Or even starting a local gun club (shooting only at paper targets, you understand). It’s been a truism of both political campaigns and insurgency that in order to grow a movement, you have to give people something to do that is personally fulfilling. This is why it is vital to set up fronts for writers, artists, activists and street fighters (as the Left does). Perhaps master Bissonnette’s energies might have been channeled into street activism, confronting Leftist mayhem in front of an NPI conference or university “free speech” event.
The Information Age gives the Alt Right all sorts of opportunities for activism. As usual, I’ll put in some plugs for a couple of books with guidelines: Networks and Netwars and The Zapatista Social Netwar (both published by the RAND Corporation). As well, the tactics of the various European Nationalist and Identitarian movements can be examined since those movements are making advances on several fronts.
The next time a Dylann Storm Roof or Alexandre Bissonnette comes along, let’s see them being signed up for some constructive action for the Alt Right.
A few points of observation, and a conclusion or two, now that an appeals court has upheld the first court’s reversal of Trump’s executive order on immigration.
1. In drafting and implementing the orders soon after taking office, the Trump administration has exerted itself very little, but very publicly, and this is in good stead regarding his campaign promises. The EO need only be defended cursorily, as its “failure” will be remembered in light of the next terrorist attack, on US soil. I wonder if any Democrat realizes they can never, ever say, “This could have been prevented.” (The next shooter will probably be white, but maybe not.)
2. The color-revolution palaver and protest against the order, against Trump in general (and against Milo, for example), is an over-funded, chaotic effort, a slightly more delusional and markedly more aimless extension of the pro-status-quo, pro-Hillary election campaign. Being artificial and bloated in nature, it can also be artificially accelerated, to its great detriment and to the detriment of the Anti-Whatever-Trump-Says-Or-Does cause.
3. The domestic and global hysteria and obstructionism renders any political risk quite flat. Trump’s damned if he do, damned if he don’t, in other words. (He could float Democratic proposals, or bring in Bernie as a consultant, for example, and the result would be arson and righteous speeches against racism, sexism, and the wearing of men’s clothing — by men.) The conclusion here is: Full Steam Ahead!
4. To non-enfeebled political observers, inside and outside the White House, the outlines of the opposition’s game-plan, its staffing, its witting and unwitting stooges, and — most important — its weaknesses, are made all the more clear. Detailed note is no doubt being made by said non-enfeebled political observers.
I appreciate insights in this post, but “Muslims became ‘it’ after the Orlando massacre” is error. Orlando was successfully retconned as homophobic violence. If ever a Hollywood masterpiece is based on the incident, actor portraying the the shooter will be the whitey-whitest Muslim we’ve ever seen.
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.