Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 202
Answering Normie Questions
Greg Johnson
79:29 / 291 words
To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.” To subscribe to the CC podcast RSS feed, click here.
Greg Johnson answers normie questions about White Nationalism and white identity posed by JM of the NoMoreDogma YouTube channel. Please share your own answers below. Topics include:
- “Unearned” pride (see Michael Polignano, “White Pride & White Guilt“)
- White supremacism (see Greg Johnson, “White Nationalists are Not White Supremacists“)
- What “white privilege” really is, and why it is not a problem
- “Normative” whiteness, or Frenchness, or Englishness
- The objective forces driving whites to greater ethnocentrism
- Why environmentalists are white supremacists
- The unworkableness of multiculturalism and the workableness of homogeneous societies as objective facts, not matters for guesswork
- The hypocrisy of those who preach multiculturalism while avoiding it in real life
- The neurological basis of this hypocrisy
- Why racists have better mental health than anti-racists
- How modern liberal attitudes toward race are analogous to Victorian attitudes about sex
- Outliers vs. averages and the necessity of basing social policy on averages
- The NAXALT fallacy, radical individualism, and sentimentalism (see Greg Johnson, “In Defense of Prejudice“)
- Why the common good has to trump individual interests when there is a conflict
- The legitimacy of love of one’s own
- How advocates of miscegenation admit that diversity is a curse and in effect call for genocide to create racial and cultural homogeneity
- How miscegenation promotes greater racial polarization in future generations; how anti-natalism leads to more pro-natal future generations
- The way forward after Charlottesville and Shelbyville
This is just the first of an ongoing series of podcasts in which we work on talking points responding to common objections to White Nationalism. Please share your questions below.
13 comments
is the fellow white person Facebook collection Andrew Joyce? he does these on his twitter they’re great!
I hope it is not him.
I take pride in great works of European art created by others because they resonate with me profoundly, which shows me that I’m of the same nature. You can’t be possessed by Motzart unless you are partly Motzart. And even though I’m not a genius, that little Mozart in me is proof of my beauty, and a perfectly legitimate source of pride… although my Uber drivers and their music perhaps disagree.
Mozart! Stupid speech-to-text.
Here are some other objections I come across that weren’t discussed in the podcast:
-It is impossible/impractical to repatriate the races. Not only would mass deportations crash our economy and hollow out our institutions, it would be met with violence and other resistance that a minority white population could not control.
-Due to increased intermarriage, more and more whites will be personally invested against White Nationalism. Even if they’re not race-mixers themselves, they will have race-mixing and mixed race family members they don’t want gone. This is related to the Mongrel Question: where will the mixed race go?
-White Nationalism is unnecessarily restrictive. High-IQ populations which have demonstrated amicable coexistence with whites should be welcomed if they are a net positive on society. (Generally this is regarding East Asians and high caste Indians.)
-Transhumanist/bioengineering arguments which reason that in the future we will be able to transcend human biological limitations rendering race differences merely cosmetic differences.
No thank you to both East Asians and high caste Indians.
Agree, east Asians and high caste indians are not trustworthy. Whites often mistake that other races with high iq have the same sense of individualism and altruism. They do not Indians think like Indians and East Asians think like East Asians. Both are incredibly ethnocentric and will work to gain special priviliges. Whites always seem to mistake that most races think in the sense of individuals over race, but that will always be a white only thought process.
On the question of intermarriage, I have noticed that almost every elite family is intermarried with Jews, even in small rural states. For obvious examples, both the clintons and trumps. While I don’t see that at as a particular problem at a genetic level, as one would argue on various nonwhites, from a political standpoint it is mega, because these unions seem to take over all the political positions of Jews, at least in the arenas that count such as anti racism and foreign policy. I see them hawking the most ridiculous affirmative action candidates and feverishly policing any anti Israel or anti Iraq war discourse. This is in the setting of the boss/underling and teacher/student relationship, where their opinions contain the implicit threat of downgrading. Also, they are apt pupils of the ethnic nepotism, hiring and promoting only nonwhites, or other whites married to Jews. They give obvious favoritism and outsize salaries to others in this position.
What I don’t comprehend is why they adopt Jewish personas, rather than seeing themselves as white European and insisting that their Jewish family members rather bow to white European interests. They won’t be able to call themselves “Jewish” genetically for more than one generation, so it’s a limited thing. That brings in questions of hyper/hypodecent, and it would be interesting to know how such unions are regarded by true pure-blooded Jews. There must be something in the elites of any ethnicity that drives them to put themselves over their erstwhile kindred by adopting some strange grouping, with Huguenots and quakers as other examples from European history.
Still, the trend is concerning, because while they won’t be “Jewish” for more than a generation, this will be a thing for the next fifty years or so, I would gestimate, that’s precisely the window in which the USA and European demographic transformation is due to be completed, and thus the elite consensus established thereby is crippling.
At about one hour into the interview the point is made that just as you would support your own children over another’s, you ought to support your own group, race and civilization over others. This is such an obvious thing that it hardly needs to be stated, yet modern liberalism has made the support of the “other” a major if not its only priority. Utterly lunatic, but this has been driving policy.
Post-modern liberalism is essentially a one trick pony. It can open the floodgates to third world mass migrations, can surrender entire cities to groups which have been hostile to the West for centuries, can turn over a White South Africa to a marxist terrorist front.
Feels good, doesn’t it? That endorphin cocktail of compassion and virtue signalling, stirred with accounts of child-refugees and shaken by the occasional banlieue riot.
But what happens when the liberals run out of territory to surrender? When they become the actual minorities in countries dominated by hostile non-Whites? When every one of their cities becomes a Detroit, Johannesburg or Rotherham? It’s all over for liberals as their new overlords burn their Volvos and sexually enslave their children.
What has upheld the liberal delusions since the 1960s is the frontier warriors who have defended the limes, whether French paras in Algeria, Rhodesian-South African troopies in the bush, or your local SWAT team in the ‘hood. Liberals could indulge in their delusions because someone else was engaged in the thankless task of keeping the hordes at a respectful distance. But these frontier troops have been progressively destroyed and/or demoralized by decades of liberal agitation. And guess what? With liberal strongholds in Milwaukee and Malmo going up in flames, it just may be one last hurrah for the liberals before they too are subsumed by the rising tide. Karmic retribution, no doubt, but the dilemma is that they are dragging down the rest of the White world with them.
I believe it was Mike Enoch who once podcast that the state of affairs in which the White world has been stuck for 50 or so years is not normal. Sooner or later, reality reestablishes itself. The Alt Right has to be in position to take advantage of a rebalancing.
Check it out GJ:
http://www.ecosophia.net/hate-new-sex/
About being proud of something we haven’t personally been involved in, I think it is a fair assumption to make that our ancestors acted and built counting on their posterity to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Therefore we have in fact been involved in the things that have been created by others and that we found already in place, because one of the major motivating forces for these things to come to being was our own potential future existence, which is now realized. In the same way we are, at least in part, motivated by future generations that aren’t alive yet. In fact this is clearly stated almost every day, not only on the right, but even on the left, for example when talking about the environment.
So there is nothing wrong or illogical about being proud of things handed over to you by previous generations. If current generations weren’t a potential outcome in the past, the past generations wouldn’t have acted the way they have. We who are alive today are the major reason why people who were alive yesterday strove to build something great.
In this spirit is the saying that in a healthy society old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never live to enjoy.
There seems to be a “genetic shuffle” with each generation of a DNA group, such as Whites have. No one knows which person of this generation will be left-brain talented (math/sci/tech), right-brain talented (creative, inventive, imaginative), good looking, healthy from birth, good eyesight, bad eyesight, etc. True, some of that gets passed on in familial descent.
So, we can guess that each generation of Whites has the same genetic/DNA material to work with, leading us here today to believe that each generation (going back centuries if not millennia) are the same in capabilities.
Therefore, we can assume that if we were here in the late 1700s and the Washington/Jefferson/Madison/et alia people were here today, we would have created more or less the same society/culture and thus gov’t as those in the 1700s actually did.
We have every good reason to be proud of our race’s accomplishments, here in North American and everywhere that Whites have settled. It might not be our strict familial descent or even blood line but it is our race. And race is common DNA, bloodlines and familial descent. Not just similar skin color.
Besides, in the preamble to the US Constitution, the Framers stated the Republic was being established for themselves and their posterity. That clearly meant their race and more precisely their progeny.
That’s all true, the point I was making is that the objection that whites of today can’t be proud of western societies because they haven’t personally built them can be attacked at the very basic level, since in a way we have participated in the building by being the very posterity that our ancestors were motivated by while doing the building.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment