Counter-Currents
2,109 words
French translation here, Czech translation here
If present demographic trends are not halted and reversed by White Nationalism, the white race will become extinct. Eventually. In the long run.
But this presents a problem. It is difficult to justify making fundamental political changes today in order to avoid catastrophes that will only unfold in the far future. Such a program appeals only to the small percentage of people who have the foresight to think about the distant future and the altruism to want to make it better, even if they will not personally benefit.
But most people are short-sighted and selfish. They think only of the short run and have very weak senses of responsibility, even to their own children. Their standard response to problems like white extinction is, “It will never happen during my lifetime, so I don’t have to worry about it.”
Nevertheless, we can take heart from the fact that the environmental movement faces the exact same problem but has been enormously successful. Moreover, small groups of highly idealistic and altruistic people make history all time, often by exhorting people to ignore short-term self-interest for greater long-term goods.
Indeed, such elites might be the only ones who actually make history. After all, the short-sighted and selfish are easily outsmarted. Long games beat short games, even in the short run. And idealists who are willing to sacrifice themselves have a systematic advantage over the cowardly and the selfish, other things being equal.
But even the most idealistic movements have to find ways to move the masses through appeals to short-term self-interest. Fortunately, diversity will cause a great deal of ruin in white countries before our race reaches extinction. Thus White Nationalists can appeal both to the long-term threat of white genocide and the short-term negative consequences of increasing diversity.
Furthermore, our people don’t really need to imagine the consequences of whites becoming a minority, because there are countless cities, towns, and regions where that has already happened. You don’t need a time machine to visit a majority non-white future. You simply need a plane ticket to Detroit or Los Angeles or London, where the future that awaits us all has already arrived.
This makes our educational work much easier. For we can simply show our people the lawlessness, corruption, anti-white discrimination, alienation, collapsing public services, hellish commutes, blighted cityscapes, shrinking opportunities, and pervasive hopelessness that come with white demographic replacement.
And these are mere pockets of blight within majority-white, First World countries. To appreciate what life will be like once whites are a hated and powerless minority within a majority non-white, Third World country, we only need to look at the fates of whites in Rhodesia and South Africa.
The idea that our future will be like the white minorities of Latin America is wishful thinking, for those societies are essentially white supremacist, and if whites in Europe and North America had such attitudes, we would not be facing race replacement in the first place.
The most convincing appeal to short-run self-interest is to stress the systematic anti-white inequities built into the current system. In the game of multiculturalism, whites can only lose.
Imagine multicultural politics as a poker game. Each ethnic group has a place at the table and a certain number of chips, representing its collective wealth and power. Whites currently have the largest stack. But every group gets to play a wild card, “the race card,” except for whites. No matter how big our initial advantage might be, if we play by those rules, we can only lose.
Another way of understanding this problem is in terms of individualism vs. collectivism. Whites can’t play the race card because we are individualists. We act as individuals. We believe that we must succeed or fail by our own individual merit, not as a member of a group. We also believe that we must treat everyone else as an individual, not as a member of a group. We are also, frankly, terrified of being called “racists.”
Non-whites, however, get to play by different rules. When they play the race card, that simply means that they work as teams. They demand that individualists give them a fair shake in every transaction, and individualists oblige. So if non-whites offer the best product, the best price, or the most meritorious candidate, individualists hand them the prize.
But when the situation is reversed and an individualist offers the best product, price, or candidate to a non-white, the latter will give preference to members of his own tribe wherever possible, regardless of merit, regardless even of short-term self-interest. This is because he thinks in terms of maximizing the collective power of his tribe, which to him outweighs the inconveniences of employing a less competent cousin.
Of course, the non-white tribalist will pretend that his decision is just meritocracy at work, because if he practiced open tribal preferences, even individualists might eventually retaliate. Non-white tribes demand that we treat them as individuals. They pretend to reciprocate. But while we practice individualism, they practice tribalism. In short, they are cheating us. Game theory predicts that as long as whites play as individualists while non-whites work as tribes, we will lose. But individualists are slow to catch on to the scam, because they are blind to groups.
The tribal strategy can also be likened to parasitism. A parasite tribe is not part of a larger body politic. Instead, it is a distinct community that lives within the larger community, a host population which the parasite tribe victimizes to its own advantage.
As long as whites continue to play this rigged game, we will continue to lose, until we have surrendered our wealth, our power, our country, and any control we might have over our destiny to non-white tribes—or we kick over the table and refuse to play a game rigged against us.
But how? There are only two possible solutions.
First, we can somehow convert non-white tribalists into individualists. But this will never happen, for two reasons. (1) The present system is advantageous to tribalists, so why would they throw away a winning strategy? Why would they want to adopt a moral code that would disarm them to the same sort of exploitation by some other non-white tribe? Why would they want to be losers like us? (2) White societies gave up even trying to assimilate non-white immigrants when we embraced multiculturalism and open borders.
Second, whites can adopt a tribal strategy. An individualist society will inevitably collapse if it is hacked by parasite tribes. To protect themselves, individualists must think of themselves as a group, with distinct interests that clash with those of other groups that live by different codes. In those clashes, whites need to take our own side. Even if we think of white identity politics as merely a temporary expedient to restore a meritocratic, individualist form of society, we need to remove parasite tribes from our societies and prevent new ones from entering, which requires that we drop the dominant taboo against identity politics for white people.
This brings us to the problem with conservatives: they conserve nothing. In the long run, White Nationalists will have to convert people from the whole of the political spectrum, Left, Right, and center. But in the short run, our natural constituency is people on the Right, who keep voting for conservative parties. If you break voters down by race, center-Right parties in every white country are increasingly becoming the parties of indigenous whites. They are implicit white identitarian parties, but their leaders are absolutely opposed to being explicit about this fact, much less embracing it.
The Left has spearheaded open borders and race-replacement immigration policies, and they receive the vast majority of non-white votes. (For instance, in the 2016 US Presidential election, Hillary Clinton won 88% of black votes, 69% of Asian votes, and 66% of Hispanic votes—and she was an exceptionally weak candidate.) The Left is, moreover, quite open about why they are committed to creating a new, non-white majority: whites consistently vote for conservative parties; once whites are in the minority, conservative parties will become unelectable, and Left-wing values will triumph. In town after town, district after district, state after state across the US, the rising tide of color is drowning conservatism, establishing a Left-wing one-party state.
The mainstream conservative response to this blatant plan to demographically swamp and disenfranchise their electorate is a complex mixture of delusion, cowardice, and treason.
First, mainstream conservatives will never rally to the defense of their voters, because to defend whites from non-whites would be “racism” and “white identity politics.” Conservatives are happy to acquiesce and even to pander to non-white identity politics, even though they know that it overwhelmingly benefits the Left. (It is now a rather old joke in America that the one black man at a Republican Party event is the keynote speaker.) But the same conservatives are absolutely committed to maintaining the taboo on white identity politics, even though it is the one thing that can save them.
Second, to escape from the charge of identity politics, conservatives insist that their goal is not to conserve a particular people—Americans, Germans, etc.—but rather to promote a list of abstract values. These values, moreover, are supposedly universally valid, which means that they should appeal equally to people of other races and nations. This leads to the absurd conclusion that if Americans were completely replaced by Mexicans, this would be a triumph of conservatism as long as the new bronze nation professed belief in el Sueño Americano. (That’s “the American Dream” to you Gringos.)
It is easy to understand why the Left promotes a taboo on white identity politics: Leftists know it is the only thing that will save whites from demographic replacement. It is, however, hard to understand why the Right clings to this same taboo. I used to think that conservatives were unprincipled. But I was wrong. They will happily follow the taboo on white identity politics regardless of the costs. Unfortunately, this rule was rigged by their enemies to destroy them.
The suicidal stupidity of mainstream conservatism is an enormous opportunity for White Nationalists to appeal to the short-term self-interest of large numbers of whites.
Our message is simple: as whites become minorities in our own homelands, it will be impossible for conservative politicians to win elections. Therefore, it will be impossible to implement conservative policies. Therefore, the things that conservatives love will disappear. In the United States, that means limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, private enterprise, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gun rights, etc. These values have tenuous enough footholds even in white countries and are almost non-existent in non-white countries. If we wish to preserve these values, we need white identity politics today.
White liberals have taken the lead in promoting white dispossession, thus they will be most resistant to white identity politics. But even they will come around in the end. The liberal strategy is to defeat conservatives by displacing them with non-white immigrants who will vote for the Left. Once white demographic displacement creates a permanent liberal majority, liberals believe can ensure the final triumph of religious tolerance, women’s rights, drug legalization, abortion rights, gay rights, free healthcare, funding for the arts, environmentalism, organic foods, walkable communities, etc.
But none of these values are conspicuous in Latin America, Africa, India, or the Muslim world, which are the primary sources of race-replacement immigration. Do white liberals really think that they can dictate policy to these people forever, even after non-whites have become the majority? That is a highly dubious assumption. Indeed, it smacks of an unconscious form of white supremacism.
Why would a rising non-white majority continue to uphold the values of white liberals, who have given their societies away? Wouldn’t the new majority instead hold white liberals in contempt and seek to remake formerly white nations in the image of their homelands, where white liberal values have no place? If so, then the things liberals love will also disappear along with the white majority.
A racially conscious Left is not impossible. We know this because it has actually existed. For instance, in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, Asian immigration was promoted by capitalists whereas Asian exclusion was promoted by the labor movement.
The key to winning over white conservatives—and eventually white liberals as well—is convincing them that the things they value are not universal but particular to white people. We will never have either American capitalism or a Scandinavian welfare state if the people who created these systems are replaced with non-white invaders. All white politics—Right or Left—is white identity politics in the end.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
15 comments
I don’t think there’s any mystery as to why many conservatives treat white interests as taboo, Greg. To a cuck, the most important thing is always the economy. Alain de Benoist identified this in “Immigration, the Reserve Army of Capital.” If you talk to any conservative about why they are against white identity politics, 99% of the time it will boil down to “because we need all these immigrants in order to keep the economy strong, by bringing in cheap labor to fill jobs that Americans don’t want and by siphoning off the best skilled workers from other countries.” In the end, nothing matters to them other than that. Of course you’re right when you say that, in the end, if America loses its white majority, the things that made America rich will quickly disappear. But cucks don’t believe that. As you wrote, they believe that it is “American values” that made America great – which include neoliberal market values, in their minds – and these are transferable to anyone who embraces the American dream. Places like Detroit are exceptions, because they didn’t handle their economies well. This is retarded, of course, but this is what they think – if they have even bothered to think that deeply about it at all. The fact that even most conservatives nowadays had to go through the post-1960s US educational system, with its bullshit conception about what defines America, is surely also feeding into this – they get the same conditioning that liberals do, so it’s easy for them to fall back on it to defend their other views.
A weakness of people on the ethnonationalist Right, I believe, is that many tend to think that, deep down, all, or at least most, whites are uncomfortable with the demographic trends in America. I don’t think this is necessarily the case, even among white conservatives. We may have to face the fact that no amount of argumentation is ever going to win over some of these people – not until it’s already too late, anyway.
There is really only ONE political party in America today: the neoliberal party, which has two branches with slightly different priorities. It’s a sign of how far gone we are that Trump, with his faint echo of paleoconservatism, actually seems revolutionary to us today.
The trends point to whites adopting a tribal strategy already. Political scientists like Ian Bremmer make this observation and point out that it is, in fact, caused by immigration and globalism. The Republican Party is 83% white and it seems like Democrats are losing white people except for those who live in districts with a median income exceeding around $140,000.
A recent NYTimes article had an animated chart that showed that almost all white districts swung to the Republicans between 2012 and 2016, except those that were the most wealthy.
A lot of commentators are openly calling the Republican Party and Donald Trump a movement of white nationalists.
I don’t really see why this trend would ever reverse. Consider the what Steven Levitsky of Harvard University says when talking about his recent book “How Democracies Die”: No democracy in history to his knowledge has ever survived a demographic shift where a previously dominant majority became a minority.
If it has never happened in history, then why would we magically go back to centrism and bipartisanship and trust in institutions and media? It will all break.
The left have a set of arguments for making whites a minority in their own countries, and the right have a set of arguments for the same thing. Many of these arguments overlap each other, hence the unholy alliance between the left and the right.
The left: if whites becomes a minority or disappear, there will be no more racism. We need to import immigrants to be the new proletarians, to keep the left in power. If we brake down the family, religion and racial differences it gets easier to promote marxist values like equality. If we get rid of the borders and racial differences it gets easier to promote the international communist utopia.
The right: if we have open borders the influx of low-pay workers will increase the competition on the market, and benefit capitalism. If we get rid of barriers like culture, language etc it will be easier to market products across the board. Mass-immigration will eventually destroy the welfarestate. If we get rid of the borders and racial differences it gets easier to promote the global free-market.
“…The key to winning over white conservatives to white identity politics—and eventually white liberals as well—is convincing them that the things they value are not universal but particular to white people…”
That is true, but then the implication is that non-Whites cannot embrace those values because they are too inferior to be able to do so, and that smacks of “racism”.
If “all men are equal” then that means that all non-Whites can become like Whites. That is the dominant dogma, and don’t you go against it !
Many conservatives cannot really be recruited to our side because they just don’t care about the same things we care about. In my experience, if they are forced to choose between nationalism and left-wing identity politics, they will choose to side with the leftists, since they tend to see nationalism as more directly opposed to their goals.
The problem with this article is that it assumes that white conservative care about the future of the white race. The false belief is that if they knew about the consequences of their actions, they would change. What makes you think this? With the internet, what makes you think that ignorance is an excuse. We “aware” whites project this belief onto other whites. The truth is that they have other priorities.
Libertarians and environmentalists have the same problem: They fail to see that their ideologies have zero appeal to non-white people (even high-IQ Asians) and so must oppose immigration to survive.
Even liberalism has little appeal to non-whites beyond the promise of free stuff. Asians vote Democrat because two-party politics is foreign to them; you work inside the ruling party or you get a bullet to the head (see e.g. how Asians in California banned affirmative-action at state universities)
Well, allow me to play devil’s advocate. That still leave votes out there for conservatives; 12 percent blacks, 34 percent of Mestizos, and 31 percent of Asians. Do the Republicans really want to give up those votes for full white nationalism? How many white liberals would shift to our side? I submit there would be very few indeed. At that point, the only path forward would be secession or Civil War Part Deux.
I am quite sure there are Republicans who are so stupid that they would actually think, “We have to go along with Black Lives Matter’s demand to end policing of black criminals, or we might lose our 12% of the black vote.” “We have to abolish ICE or we might lose our 34% of the Mestizo vote.”
If Republicans were smart, they would be working to reduce the numbers of non-whites coming into the country and increase the number of non-whites leaving the country.
You overlooked the role of capital (yet again).
For example, there is a rich Jew, Paul Singer, who has been a big-time donor to the Republican Party. He was actually the person who first funded the Steele dossier against Trump and he was a big backer of Marco Rubio, virtually keeping Rubio afloat.
Singer has all of the politics you would expect of a rich Jew: pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-Christianity, pro-immigration. The only reason he is a GOP donor is because he is against taxes being raised on the 1%. That’s it. Singer has no interest at all in what the GOP base cares about.
With donors like these, the GOP will never be a pro-white party or even be able to tolerate express pro-white attitudes.
…lawlessness, corruption, anti-white discrimination, alienation, collapsing public services, hellish commutes, blighted cityscapes, shrinking opportunities, and pervasive hopelessness that come with white demographic replacement
It’s mostly about too many people. Most of the conditions you list go hand in hand with overpopulation whether a society is multiracial or monoracial. Look at China for one example. Pervasive hopelessness there is a problem for the countless factory workers busy making stuff day and night, with more than a few taking their own lives. Simply shifting production of all our goodies back to N. Amerika in a prowhite system obviously won’t solve anything because a materialistic, consumer oriented culture is dependent on overpopulation one way or another.
Kicking out all the nonwhites and replacing them with whites (say, from S. Africa) will improve these problems slightly, for a while, but eventually any piece of land cannot cope with huge numbers of humans and endless resource extraction. I don’t know about anyone else here, but living in a 10′ X 12′ apartment with my family, or subsistence farming on half an acre, just because everyone else in the country is white, is not my idea of a good time. Overcrowding and environmental degradation is never a good thing.
I frankly don’t think it is accurate to say Latin America is “essentially white supremacist.” That might have been more or less true until the mid 80’s or so, but neoliberalism has had an extremely corrosive effect among white people in the continent since then.
Latin American white elites look up to American white elites as role models. They are as enthralled by Hollywood as much as, or even more than your average American white liberal. Most Latin American mainstream outlets basically regurgitate the CNN version of reality, and middle-class whites look up to American celebrities and experts of all kinds with quasi-religious reverence.
I lived many years in Venezuela and Argentina and have seen first-hand how many of my friends in those countries gradually transmogrified over the years from healthy racialism to wacky liberalism / cucky conservatism. For me it is clear that the change is highly correlated with the increasingly strong neoliberal winds of change blowing from the North during the last couple of decades.
Actually, I know many elite white Venezuelans who have emigrated to NYC, Miami, and LA, and 90% of them vote Democrat as citizens, or cheer Obama/Hillary as green card holders. They blend in perfectly well with white American liberals and seamlessly assimilate to the prevalent culture in those citites. But of course, they bitch and moan all day because their home country, for some unfathomable twist of destiny is now ruled by very bad “populists” who “destroyed democracy.”
Until the 1940’s, Venezuela was essentially normatively white. However, as you have very accurately observed, trying to impose white values on other races is inherently oppressive. Well, the mestizos and blacks that comprised the majority of the population and lived under the “white supremacist” Venezuela of old naturally ended up feeling oppressed and marginalized, even if in strictly material terms they were much better off than they could ever be under self-government, as the economic collapse of Venezuela under Chávez and Maduro has shown — skyrocketing oil prices shortly after Chávez came to power notwithstanding.
The politicians that reformed Venezuela’s constitution in 1947 to introduce universal suffrage, effectively empowering the mestizo masses to eventually kick them out of power, were all white liberals of Spanish ascent.
Fast forward to 21st-century Venezuela, and the opposition to the Chavista regime is mostly white. Certainly its leadership is 90% white. And after almost 20 years of political prosecution, and what for all practical purposes amounts to systematic ethnic cleansing at the hands of mestizo common criminals that kidnap, rape, and murder whites right, left, and center, they still hope to somehow persuade the mestizo majority to vote for them.
I have no doubt that at this point, most of the Venezuelan opposition’s leadership are cynical opportunists paid off by the Chavista regime to keep the democratic circus going — the fact that one of the most prominent leaders is Enrique Capriles (((Radonski))) is important to note — but most of the opposition’s white base willingly and enthusiastically participates in the circus. They literally cannot conceive the possibility that mestizos simply prefer to be ruled by one of their own, and would rather starve before seeing whites back in power.
(As a side note, I understand that many CC readers appreciate Hugo Chavez’s anti-imperialist stance, and that’s fair enough. Nevertheless, one must not loose sight of the obvious racial conflict that allowed Chávez to come to power in the first place).
Argentina is better in demographic terms, but it’s deteriorating fast. The country thrived in the early 20th century due to massive European immigration, and its white elite was certainly racialist for a long time. However, immigration policies started to become less and less selective over time, and from the 90’s onwards the country has been on pretty much an open-border regime implemented and cheered by the mostly white political elite. The left-wing 12-year rule of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner was pivotal in this sense (see this article at AMREN for the facts and figures).
The current blue-eyed president, Mauricio Macri, is your archetypal cuckservative and recently announced that absolutely all Venezuelans who wish to emigrate to Argentina are welcome, which has already attracted large numbers of desperate, hungry Venezuelan mestizos into the country. Last time I visited Buenos Aires I immediately noticed large numbers of them working all kinds of low-skilled jobs.
I also know many white Venezuelans living there who have escaped the Chavista mayhem, and of course, they adore Macri because he is supposed to be the nemesis of the Kirchneristas and Chavistas of the world. But at the same time they cheered his grandiose humanitarian gesture. I asked a couple of them if they were not concerned that letting Venezuelan mestizos get into the country in droves would perhaps bring the crime rate closer to Venezuelan levels, or that upon eventually obtaining citizenship they would perhaps vote for the Kirchners or even more radical left-wingers… and I was invariably called a racist, or met with an uncomfortable silence that forced me to change the subject.
The AMREN article cited above is very thorough on this subject but there are two very symbolic facts that clearly show the erosion of white culture in Argentina. First, the removal of the Christopher Columbus Monument in Buenos Aires and its replacement with the statue of a mestiza heroin, after none other than the late Hugo Chávez accused Columbus of genocide on a visit to Argentina.
Second, the gradual replacement of Tango and Argentine rock by Cumbia, a genre that is characteristic of the Caribbean, of clearly negroid rhythm. You can watch Macri dance to it here. He does that very often during public events. Most white Argentines who voted him applaud this pathetic posturing because well, they don’t want their president accused of being so white he can’t shake it like he should.
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