Advice for Young White People, Part 3Spencer J. Quinn
Part 3 of 3 (Part 1 here, Part 2 here)
5. Understand that Our Enemies are Totalitarian and Identitarian
If we had to describe our enemies with only two words, these would be the ones. The Enlightenment ideal of freedom of speech was developed by white men, for white men, and, of all the people in the world, whites are the most suited for it. It’s one of the pillars of Western civilization, but in the hands of most non-Western peoples, it becomes at best meaningless and at worst a weapon used to impale its creators.
Whites’ three most powerful enemies these days are the diaspora communities of black Africans, Ashkenazi Jews, and Muslims. Each of these groups is totalitarian about its placement as elite minorities in majority-white societies, and they will not abide white people breaking speech codes which they, the minorities, impose upon them.
Try telling blacks about their manifest intellectual inferiority, or their lack of impulse control, or their tendency to have children out of wedlock, and you run the risk of being physically assaulted. Try telling Ashkenazi Jews about their duplicitous loyalty to Israel, or how they control much of the media and academia through which they push their anti-white agenda, or how they ruthlessly silence whites who are as critical of them as they are of whites, and you’ll find yourself harassed indefinitely or out of a career. Try telling Muslims that it’s okay to draw a picture of their pedophile prophet, or that there is a direct connection between the Koran and terrorism, or that they are guilty of the most vile kinds of sexual slavery happening today, and they’ll just shoot you.
You could be right or you could be wrong about all of the above, but it makes no difference. It also makes no difference if you are arguing in good faith. Whites as second-class citizens are simply not allowed to speak this way to first-class citizens, a status that our enemies arrogantly ascribe to themselves as minorities. It’s as if we must defer to these people, like we’re a conquered people or something. And I don’t remember losing a war to them.
On the other hand, when blacks, Jews, and Muslims point their fingers at whites over slavery, or the Holocaust, or the Crusades, or whatever the anti-white grudge of the month happens to be, how do whites typically respond? If they’re liberal, they’ll likely apologize and attempt to rectify the situation through charitable efforts, open borders, and socialist, redistributive government policies. For this, they get a pat on the head like a good pet. If they’re conservative, they’ll likely try to argue the facts and then back down after being labeled a racist, anti-Semite, or Islamophobe. Then, after a few well-placed threats, bribes, or sinecures, they will be only two or three cars behind the white liberals on the concessions train. Even those on the Dissident Right, beneath all the snark and vitriol, will employ logic and evidence to refute the arguments of our enemies. And if white people are non-political, they’ll likely just shut themselves out of the discussion, not wanting to catch any more grief than necessary. After that, they get to watch helplessly as their country goes down the tubes.
Note that in none of these cases do whites respond appropriately. Never once do whites look these people in the eye and tell them to shut up.
After all, this is the attitude that our enemies reserve for us. Why can’t we reserve it right back in their faces? The answer is that whites by nature are less totalitarian than their enemies, at least in the West. We have an ingrained appreciation for freedom of speech. So when blacks lecture us about lynchings in the Jim Crow era and neglect to mention their disproportionate culpability in murder and rape of whites during that time, we give them a pass. When Jews lecture us about the Holocaust and neglect to mention their culpability in the far worse atrocities committed by the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s, we give them a pass. When Muslims lecture us on the morality of Sharia law and neglect to mention the half-million people who jihadists have murdered or injured worldwide since 9/11, we give them a pass.
We assume – stupidly – that these people are arguing in good faith, just as we would. We assume that their pain is real. And since whites have almost completely forgotten that they also have endured slavery, oppression, starvation, mass incarceration, and mass slaughter at various times throughout the past few centuries, we simply assume that our enemies know more about suffering than we do.
What’s really happening is that our enemies are not arguing in good faith. They are cynically using our weakness for freedom of speech to impose a totalitarian program upon us. Why?
Because our enemies are identitarian. They identify with their race first, in the case of diaspora blacks and Jews, or by their religion, in the case of Muslims. They have an inherent sense of in-group versus out-group, and they are highly prejudicial in favor of their in-group. They aim to acquire as much freedom and power for their own group as they can, and are completely blind to how this might harm other groups or the nation as a whole. These people tend not to carry Western civilization on their shoulders the way white people do.
This is why democracy will be our undoing if we stick with it for too long. Sharing voting rights with these people when they are insignificant minorities can be annoying for the Right. Sharing voting rights with them when they are in the majority will be inviting disaster, since these people will use their power to oppress and disenfranchise us. They did not come up with democracy themselves, and whenever blacks and Middle Easterners try to adopt democracy in their own parts of the world, they almost always fail. Israeli Jews deserve credit for maintaining a democracy reasonably free of corruption – the thirty-fourth least corrupt in the world (out of 180) in 2018, according to Transparency International. Right-wing or anti-Leftist Jews in America at least (Stephen Miller and Ron Unz, for example) deserve props for fighting the good fight as well – and my appreciation for them always makes it painful for me to discuss the Jewish Question. But in America and other gentile societies, Jewish zeal for radical Left-wing politics has countered pretty much everything white people can do to further their racial interests – even if it means Jews have to align themselves with blacks and Muslims, who tend to be more anti-Semitic and less well-behaved than whites are. And much of this happens thanks to democracy.
The sooner we know the nature of our enemies, the sooner we will want to be away from them and take control over our lives once again.
6. Weaponize Your Money
I’m a pretty generous guy when it comes to genuine Right-wing causes. The way I look at it, we can spill our money today or our blood tomorrow. For all my talk of an impending race war in the West, I really do believe we can prevent it from happening if we take the right steps right now. The idea is to frustrate, annoy, and enrage the Left so much that they will want to throw up their hands and yell, “No Más!” And one of the best ways to do this is to spend money with a political purpose in an organized manner, the way liberal diaspora Jews do. If enough whites came on board such a project, we’d have a shot at forestalling Progress long enough to get a critical mass of whites red-pilled and angry. And once that happens, the non-white Left is going to want to break apart from us, such as with Calexit.
This is why I gave generously to the Trump campaign in 2016 and will do so again in 2020, regardless of what Ann Coulter or Andrew Anglin thinks of him. I care less about the campaign promises Donald Trump keeps and more about the two great things the man has accomplished – wittingly or unwittingly – as President. He has encouraged whites to start thinking and talking about their own interests as an American demographic, and he has consistently frustrated, annoyed, and enraged the Left. He has essentially polarized a country which really needed to be polarized. And if we get so lucky to put a Kris Kobach or Jim Jordan in the White House in 2024, maybe the Left will finally get the memo that a house which is already divided really cannot stand.
This goes well beyond who’s in the White House, and weaponizing money means a lot more than political contributions to wishy-washy Republicans who may or may not be on the take from our enemies. What it really means is to reduce the enemy’s ability to wage demographic war on us. This means lawfare. This means forming or bolstering public advocacy groups that target white people’s enemies. This means we need some deep pockets, or a whole lot of shallow ones, or both. This means coloring our money red and making it the tooth and claw of our evolutionary struggles.
Whites are beginning to understand this, thankfully. Nicholas Sandmann’s $250 million lawsuits against The Washington Post, CNN, and other news and media outlets is a great start. Suing for $5 million is what you do to someone of your own tribe who defames and slanders you. Suing for $250 million is what you do to the enemy. It’s not meant to hurt; it’s meant to cripple. I hope this Sandmann kid wins every penny. I imagine how much further along we would be in 2019 if the Duke Three had taken the same tack in 2006.
Another positive sign is the three serious lawsuits which were recently leveled against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for defamation and harassment. I’ve described the SPLC before as:
. . . a well-funded, mostly Jewish, anti-white, Leftist organization which has no intention of following its own dedication “to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.” It claims to be against extremism, racism, and hate, yet it engages in all three of these in order to fulfill its real purpose: the annihilation of the Right, especially the white Right.
Like the Anti-Defamation League, the SPLC is basically an organ of Jewish power, and forcing it to spend resources on defense rather than offense is a step in the right direction. And if the plaintiffs win in these cases, it will strike a powerful blow against the enemy and encourage others to do it as well.
But we need more of this. For example, Tucker Carlson recently accused the George Soros-owned organization Media Matters of abusing its tax-exempt status and breaking the law to further a partisan Leftist agenda. Is this true? If so, why aren’t two or three well-funded advocacy groups not suing Media Matters right now? Why aren’t there two or three experienced attorneys working on this pro bono? Or if there are, why isn’t that number double or triple what it is? If whites were as organized with their money as Jews are, then these kinds of attacks would be highly feasible.
This is why young whites should make themselves useful and hide in plain sight (items 1 and 4 on this list). If we can pool our financial resources to systematically follow through on the singular goal of disrupting our enemies’ ability to wage demographic and political warfare against us – while protecting ourselves from counterattack – then we’ll have a hell of a chance of getting our nations back.
When you’re young, it’s easy to turn your character into a lodestone and your dreams into a north star. When you’re young, it’s tempting to want to follow your lodestone along the most direct path to fulfill your dreams. Without knowing the terrain or what lies ahead, however, this can lead to dangerous pitfalls. I hope that this list will help young whites to avoid some of these pitfalls. Not everything on this list will apply to every person, of course. So please take what I have to say with a grain of salt. However, I do hope that this list gives young white people something to ponder as they decide how to inherit the broken world that their traitorous elders have bequeathed to them.
Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.
“He has essentially polarized a country which really needed to be polarized.”
Why wouldn’t a Democrat polarize the country just as much?
I say that Trump could have polarized it much more than he has. The LEFT is already going bonkers over every little thing he says/does.
One thing Trump and his Atty General could do is harp day in and day out about the FBI statistics that show not only how much crime negroes commit but how much of it is interracial. As well as how little Whites are committing, especially the interracial. Then, when the twice/thrice yearly MSM wailing about how negroes are hunted by White cops, or any other White on non-White crime, Whites can counter it with the cold hard crime stats.
Trump could also force the jews to declare AIPAC an agent of a foreign gov’t, force jews to open the Fed Reserve books for an accounting and then challenge the constitutionality of it in court, remove tax exempt status of jew organizations such as Media Matters as well as others. When jews demand that Trump give up any support for (or at least lack of condemnation of) White identity, he should demand that jews renounce any/all involvement in finance/banking, or give up all ownership in media, due to their percentage of the general population versus their involvement in those. Not that jews would do this, but it would show their hypocrisy. On the yearly holocaust moaning month, Trump should ask what US citizen was killed in the supposed holocaust and/or what US citizens participated in the supposedly killings. And since the answers would be zero, then why is a holocaust museum on US soil and not over in Europe where it belongs.
Trump could do a lot more, though.
Trump is a putz. But if I were in a swing state, I would still vote for him in 2020. Am I selfish (ie, because I would rather lose slowly than hasten a collapse and revolution I’m too old to live through, or one which would destroy my savings and property, which at my age I probably could not recover)?
The comments in the article about how Whites sit back and do not respond, or at least not properly respond, is entirely correct.
I have used many times over the years an analogy about how the political Right will never get to an analysis of known facts because the political LEFT will never ever admit to the facts. The LEFT is always pretending something true that is actually false, and vice versa. When it comes to disagreeing with the LEFT, the LEFT will attempt to “zip you up in a slander bag”. A bag which you most likely will not escape and never without concomitant image damage. This slander bag is analogous to being stuffed into a wall/gym locker back when you were in public schools.
If someone stuffs you in a locker and you fail to get out, banging and yelling hysterically, you will look bad; it’s not your fault, they locked you in somehow. But you look bad.
If someone stuffs you in a locker and you ultimately manage to free yourself after much banging and yelling hysterically, you will look bad. Even though successful, you just have a bad image. The one doing it to you seemingly got over on you.
The only way to not look bad, to look good, is to catch the person doing it to you at the last moment and haul off and slap the daylights out of them, preferably in front of a crowd. Before they ever lay hands on you. As if you knew it was coming all along.
In the same way, the only way to never get put into the slander bag is to immediately deny the legitimacy of the (words of) slander. Disrupt the entire discussion and don’t let it go forward until the LEFTIST admits (which they never will, of course) the word/slander/pejorative is bogus. It is not used true to the root words (such as race and -ist) and it is not used the same way on non-Whites. All of which makes the pejorative doubly bogus. Even if you have to live with the outcome that a LEFTIST will never have a discussion with you again, you have to do this or be perpetually on the defensive with the LEFT.
Of course, all the aforementioned still applies when replacing political Right with Whites and political LEFT with those three racial groups african/new/muslim. Because that is pretty much who the political Right and political LEFT are, respectively. So the analogy still applies.
He has encouraged whites to start thinking and talking about their own interests as an American demographic,
You’re confusing cause and effect. It is because whites have started to talk about their own interests, that Trump was elected. Trump himself never talked about white interests at all, except if you think a wall will benefit white Americans more than pocs.
The internet elected Trump, and shocked by the loss of globalist control of the narrative, Trump is now collaborating with Silicon Valley to make sure it never happens again.
I love articles like this that explain the why. It’s like cracking a code. You’re absolutely correct. These minorities are totalitarian and tribal. However, I do feel that telling them to shut up is too confrontational and breaks the rule about hiding in plain sight. How about we ignore them, laugh at them and go our own way while taking care of our own interests. After all they are kind of like children.
Personally, I believe that whites should vote for Trump simply because of the fact that the Jews hate him so much. Anything that angers the Jews is good for America.
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.
Edit your comment