Counter-Currents
Video of the Day
National Populism is Here to Stay
Video of the Day
“Sunrise Over Tallinn,” Alejandro Erickson
54 words / 42:28
The video of Greg Johnson’s speech at the Blue Awakening Youth Conference in Tallinn, Estonia on February 25, 2019, in which he talks about how studies of the factors driving voters towards populism across the world demonstrate that National Populism isn’t going away anytime soon, and will in fact soon become the norm in many countries.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
10 comments
One of the problems with Populism(at least with it’s “leaders”),which Al-Jazeera has pointed out, is it’s adulation of Israel.Our enemy isn’t Muslim invaders ,but those who encourage mass immigration; Europe’s political class. These are the guilty. Not defenceless civilians(Muslim or not). We should direct our rage at them(Although isolated acts of violence only invite repression from the state, and should be shunned)
Also, Trump, Bannon, Balsonero, Breibart are worthless frauds….Neocon Globalist shit
Al Jazeera or New York Times…so what? And they are not too wrong…except for the “Far Right” bit…and I am not American so what do I care about the “Alt Right” or Spencer.
As for my “kind” I am not obsessed by Jews, the IQ of Black’s or Islam…none of which are important in the scheme of things…supporting a nutjobs and there quest to ignite a major war(against Iran) is another matter…
A few typos there.
National Populism is easy and reasonably cheap to get as an eBook for Adobe Digital Editions.
Getting things in eBook form can be a pest if you are not willing to buy from Amazon. (As I am not, any more, because of the purge.) But not in this case.
National-populism is here to stay because it is due to whites being replaced in Europe and America and this can not be solved through UBI or other welfare-schemes meant to compensate for the loss of jobs and the decline of the standard of living brought by globalization.
It will get stronger, and the ethnic tensions worse, and that will happen soon, in the following years not decades from now, because the rapid demographic decline of the white means that the crisis and the reactions to it are fast approaching.
The question is ‘what next ?’. What is the healthy model of society which should replace the present model. It can not be another version of the individualism&liberalism ideology because this is what brought us here in the first place. It has to be some form of collectivism, illiberalism, with strong social controls which will artificially (culturally) create the system of incentives needed to maintain a healthy society.
Nobody has an idea of what should replace the present system, and this in turn is a political weakness as there is no ideal, no end-outcome, on which the whole political activity to focus.
The leftist-marxists movements had in mind their communist utopia : the classless-equalitarian society. The right-wing and conservative movements usually appealed to an ideal ‘golden-age’ of the past to which they hoped to return the society. But we can’t turn back, we all now that, and do not have an ideal toward which to aim, and ‘sell’ as well.
The question is ‘what next ?’.
(…). “It has to be some form of collectivism, illiberalism, with strong social controls which will artificially (culturally) create the system of incentives needed to maintain a healthy society.”
I am concerned.
The history of “collectivism” and “strong social controls” proves to be disastrous (Soviet Union, post-WW2 Eastern Europe, China, and more).
I am concerned that with that kind of ideological program the pendulum will swing from one form of fascism (communism, national socialism) to another (populism plus “collectivism” plus “strong social controls” plus other forms of social force).
I am afraid some (many ?) of you are products of liberal-democratic societies and never really experienced totalitarian systems, thus have no clue what it feels like and how it works.
All I can say is be careful what you wish for !
I think you underestimate the desire of people to be responsibly free.
The majority of today’s white-space populations is against destructive liberalism and leftism that gave us treasonous and cosmopolitan elites, globalism, uncontrolled immigration, and social ills (income disparity, feminism, destruction of families, etc).
But the very fact that they are aware of the above is a sign that the sizeable parts of these populations in many countries are healthy in their political, religious and social thinking.
Do not confuse the degeneracy and polarization being promoted in mass media (propaganda, fake news, sexualization, LGBQT, etc) with normal, healthy, and more or less moral majority populations.
These are not people who want to trade the above for “collectivism” and “strong social controls”, another potential catastrophes that will poison future white generations.
In most cases all we have to do to clean up the mess is to respect freedom, stay away from fascist tendencies, vote out trash elites, vote for white-nationalism and nation-state promoting people and political parties who will correct the course by the force of democratic majority and “create the system of incentives needed to maintain a healthy society” as you wish.
It has been done and it works (Hungary, Poland, Italy, Austria, and partially other countries).
Make use of the voting power, e.g. the European Parliament elections take place May 23; later mobilize and repeat in national elections.
The sooner and effectively you act, the lesser the probability that the “moral majority” will resort to acts of totalitarian measures to correct the course.
Well said, inq. Greg Johnson also makes the point in this video that many white people want some form of democracy. It worked well in many white societies of the past, and can be adapted to future conditions.
“…the desire of people to be responsibly free.”
This is what I and millions of people in the Anglosphere and elsewhere have desired, for centuries. Systems which promoted and protected this worked reasonably well, from ancient Greece onwards. “Responsibly free” is key. I keep remembering what John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And Adams actively dedicated his life, and risked his life, on behalf of such a constitution. In America and Britain, there was once a strong cultivation of a moral people. Of course it wasn’t perfect, but it worked pretty well. It was defeated when alien ideas and practices managed to predominate.
@Traddles
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.” — John Adams
“Democracy is the most vile form of government. … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths.” — James Madison
The Roman Republic was a fully fledged democracy but, according to Sallust (86 – 35 BC) it succumbed to corruption and decadence when wealth and security became abundant after the victories of the Roman army. Sallust had that the conquest of Rome’s arch-enemy Carthage, in 146 BC, as being the turning point, the beginning of the decline of the republic.
It was the danger (to the city-state) and their relative poverty which kept the Romans virtuous but as soon as those restraints were removed due to the successes of Roman army this famous Roman character declined too and the Romans ended being ruled by strong men, by general and emperors.
The Roman character, its values and ‘virtu’, was itself an adaptation, a means to cope with constant difficult and dangerous situations, and it dissolved when the circumstances changed. It had some inertia but it was not stable in itself, it could not sustain itself. And it was their own elites, the Roman aristocracy (not the foreigner “Jews”), who “engineered” the decline by expropriating the small land-holders, the “standard” citizen, in order to make big profits out of large consolidated areas of land worked cheaply by slaves. Just as the American elites could not help themselves but outsource the US industries to the cheap labour of Asia in order to make big profits by producing cheaply there and then importing the goods and selling them on the rich western markets. And it was the ‘boomer’ generation, the generation who grew up in the most prosperous, healthy and secure America, who upended America’s moral order with their hedonism and selfishness which they then later translated into political change.
I don’t know what would be the that model. But I think that the record shows that democracy is not a solution in itself, it is not a stable order. It works as long as there are external constraints, as it was the case of Rome, or as long as the ‘internal constraints’, the cultural constraints inherited from the previous (Christian in the case of US) generations, are still operative and have not yet been -and very democratically not otherwise- called into question and dismantled.
—
Good points, Ovidiu. Yes, we need to be careful how we define “Democracy,” “Republic,” etc., and we also should recognize that there are varying degrees of such governance, which correspond with differing social systems. Most of the American Founders were opposed to widespread democracy, as they feared mob rule. America started with various limits on its voting franchise, and the Jacksonian expansion still maintained limits. Today’s egalitarians condemn any such limits, but obviously they are not living in the real world nor coming up with reasonable, workable solutions for a lasting, stable, moral system. I believe that a system such as the pre-“Progressive Era” American one, with internal constraints such as you mentioned, can still provide a valid, workable model among some populations. And Greg Johnson himself seems to suggest the viability of a very broad democracy in some circumstances.
Staying with the American example, Lincoln and the moderate abolitionists were rightly opposed to giving blacks full voting rights immediately after emancipation. This was certainly defensible, since a people should develop a mature, compatible culture before exercising full citizenship. Most Americans would have easily understood this, I think, before the West became so enthralled with radical egalitarianism. And America had grown up within the English context of limited government, mediating institutions and Christianity, all of which helped to form successful, moral societies. With the radical changes to our populations in the last few decades, I’m not sure how easily we can build such a society again, but I’m not yet ready to give up on it.
Before a model can be devised and sold, we must get our minds right.
My compatriot Kerry believes third world invaders are hapless pawns of Jewish supremacists and their upscale gentile sycophants.
Unfortunate, are these people? Without interests? Without agency (not even a teeny, tiny bit)?
Such thinking is an attempt to capitalize on the universal altruism shared by the secular left and modern religious right. It is primarily motivated by fear.
“We empathize with those poor Pawns of Color ! Please, everybody, spare us a little. We’re nice people, too!”
If “normies” of average intelligence can see through the ploy, then our oligarchs and its minions saw through it long ago. The invaders are the oligarchy’s minor partners.
Empathy shall be denied us. We shall not be placed in the victim category.
Our oligarchs fear revolution, especially now with trillions of dollars at stake and their objective at hand.
Anarchy precedes revolution. If anarchy didn’t exist, the oligarchy would sponsor it to justify suppression. No amount of “good” behavior and special pleading can stop it.
So get your minds right.
Prepare for anarchy. Prepare for suppression. Begin with yourself by recognizing 1) the duality of morality and 2) the man with the gold/platinum writes, adjudicates, and enforces the contract (aided by “pawns,” I should add).
We care about our own – men of the Occident – the proud descendants and practitioners of indigenous western traditions and culture. (“Proud” and “practitioner” introduce classically liberal behavioral components that disqualify modern white shitlibs from inclusion.)
Don’t explain yourself to jews, white shitlibs, or “hapless pawns” of color. They want us dead.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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