Counter-Currents
Conspiracy Theories, Specialization, & White Agency
Donald Thoresen
1,923 words
Being pro-white online is not as simple as it sounds. In addition to the rapidly increasing speech limitations, various complexities arise as the pro-white activist encounters ideological opponents and racial competitors and is forced to engage them within the sticky webs of mass resistance to his ideas which exist as part of the condition of living under systems of foreign control. It can be frustrating even for the most even-tempered among us. And there are not enough support networks for those who need them if or when they get in over their heads in a debate, need access to obscure information immediately, or are just feeling burned out. This will change as our numbers increase and our ideas become more socially acceptable, but in the meantime we need to take steps to ease these burdens. Part of the reason many people become frustrated, disillusioned, and sometimes hopeless is because of the way they perceive the world’s sociopolitical machinery and how this perception influences their actions.
I want to propose two things to stop this cycle of (mis)perception and action: first, a slight shift in our relationship to pertinent knowledge; second, an alteration of our techniques of activism in order to maximize the damage caused by our various campaigns of information warfare, especially regarding social media.
1. The Conspiracy Theory Mindset
The term “conspiracy theory” is generally a used as a euphemism for any narrative concerning a sensitive historical event or political position that runs counter to that preferred and maintained by the elite. It is a term, like “racist,” utilized to categorize one’s opponent as being outside the realm of acceptable thought, to transplant him outside the borders of his own community. The accuser isolates the accused with shaming words while at the same time creating a bond with his audience by incorporating them, through mere participation in the spectacle, into his ad hoc in-group which exists solely in opposition to the accused. This creates a climate of receptivity to the branding of the accused as a lunatic and an unwillingness to listen to his ideas. It is very effective, as anyone who has been on the receiving end of this tactic knows. When dealing with people of average intelligence or particularly closed-minded individuals, facts, figures, and sound arguments will not often break the spell of this categorical marginalization (especially in the particular case of topics of concern to White Nationalists, because this marginalization has deep roots in the Judaized soil of contemporary culture). A general rejection of the negative associations with the term “conspiracy theory” would be very beneficial, but the term is unlikely to go away. Nor will actual conspiracies be eradicated any time soon.
What concerns us here, however, is the conspiracy theory mindset, which is rather different, and often leads to hopelessness and inaction. The conspiracy theory mindset can be defined as a view of the world as being overwhelmingly dictated from on high by shadowy forces with goals beyond either our full comprehension or our ability to counter them. We see this type of thinking across the spectrum of the Right. It often, but not always, begins as an escapist crutch, but will always end up as one. Those who are convinced that there are always things in motion perpetrated by people whose names they will never know, or whose motives are never fully clear, abdicate all responsibility for the enactment of change. Either the world is too far gone to save, or there are people who are already working to save it. Power is only held by secret societies, clandestine committees, billionaire moguls, and cigar-chomping men with big plans. But no work is ever really needed on their part, since the people are utterly powerless. The common man is nothing but a pawn in this conception of reality. This mindset slowly drains its victim of a sense of agency, and he sinks into apathy and hopelessness. Through his own bewildered inaction, he transforms himself into the pawn that he hadn’t been prior. The conditions that cause this misperception of reality, this misunderstanding of historical progress, this devaluation of his own soul, are not of his making – but his salvation can only come from within.
To begin to free himself from the murkiness of the conspiracy theory mindset, he must narrow his conceptual focus. If he begins to look at the world more from the bottom up instead of from the top down, the paths of power will likely be easier to discern. History is made by people with names and genealogies who set things in motion for discernible reasons which then cause effects that can be tracked across time and analyzed. When these names and motives seem obscure, it usually means that one has simply not done enough research. There is always room in historical analysis for educated speculation, but when dealing with contemporary politics and cultural trends, there is not much need to do so because of the easy availability of information. This, coupled with the fact that most of us have a working knowledge of the models of group behavior upon which we build our claims, make concrete, provable arguments rather easy. There is, then, little need to get lost in the fog.
For example, by focusing one’s resources on exposing one particular Soros-funded organization and what harm it causes in one’s own state instead of attempting to demonstrate to random Twitter users that George Soros himself is a diabolical madman, the world suddenly becomes more manageable, both psychologically and tactically. Anyone who suspects something is amiss with a particular person or event should set about proving it with reputable sources, calmly and methodically. Start with what is available and accessible, and proceed from there. And by going after smaller targets with greater frequency, we can increase the likelihood of real-world impact in local communities and broaden the range of entry points into White Nationalism for average whites. What percentage of average Republicans have negative opinions of George Soros, and what good does that do anyone? Does he care? Does it interfere with any of his operations in any way? Of course not. But exposing the workings of an organization that he funds that is currently helping to turn your city or your school into a nightmare would hurt him.
Before I move on, I must make very clear that I am in no way suggesting any sort of minimization of the Jewish problem. I have always maintained that this is the single most important issue facing whites and, until this problem is solved, I will continue to do so. I have, however, been guilty on occasion of portraying them in language that almost suggests a kind of invincibility which is obviously not accurate or productive. We should name them and track them, pay attention to their words and their actions, expose them for what they are and what they do, and never let their behavior be separated from their Jewishness. They can and will be beaten – and much sooner if not a single one of us ever doubts for one second that it will happen. And this doubt very often arises from the agency-sapping qualities inherent in the conspiracy theory mindset. Jews are not supernatural beings. They are just parasites who hold a lot of power – temporarily.
2. Specialization
Much has been said about the pride of craftsmanship and the ability to be self-sufficient. It is nice to be able to do electrical work, change the oil in one’s car, build a table, or play a musical instrument. But the same is true for intellectual work. White Nationalists are smarter than average, or they wouldn’t be White Nationalists. This is, of course, obvious. However, we have many people who are spread thin – i.e., who know a fair amount about a lot of things. This is generally a good thing and puts us far ahead of just about every other demographic in the country, but it is time for more of us to start specializing and to take pride in our specialty in the same way that we would our carpentry, our guitar playing, or any other craft.
There is a reason why academics specialize in certain fields, and that even within those fields often choose to focus on relatively specific subjects: one can dig in and expend great effort in knowing as much as possible about the subject and be able to discuss it with anyone in the world with passion and authority. Specialists are the people to whom others turn for advice, the people others reference in their own work, and the people who win debates and have the greatest ability to shape opinions. It would therefore be strategically helpful to have a large group of specialists on social media to whom others could always turn for back-up on any given topic, to propagandize, to engage mainstream academic frauds who work in similar fields, and to educate our community.
If we are, as many have suggested, going to move away from the university system, more people will have to step in to fill the need for this sort of education. This type of in-depth study is incredibly valuable and should be taken very seriously. And as an informal movement, we have to do these things together, by word of mouth, by planting the seeds of ideas and hoping they will grow into something. This kind of specialization takes some effort, but many who are not already accustomed to this type of work might find it enjoyable and interesting. Free academic journal articles can be read online, free books are easily downloaded, and libraries are still great resources (especially university libraries). We are already so far ahead of our opponents in terms of intellectual content and capability that a move in this direction would further enhance our credibility in the eyes of independent observers. Those we criticize online are not likely to be converted to our point of view, but the whites who come across our arguments might very well be. They are our audience.
Furthermore, specialization of this kind forces one to think sharply and methodically, a skill that is growing increasingly rare. It trains the mind to ignore distractions and to spot bad arguments and false or dishonest claims. And, of course, honest research itself is almost a revolutionary act these days.
A final point which deserves more attention, but will only be mentioned in passing here, is that, although White Nationalism is a leaderless movement, so is every other contemporary political movement. There are no leaders left in the Western world of any political persuasion. There is an authority vacuum. Every specialist we have on our side helps to fill this space and creates a social context, a social precedent for eventual White Nationalist sociopolitical hegemony.
Distancing ourselves from a conception of the world as beyond our control through a reorientation of historical perspective and a focus on smaller units of analysis, as well as efforts to specialize in narrower fields of study in order to use this knowledge in our online (and offline) activism, will help to enable White Nationalists to boost their sense of agency and foster feelings of tangible progress and accomplishment. The psychological effects on individuals will be contagious, and will increase optimism and solidarity throughout the community. White Nationalist specialists can infiltrate social media and other aspects of society as authoritative voices, a process which will function as a social foundation for eventual political and cultural leadership.
Every little thing helps, and everything each of us does matters.
10 comments
It is very effective, as anyone who has been on the receiving end of this tactic knows.
It maybe so, but it doesn’t have to be that way.
Firstly, you need to be aware the best you can of where your audience stands with regard to the subject being discussed. The best chances to make any impression on someone’s opinion is to take the subject just over the border of their stance. Take it a bit too far and the result is cognitive dissonance at best. But move the argument just next to their stance, and all of a sudden the conspiracy theory accusation sounds ridiculous.
Secondly, the conspiracy card belongs to ethos, because it tries to discredit the target. Using detailed facts and reason against it is inefficient, because facts and reason belong to logos. In this case I think that it is better to fight fire with fire. I would call it out and say that this is only a try to discredit me, and that my opponent is using this trick because he/she does not actually have any valid arguments.
Combine these two and chances are that you will turn such an accusation on its head and discredit the accuser.
Good article and a very important point re the need for specialisation. As the great Brian Tracy, self-help / personal development guru, you must learn from the experts as there isn’t enough time to learn it all by yourself. We need our own experts. We need targeted learning for both offensive and defensive tasks in the cultural meta political war we’re in
But how do you get those experts? Isn’t that the question? Does the author mean “real experts in fact”, or “real experts in fact who also possess what our society classifies as ‘expert’-credentials”? Those are very different things. The latter is made infinitely harder by the conflation, not always undeserved, of expertise with academic position. With the Diversitist Left’s total hegemony over academia we now have something new in history, something to my imagination horrifyingly but truly and eerily “Orwellian”: the fufilment of Orwell’s dictum “who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” Somehow the Left has managed to conquer our culture utterly, and establish a new set of ostensibly “universal ‘truths'”, among which the fundamental equality and thus fungibility of races and, contradictorily, the value of politico-territorial “diversity”, are held to be so beyond empirical dispute as to render disagreement with them indicative of moral failure. Moreover, by having seized control of the “expert-manufacturing” process, they have rendered it ever more difficult for WNs to get a fair hearing for our ideas – a fair hearing among the only group – the White race – which is both threatened by diversity (indeed, is the object that the ideology of diversity has been formulated and promulgated to destroy), and that even cares about such concepts as objective truth and intellectual integrity. Only Whites as a race have ever shown any interest in real truth (as opposed to mere instrumental understanding to serve appetitive desires). We are the ones therefore who most respect qualifications, credentials, etc. We of an older generation understand the debasement of the universities, and thus we have the necessary sceptical awareness … even to begin a search for truth (which can then lead intrepid intellectual explorers to places like this).
But for how many more generations can this scepticism be expected to remain a subcurrent of Western intellectuality? Look at the “Obama Zombies”, the Millennial morons. Look at their combination of intellectual shallowness and certitude. How sure they are of what we know to be total bullshit! At least indoctrinated White men in centuries past has their own innate Faustian curiosity to propel past episodes of deculting or debrainwashing. What happens after another 3-4 generations of PC indoctrination, when there shall no longer be any with pre-PC memories, and when those Whites innately indisposed to being brainwashed against the evidence of their own “lying eyes” shall be so scattered as not to be able to connect up in “communities of truth”, and so easily overwhelmed by nonwhite PC-orthodoxy enforcers in the unlikely instances when they can do so?
We MUST separate. Diversity is the greatest evil that has ever befallen us. And worst of all is that is has somehow won the moral high ground among our people. If we don’t win that ground back, we are lost. And that is no conspiracy theory.
Dast one note that this article about ‘specialization’ is an extended generalization. Perhaps the need for specificity would be better met by our movement’s bigger-brained, highly verbal, generalist’s taking notice of the specific contributions of our lesser-knowns, rather than incessantly featuring one another.
One of these was brought to my attention through a lengthy interview by Jean-Francois Gariépy as the warm-up to his commentary on the Peterson / Žižek debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bnXLxKQPYY). JF’s guest, one Kurt Roemer, is credited with solving “the most complicated math problem that is known to actually have a solution” i.e.: Mises’ Socialist Calculation Problem (http://ecomod.net/system/files/Roemer.Economic%20Calculation.pdf).
This auditor finds the staunchly Libertarian (but scientifically trained) Dr. Gariépy agreeing that the Calculation Problem is now solved – a mathematical possibility opposed with Rabbinical thunder in the Tribe’s econ journals (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/on-economic-calculation-and-model-that.htm).
A solved Calculation Problem would enlarge white agency by resolving our drive for capitalist efficiency with our instincts toward ethnic communitarianism. These sentiments have been well-essayed by one of Roemer’s students (http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/12/taking-capitalism-away-from-the-jews/).
Elsewhere among the 14/88ers we find Roemer himself interviewed by National Socialist Sven Longshanks at Anglin’s site (https://dailystormer.name/aryan-insights-kurt-roemer-national-socialist-economics-for-the-modern-world/). The (rather erudite) discussion here centers on a solved Calculation Problem transforming a dissolute economics profession by advancing it into the specifically Western scientific canon.
Further connections to white agency are seen in a TakiMag article on cryptocurrencies and their missing requisite of a constant-value reference commodity (http://takimag.com/article/in_search_of_lost_money_hargreaves_allen). It seems that solution to the Calculation Problem also entails, en passant, solution to economics’ classic Value Problem. Given a unit of constant value (one that is “no more variable than the short ton, the troy ounce or the board-foot”) it becomes possible to continuously recalibrate nations’ respective currency values such that none ever have a net trade imbalance.
This would free us from the Euro (that Esperanto of currencies) and return to each nation sovereignty over its native unit of exchange. When European nations can no longer exist in a state of economic servitude to another, they might then find sufficient amiability to found a true political confederation for a military defense of their common perimeter.
Surfing the web for these allusions to Roemer and his ‘SFEcon’ Model, one encounters ample fodder for conspiracy theories (or, as Napoleon put it: ‘the conspiracy of the way things simply are’). The online e-text maintained by SFEcon (https://www.sfecon.com/) memorializes Roemer’s outstanding teaching and scholarship, together with the accusations that had him run out of academe:
SF State fired him for unusually lurid accusations of latent Nazism (https://www.sfecon.com/1_Discussions/12_SFEcon/123_Orthodox/Proposition/Jacobin/Petition.pdf); and USF fired him over a ‘me-too’ incident that was witnessed and publicly disputed by a student (https://www.sfecon.com/1_Discussions/12_SFEcon/123_Orthodox/Catholic/Alma_Mater/Witness.pdf).
Elsewhere, we find that these accusations have been sufficient to embolden a Zionist judge to issue a bench warrant for Roemer’s arrest, and to have him investigated by the FBI (https://www.sfecon.com/1_Discussions/12_SFEcon/123_Orthodox/Proposition/Jacobin/Judicial%20Performance.pdf).
Please. If you think, per
“Kurt Roemer, is credited with solving “the most complicated math problem that is known to actually have a solution” i.e.: Mises’ Socialist Calculation Problem “,
that the problem of economic calculation under socialism, first identified as such by Mises in 1920, is a math problem (however complex), then you simply don’t understand the issue.
Here is a good (if rather left-libertarian) starting point for learning about the calculation debate:
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/HorwitzSocialism.html
Free market-determined prices will always lead to superior economic outcomes. In conjunction with the “knowledge problem” under socialism identified by Hayek, as well as the old conservative anthropological “lack of incentives” issue under any common property regime, socialist systems always lead to inferior economic outcomes. This is TOTALLY F—— PLAINLY OBSERVABLE UNDER EVERY REAL WORLD “EXPERIMENT” IN SOCIALISM: East vs West Germany, N. v S. Korea, Maoist v Dengist China, Obama v Trump economy, etc etc ad nauseam. What is it with people just not being able to handle the clear superiority of capitalism (at least in terms of maximizing national productivity and wealth)?
Capitalism not only is necessary for rational economic allocation, it incentivizes dynamism, commercial and even non-commercial activities, all of which together can lead to greater national power (as well as happier and thus more stable societies). Any future Ethnostate must be substantially capitalist. Without the possibility of extensive personal profit, people will do what they always do on the welfare (and now food stamps + disability-income) plantation: fritter away their energies instead of employing them in ways which, taken all together, maximize national productivity and hence the possibility of national power.
Note: recognizing the superiority of capitalism does not necessitate that one place wealth maximization above all other ‘goods’, such as stable families, ecological preservation, eugenic improvements, transmission of culture, and racial purity, but only that one understand the relative trade-offs: more socialism/statism = greater national material poverty (of course, perfect socialism = total immiseration and national ruin).
Your Lordship:
Thank you for your response. The poles of Libertarian versus National Socialist thinking, having been firmly established among White Nationalists, would commend formal engagements between our positions.
A Counter-Currents’ comments thread might not, however, provide sufficient space for a useful airing of our differences. I note that Jean-Francois Gariépy closed his interview with an offer to moderate a future debate between Roemer and any Austrian Economist willing to enter a neutral forum. JF ([email protected]) has established himself as a neutral arbiter in the ‘blood sports’ arena; he is an announced Libertarian; and he is a scientist by training. If you are sure of your ground, then, by all means, pick-up the challenge.
I will nonetheless respond to your several points as succinctly as possible here.
1. Imputing a mathematical nature to Mises’ Calculation Problem signifies a misunderstanding of the issue.
First, allow me to invite your attention to any dictionary’s definitions of the words “calculation” or “computation”. Then there is Hayek’s own introduction to his rendition of the “knowledge problem”:
“The conditions which the solution of this optimum problem must satisfy have been fully worked out and can be stated best in MATHEMATICAL form . . .” [emphasis mine] (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html)
And, according to Lew Rockwell himself, “Ludwig von Mises didn’t like references to the ‘miracle’ of the marketplace or the ‘magic’ of production or other terms that suggest that economic systems depend on some force that is beyond human comprehension. In his view, we are better off coming to a rational understanding of why markets are responsible for astounding levels of productivity that can support exponential increases in population and ever higher living standards.” (https://mises.org/library/faith-entrepreneurs). It is, may I emphasize, Rockwell and his cohort – not Mises, who insist “Mises forgive me: this is a miracle.” (Ibid.)
As even the most casual reading of Hayek’s 1945 paper will show, he repeatedly and arbitrarily asserted a scientific ‘view from nowhere’ at which point-exterior-to-reality all economic knowledge would need to be focused in order to be acted-upon.
But, where is it written in the Austrian Book of Miracles that information MUST be focused in order to be acted-upon? Is not SFEcon’s view of the macro economy as a meta-mind in its own right more promising? Such a prospective manifestation of intellect would then presumably achieve its focus by creating economic optimality in terms of an objective distribution of physical assets.
Note that Hayek published his “Uses of Knowledge . . .” paper in 1945, when he was 46 years old. He did not stop tinkering with the Calculation Problem until he died at age 92. One does not spend the last decades of life on project for which failure is the only anticipated outcome.
Note further that these decades produced Hayek’s notion of the “spontaneous ordering of markets” from which general chaos theory emerged from the economist’s conundrum. And chaos theory has since produced many formal, mathematical representations of elegant macro behavior emerging from micro phenomena having no possible knowledge of what is being created above their immediate awareness.
2. “Free market-determined prices will always lead to superior economic outcomes.”
O.K. But how does this fact not lead us to then conclude that it would be a good idea for mankind to add a formal understanding of how markets work to their store of knowledge? Do not free markets (at least in uniform commodities) lead to monopolies (Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc.)? When monopolies have converged naturally, or by force, do we not then need an outside counter-force to artificially re-impose free-market criteria on future prices?
When Mises presupposed that markets’ means for creating efficient prices would forever remain inscrutable, he was insisting that efficient prices are only calculable at equilibrium. Observing that the real economy never presents us with an equilibrium state, it only follows logically that we would never have the data with which to artificially compute meaningful prices.
As counterFACTURAL to this mere REASONING, please consider SFEcon’s DEMONSTRATION of efficient prices being CALCULATED on the bases of data that are available irrespective where the economic state might be in relation to any prospective equilibrium (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYlAvDCTl20&t=58s).
3. “. . . inferior economic outcomes [are] . . . TOTALLY F—— PLAINLY OBSERVABLE UNDER EVERY REAL WORLD “EXPERIMENT” IN SOCIALISM” [emphasis yours]
Well, no. My own reading of history sees every premise for social organization being tried. Dynasties based on economic command thrived for centuries in the extensive economies of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. These were quite sophisticated financially, and the finances were grounded in religious institutions. More generally, people have been seen to make every social form work; and to have made every form fail.
I personally shrink from public debate because all anyone wants to talk about is the form that society should take such that we do not have to think about ‘forms’ any more. To the contrary: different social forms are appropriate for different peoples and different circumstances at different times. The uses and outcomes of force depend on the intelligence and intentions with which force is applied.
Specifically, the examples of disastrous economic command that you properly cite were not intended to uplift the population. They were, rather, undertaken with a frank intention to demoralize the population in order to control it. A contrary pair of examples might have been the Third Reich versus Weimar Germany. Clearly the Reich, together with the Japanese militarists and the Italian Fascists, were able to achieve economic gains far in excess of their pre-war contemporaries.
The free market clearly has its place along with economic command in any given set of circumstances. That said, more incisive understandings as to how the free market operates should always be welcome to inform political decisions as to the proper mix of these tools. The Austrian premises of categorical unknowability are of no use in such matters.
4. “recognizing the superiority of capitalism does not necessitate that one place wealth maximization above all other ‘goods’”
While this is clearly the case, it also undermines the Libertarian premise that all can best sub serve the market. And a strict equation of marginal revenues with marginal costs necessarily undermines your (highly desirable) “stable families, ecological preservation, eugenic improvements, transmission of culture, and racial purity . . .”
The point should be that, while pure buccaneer capitalism maximizes GDP, it dictates nothing about how that maximal product should be distributed. We are currently in a state wherein a racially-traitorous elite will neither spend nor write-down their useless accumulations of capital. They continue demanding returns to capital via government fiat that are simply not physically available. This will not withstand the accelerating displacement of labor via the coming avalanche of AI-directed automation.
They will, however, use daddy’s money to keep useful science away from the public, even while buying acclaim from PBS as stewards of the West’s scientific tradition. Recall that the Rockefellers, who imported Mises to NYU, also imported the Frankfort School to Columbia. They paid Mises, Hayek, and Röpke to write tracts advocating globalism – a practice that continues today in, for example, the career of Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan at George Mason.
If you sincerely wish to uphold the Libertarians’ claim to direct White Nationalist impulses, then you should strive to do better than to merely recapitulate the know-nothing findings of Austrianism – as in your reference to Steven Horowitz. These arguments have been around for a century. They are known to every professional in the field. They have convinced everyone who will be convinced – which continues to be a small segment of the economics guild.
Insisting that people who having new science to offer ‘just need to hear you out one more time’ in order to see their error only abuses the courtesy characteristic of your race and culture.
Dear Sir: May I ask if you are married with at least 3+ delightful white kids? If not, can you tell me how any reasonable white woman looking for a husband from among your ‘conspiracy-oriented’ readers would spend any time reading this post? Yes, it is marvelous and necessary that we have a distinctly educated, scholarly base (I have an M.A. myself), but how is this related to the subject of white extinction, and attracting women to our ‘effort’ in order to stave off that event? I think too many people are losing sight of reality here. Just saying.
Though I consider your first question impertinent (but only the least derisive sense of that term) I will nonetheless answer it in order to substantiate other thoughts suggested by your inquiry.
Of the nineteen people (in-laws excluded) directly beneath my place on the genealogical chart, all are fully Caucasian; only one is divorced; and only one of marriageable age remains single. A ninth great-grandchild is en route, and there are reasonable prospects for a half dozen more. While none of us are really rich, all are well-provided-for financially. I continue to share a mutual and tender devotion with the only woman with whom I care to be intimate.
Three thoughts are suggested by your other questions.
1. The dissident right is not a dating service. We are engaged in nasty, low-grade guerrilla warfare wherein the people most useful to us are being prosecuted, exiled, impoverished, isolated, and generally marginalized. Profound social, scientific, and cultural innovation are a man’s business for good and stated reasons: comparatively few men of realized genius have had children because their compulsion to express their gifts has been all-consuming and socially disrupting. Other than its works, genius can be expected to produce little or no seed.
If you wish to pair-off with a worthwhile man of the right, you must be prepared to compliment and support his drive for generation in whatever form it might take. Make him a hero to the children you give him BECAUSE he instills the discipline for them to stand apart from the corruption and degeneracy of the world outside the home he provides for you.
And do not presume to correct him except insofar as you find him failing in this duty. Please understand a responsible gentleman’s reluctance to start a family within a social milieu that does not permit him the scope and means to shape and control that which he creates. Present yourself as an able and willing partner in that creation; resolve not settle for less than you deserve (even if than means being alone); and you should readily attract what you desire. Good hunting.
2. Though the demographic decline among whites is a distressing symptom, it need not be the primary concern for our White Nationalist leadership. There are more white people alive now than there has ever been – even during the period when our ancestors ruled four fifths of the world. Modern technology is such that the portion of America above the Rio Grande can be effectively governed, profitably exploited, and militarily defended by fewer than half of the 350 million people presently living here.
Our problem is not yet one of numbers. Of present concern is the civility, industry, and general cultivation of our current population. We have what we need to do what we need to do. The central issues are those of will and direction, and of how these might be formed and propagated. More white children abandoned to state-sponsored brainwashing, media degeneracy, moral licentiousness, food and drug addiction, social ennui, etc., etc., will only further degrade our stock.
3. My post inviting WN’s bigger brains’ attention to a specific impulse toward an authentically Western science of economics is, I hope, useful in providing one clearly actionable cause against Jewish cultural hegemony. Thanks to Mr. Morgan’s patience, I believe we have had a useful airing and orienting of one (admittedly narrow) issue that divides the right-beyond-Trump.
Every civilization rests on its material substrate; and every civilization fails when it can no longer afford to feed and defend its citizens. Our Faustian civilization, in its feudal embodiment, failed in the Fourteenth Century; but it re-emerged on the foundation of commercial capitalism. Commercial capitalism failed in the Seventeenth Century, and re-re-emerged on a foundation of industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism failed in the first half of the Twentieth Century, and is currently struggling to re-emerge yet again in the form of what we might eventually call ‘financial capitalism.’
If this latest regeneration of the West’s material substrate is to take form under the control of characteristically Western men, then we need to impose a characteristically Western scientific view on what is happening. Otherwise, an alien people will once again populate the information system guiding the most vital organ of our body politic. Should that happen, Aryan men might reasonably accept extinction over the dishonor of servitude.
The most hard-working and effective movement people I know are believers in pretty wild conspiracy theories. (So am I.) Some people just put their money where their mouth is, regardless of their perception of the gravity of our situation. Others are exuberant, but would never lift a finger or donate $10. It’s about character, not belief systems.
Vilifying Soros works splendidly on the voters of Eastern Europe. Does the average US Republican belong to a different species?
I’m equally sceptical about the second proposal. Generally speaking, one needs a PhD just to grasp the main issues in any given field. Climate change? The Holocaust? Health care systems? Nutrition? When laymen start to self-educate, what we get is the vegan/paleo/holocaust-denier/whatnot internet warrior, not an expert that we can trust. I think we’d be better off if people invested their energies in IRL political organizing.
What wild conspiracy theories do you give credence to?
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.