Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 245
Answering Normie Questions
Counter-Currents Radio
131 words / 74:10
To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
Greg Johnson, John Morgan, and Frodi reconvene our roundtable to discuss “normie” questions and objections regarding white identity politics shared by our readers.
- 0:00: Introduction
- 0:17: Donations
- 5:00: Is White Nationalism an Inherently Violent Ideology?
- Alan Smithee’s “A Study in Anti-White Media Lies: Are Right–Wing Extremists More Likely to Kill you Than Muslim Terrorists?“
- Gregory Hood and Jared Taylor, “Media Promote ADL Propaganda on ‘Extremist Terrorism’“
- 24:05: White Nationalism and Women
- Greg Johnson, “The Woman Question in White Nationalism“
- Wolfie James, “A Place for Women in the Alt Right“
- 49:00: Racial Purity
- Ted Sallis, “Racial Purity, Ethnic Genetic Interests, and the Cobb Case“
- 70:15: Non-white conservatives
- Greg Paulson, “Milo Yiannopoulos and ‘Allies of Color’“
NOTE: Counter-Currents is again able to take monthly donations and donations from outside the US.
[give_form id=”93964″]
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
18 comments
I like returning to this topic–answering normie questions–from time to time, to address the latest round of questions and accusations. I recall another reply, that we could add to the stock of responses here, that GJ made to the charge that nationalism was responsible for the Great War: viz., that imperialism, not nationalism, was the culprit. A good reply to have at the ready. I also like having the links here to articles that address topics covered in the podcast. Great episode!
On the question of whether White Nationalism is inherently violent, or better stated, implicitly violent —> then we really need to consider Guillaume Faye’s argument in Ethnic Apocalypse (aka Racial Civil War), rather than aver, whenever there’s a mass shooting, that we wish only for a “slow cleanse” or peaceful partition
“It was Hegel who developed the solid idea that a historical evolution can indeed lead to its very opposite, to its inversion, through a reaction effect or a shift in meaning . . . . One would be tempted to state ‘it is necessary for there to be bloodshed if our major problems are to be resolved’: for the solution does not come from above, through naivety, nor through reflection and utopian, peaceful consultation, of course, but from below, through violence and tragedy, which have the unique historical ability to raise people’s awareness of the emergency case and thus to sever the Gordian knots that would otherwise never be unravelled.” (pp. 53-54)
“The essential criterion for a mental change on the part of the French people, be it our authorities or ordinary citizens, would be their readiness to shed blood . . . . To paraphrase Clausewitz, I would say that ‘what characterizes war is one’s acceptance to receive death but also give it, without being confused with a murderer'” (p. 208)
Political conditions for civil war now exist in France. The problem is that the indigenous population is unarmed. Conditions in the USA are not ripe and are perhaps already rotten, but the people have arms.
Forgive the bad manners, but I will reply to my own post.
At this stage, the key is to get leading White military and police commanders on our side. How do we get our arguments before their eyes?
Our enemies are of course doing their best to infiltrate and “integrate” these vital arms of power
Gentlemen, thank you for the constructive and civil discussion of the WQ. You set an example for all the men in our movement.
Increasingly, I find myself unable to agree that a critical mass of women in the “stuckment” is unnecessary for getting it unstuck, and the reasons for that are apparent even in this discussion.
Our only strength and source of hope is that we tell the truth while our enemies tell lies. The WQ must be approached in the same way. Current orthodoxy on the WQ in our movement is disgracefully unempirical, sometimes even slanderous, because the truth may be disagreeable to the male ego.
A case in point is the unwarranted assumption that women are to blame for the decline of marriage. I understand that this assumption has some intuitive appeal, given the coincidence of timing. The problem is that it is not clear whether women pursue careers because they are not interested in marriage or because men are not interested in marrying them. It seems that women, once married, aren’t all that careerist. They seem perfectly willing to make their husband’s career the priority.
Frodi suggests that women start having children at 20. For that to happen, men would have to propose marriage in their early twenties, “wild oats” unsown. The only other option would be young women marrying much older men. The problem with the latter is that these unmarried young men will obtain sex one way or another. They will either lie to women to get them into bed, or they will create a massive demand for prostitutes. According to the most strident slut-shamers, the former “ruins” them for marriage. The latter creates unspeakable human misery, though I suspect that is the ideal vision many dissident right misogynists have in mind. They want two types of women: whores to have fun with and chaste wives to bear their children whenever they get around to it.
https://psychentral.com/news/2012/04/18/lack-of-men-leads-women-to-choose-career-over-family/37500.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/28/why-couples-move-for-a-mans-job-but-not-a-womans/
At this point, many will object that men won’t marry because of anti-male bias in the courts or something, but this is speculative at best. Manosphere complaints about family law usually just boil down to a repudiation of the very idea of a binding marriage contract where men are held to their promises, including (and perhaps especially) the “love, honor, and cherish” part.
The fact is that motherhood permanently handicaps a woman in both the labor and marriage markets. The traditional obligations of alimony and child support are indispensable protections for women, but the men’s rights people insist they are a grave injustice imposed on innocent men by the oppressive “matriarchy.” Without these protections, it is unreasonable to expect fathers to encourage their daughters to marry before establishing themselves in a career.
I’m not sure why people see the “men’s rights movement” as part of the right, but feminism as part of the left. They both seem leftist to me.
The animosity toward single mothers is another issue that I would like to address in another post if I have time.
Contrary to what Greg thought about the Front National voters, far more men than women voted for Jean-Marie le Pen. This changed when Marine took over the leadership:
https://qz.com/926336/le-pen-is-slowly-destroying-the-consensus-that-soft-hearted-women-vote-left/
It may be true that women, in certain ways, are more conservative than men. But what most of them want to conserve are rather liberal values, like women’s rights. Even if Marine le Pen doesn’t call herself a feminist, she supports the basic feminist ideals and doesn’t dismiss feminism as “a cancer.”
The same is true about the leader of For Britain, Ann Marie Waters, whose party seems to attract both sexes in fairly equal proportions. One major reason for this is probably their focus on mass immigration from patriarchal Muslim countries.
Finally I just want to remind you that it takes two to start a family. So if you want more young women to have children, you should also encourage young men to become fathers.
But what most of them want to conserve are rather liberal values, like women’s rights.
I think we need to be careful about claiming that the idea of “women’s rights” is a liberal value. Hopefully, we can all agree that women should have rights. (Even patriarchal Sharia grants women extensive rights to keep their own earnings, inherit and dispose of property, divorce for cause, etc.) The question is whether men and women should have all of the same rights and should be expected to exercise their rights in exactly the same way.
“Women’s rights” in this context are equal rights. Personally, I appreciate that the national populist movement defends them. Since there are average differences between the sexes when it comes to character, interests and talents there will also be differences in how we exercise these rights, but this varies a lot between individuals.
“Women’s rights” in this context are equal rights.
I figured that was what you meant. Still, I think it’s important to be clear and precise in our terminology.
Why we should not miss women in white nationalist movements ?
Why women should not run a political movement, corporation, society, government, nation ?
From evolutionary perspective (please, read it slowly):
http://www.heretical.com/sgs-2013/weapons.html
“I contend, all female instincts derive from either mate-selection or child-rearing – female behaviour is always in the final analysis sexual. To allow these instincts to be applied to wider society is profoundly damaging to it.”
What are the consequencies otherwise ?
Look at EU, european nations – look at past, current and future appointments to key positions (Le Pen, May, Merkel, von der Leyen, LaGarde, Georgieva, and many prime ministers, defence ministers, etc).
We pay and will pay enormous price in coming years for our elites’ wickedness as the global, regional, economic and political world crumbles and rebuilds around us !
“I contend, all female instincts derive from either mate-selection or child-rearing – female behaviour is always in the final analysis sexual.
I contend that this is pure projection.
The reason the media claims that refugees crossing the border are “women and children” is that women naturally fear outgroup males.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090204121504.htm
Regarding Frodi’s suggestion that women (unlike men?) should start having children at 20, it can be interesting to take a look at the marriage statistics in our home country Sweden.
For example, 140 years ago, in 1879, the average age for the first marriage was 27 for women and 29 for men, and very few children were born out of wedlock. Today it is 33 for women and 36 for men, but nowadays many have children before they get married.
The average age difference between men and women seems to have varied between 2 and 3 years since the 19th century. So it would probably be rather difficult to convince women that this difference should be increased to more Middle Eastern levels.
Anyway, suggestions in this direction from the white nationalist movement will definitely keep many women away from it.
http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__BE0101__BE0101L/GiftMedelalder/?rxid=c74b1d86-23f1-445b-91e9-a0b43a581f01
Regarding Frodi’s suggestion that women (unlike men?) should start having children at 20, it can be interesting to take a look at the marriage statistics in our home country Sweden.
Yes, 20 is probably too young. However, I very much appreciate Frodi’s point that women who have children younger will have more time for a career later on should that be desired.
Another thing that I think should be noted about this discussion is that pushing women to have children before they have any exposure to paid employment carries it’s own risks. Women might have fewer children thinking that the grass is greener outside the home when in fact it is not. Personally, I didn’t go back after my second and just kept having kids.
In any event, reasonable people can disagree on this point, and Frodi is right of course that waiting too long also means that women might have fewer children than they would like.
It is not very realistic for a woman to have a career (or study) while having children. Children are taxing. Mommy brain is real, pregnancy brain is real.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/03/medicalresearch.pregnancy
Having said that, if white nationalists want to increase white child birth the focus should be on people who already have children. It is not that great of a change, when you have one to have one more. Or if you have two to have three, etc. Besides earlier not only people had more children they had more in the later age. Nowadays women stop having children before menopause. Why should they?
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2015.0147
There could be much more white babies if government encouraged child birth and did not fund contraceptives (or rather abortatives, what are even difficult to remove such as hormone spiral, a slow releasing hormone tablet in a leg, etc.) for women who already have children.
I hate getting a “bad eye” from a health care providers (every single one of them): “you are not on a birth control?” (and they insist I would use self abortion spiral, because…. it it is effective), “it has been too short time since your last birth, it’s bad for your health, you should focus on the baby you have; it’s free”, etc. I don’t know how many European countries have this policy and my Internet search did not give results, I have only personal experience and those of my friends. At the same time same government lacks workers, population is falling and of course the cure is importing hordes of africans. How many women bow under pressure by a figure of authority-doctor and delay having next child, and “chose” to “plan family responsibly”? Any woman over certain age, who is not on birth control is considered “irresponsible”. By the way I am quite sure Danish government has same policies.
Again our enemies are a step (or rather many) ahead of us-the policy is in place the funding is in place the instructions for doctors are in place. While we realized the problem it’s said and done and it is the norm, not otherwise.
I understand, that it is not so sexy to think about women having one more child before they hit menopause vs getting your 19 year old virgin wife pregnant. But just imagine if every normal European family (married man and woman with one or more children-and they are still the norm in all countries) would have just one more child.
We tried that in Hungary, and it didn’t work. There was an uptick in births per woman, and initially much rejoicing over it, but when detailed statistics came in it turned out that the increase was mostly due to the growing ratio of Gypsies in the fertile population.
The new family assistance package, which went into effect on July 1st, is based on new priorities: trying to get twenty-somethings marry and start new families. In about a year we’ll see how it works. Subjectively it feels there are more weddings this summer and more pregnant women around than usual.
Having said that, I find it unfortunate when white advocates import talking points from the manosphere without any fact checking or quality control. For example, the mythical dropping fertility, what does that mean? A 50% drop in fertility means that if at age 30 it took a woman 3 months of random regular sex to get pregnant, at age 35 it will take 6 months. Look at your family tree – your great-grandmothers probably gave birth to their last children at age 40-42, around the time when their first grandchildren were born. There are many good reasons why women should give birth before 30, using false reasoning is unnecessary and may backfire.
And of course the real problem is that while our 35-year-old great-grandmothers already had 5+ children, in today’s society many 35-year-olds are trying to get pregnant for the first time, and they can’t be sure that they are fertile at all. Women should learn and practice fertility awareness – which of course presupposes that they don’t get on the pill, preferably, ever. But that is not a message that most men want to hear, to say the least.
It could be more practical and more realistic to achieve higher white population growth by encouraging, or just not getting in the way, of already existing normal white families to have one more or few more children.
I would like to point out, that the current system in many European countries pushes married women, who already have children, to be on birth control. The birth control is free and pushed down by doctors on the basis of: “being responsible, good for woman’s health, having children is hard, she should take care of other child or children first, etc.”
This solution would not require red-pilling anyone, this would require a policy change and de-funding of free contraceptives for married women who already have children. Maybe some different training/options should be given for doctors. This can be done without involvement of larger society, just like many decisions in EU are done, and what are sadly, not so favorable for native people of Europe.
Besides historical data supports this opinion: earlier women would give birth until they could, nowadays they stop earlier as it is somehow deemed “irresponsible” for older women to have children.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2015.0147
Historical tradition holds that the city of Venice was founded by Roman citizens following the destruction of their towns by the Huns who had crossed the Empire’s frontiers in the 5th century AD. In the late 20th century White people were forced out of cities such as Detroit and Birmingham, to rebuild their civilization in the suburbs. We are seeing a similar pattern of White displacement in ancient European cities with Paris, London and Malmo, not to mention the fate of Whites from Stanleyville to Johannesburg in Africa.
All this needs to be kept in mind when talking about “violence.”
Consider the processes of White displacement: massive non-White perpetrated crime verging on and sometimes including terrorism; the seizure of power by warlord bands (aka street gangs) in many neighborhoods in defiance of the civil authorities; the establishment of No Go Zones (whether called “sensitive urban areas” or the “inner city”); the tearing down of statues and monuments to White history; rioting which lays waste to entire urban sectors and is justified by the propaganda machinery as “uprisings” (i.e., armed revolts against duly constituted authority).
Toss in the mass migration of third world peoples across the frontiers of White countries, generally in violation of the law and often involving assaults on border guards, and which (again) displaces White populations.
All this fits the definition of “violence,” doesn’t it?
We might note the widespread leftist attacks against White activists and even mainstream conservatives, much of this tolerated if not supported by the state. Include Black Lives Matter, the heir to the Long Hot Summer “Uprisings” of the 1960s, whose partisans have been involved in everything from disrupting traffic on public highways to assassinating law enforcement officers.
On top of all this, there are the regimes which systemically discriminate against Whites in their own countries by affirmative action, which promote the “abolition of whiteness,” and use state sponsored censorship, trumped up court prosecutions and IT de-platforming against White advocates. Plus the official tolerance and encouragement of every kind of anti-White atrocity, from sexual enslavement of children (e.g., Rotherham) to mass murder of farmers (e.g., South Africa).
There is a real disingenuity in the critique of White nationalist “violence.” What elites in the government, academia and media are saying is:
* non-White peoples are free to use any amount of force to gain their objectives;
* any attempt by White advocates to counterattack or even defend themselves is to be condemned and prosecuted (cf Charlottesville, the Rise Above Movement).
It’s like a two front war, with the hostile elites using the non-White underclass as muscle against the White middle.
All this is to be kept in mind when talking about White Nationalist “violence.”
I have a normie question to your podcast:
When ”The White Nationalist Manifesto” was translated to Swedish recently it got the title ”Det Nationalistiska Manifestet.”
I wonder why you or the translator omitted the word white/vit in the title. Was it in order to reach out to a wider audience who could be deterred by this word?
Or is “white nationalism” a term that mainly makes sense in America, but not in Europe where we identify more with our ethnicity than with our race? And, if so, will “white” be omitted from the other European translations too?
It was basically to not trigger immediate censorship. Let’s see how it works.
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