Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 246
Ask Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio
127 words / 57:06
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
- 0:08: Donations
- 3:33: The Restaurant Question
- 15:32: The Hate Question
- Greg Johnson, “Confessions of a Reluctant Hater“
- Greg Johnson, “Is White Nationalism ‘Hateful’“
- C. B. Robertson, “The Morality of Hatred“
- 30:27: “Why do you use the term white nationalist?”
- Greg Johnson, “Why ‘White’ Nationalism?“
- 39:48: “Is white nationalism inherently violent?”
- Greg Johnson, “Restoring White Homelands“
- Greg Johnson, “On Violence“
- Greg Johnson, “Tough Talk from a Hard Man (On the Internet)“
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!
19 comments
“the Left are not hate filled” Greg: Yeah, right, the people who gave us Communism and antifa.
Sort of like the Christians they get their ideas from: it’s all about love until they need the Inquisition.
“But but but… Christ’s teaching/Communism has never really been tried!”
Regarding the Inquisition(s), the truth is much more nuanced. During the Middle Ages and the early modern period, getting a trial before a court of inquisition as an accused (e. g. witchcraft) was one of the best things that could happen to you, as they were all academically trained, not only in jurisprudence but also often in the (then current) natural sciences. For example there are cases already in the 14th century of autopsies conducted to disprove allegations of sorcery (contrary to the myth that the Church forbid opening dead bodies per se).
Another point is that the Spanish Inquisition, much maligned by Protestant black propaganda, was what kept Spain mostly Jew-free for almost four centuries. The marranos / conversos falsos / crypto-Jews developed precisely in reaction to the otherwise very effective measures of the SI. No small feat especially in comparison to what happened to England after Cromwell.
A very interesting convervation. Yes, indeed the state uses violence. Right now it is the impostion of globalism on a psychological level. It is mimicking the western churches. However, the Eastern orthodox have an interesting concept that we might find useful. It is called prelest and they use it to explain what salvation is not about. They use St Francis of Assisi to demonstrate it. He used theatrics and died saying that he had guaranteed his salvation and was equal to Christ. Whereas the saints of the orthodoxy ask for more time to repent, not quite as perfect as Jesus. St Francis lived in a fantasy world of his own making and he was made a saint. I guess Al Gore would qualify too and a number of leftist ‘heros’ who also are trying to impose their fantasies. I do not suggest co-opting the word as it does have a specific meaning, but the idea is sound. It is more like ‘holier that thou’ that comes to mind, as if it was a competition. We all know those people. Perhaps pretensious is the word. “How sweet and pretenious you are, knowing so much more than me. Do tell me more.” …
I came to this realization because I have some interests that leftist also are into, and I found then quite verbacious, saying things with great gusto and verabiage that could be said with less words and mean a lot more.
It is healthy and moral to hate and rage against evil. Our enemies are evil. I am a “HATER”.
Excellent responses to the Restaurant Question and the Hate Question! Worth cataloguing.
Peaceful seperation is easy:
1. Establish a target percentage for the number of non-whites that are allowed to live in your country
2. Do not allow immigration until the number of non-whites is lower than the target.
3. Do not allow birth for non-whites until the number of non-whites is lower than the target.
I.e. birth for non-whites is not allowed inside your borders. If they want kids, they have to leave.
With these rules in place, the target will be reached in due time. No forced repatriation necessary.
The “ask Counter Currents” segment has been very enjoyable. I hope we keep doing it.
Great conversation. Always fun to hear about “hate” 😉
For the record, Marie Antoinette never said ‘Let them eat cake’, or “larped as a milkmaid”.
What would really diffuse the fed poster situation would be for the likes of this website to describe a viable way forward.
Yes we have a plan, the slow cleanse, now how do we obtain the power to put this plan into motion? I don’t see this outlined anywhere, it is the key element, and the clock is running down.
That is the topic of my speech at the upcoming Scandza Forum in Copenhagen, 12 October.
Excellent. I look forward to it.
Your eschewal of any contemplation of the use of political violence or civil war depends entirely on the dreamed of day “when we obtain power.” This, in the face of rapidly escalating demographic change, as though it were only a matter of convincing other white people.
The real challenge, however, will be to obtain separation from nascent alien majority coalitions whose rule will be informed by racial resentment, by leftist or Islamic ideology, and also by the vigor of youth. They will not be persuaded by our arguments (for they do not share our interests), and they will become less amenable to a peaceful divorce as their power grows. The State apparatus will likely side with the emergent populations, not the declining native stock, though there is the chance of certain segments of the military and police defecting to our side.
Maybe Italy will avoid tragedy once Salvini returns to power, but to maintain that the UK, France and the good ole USA can avoid paying the piper for the follies of the past fifty years is wishful thinking.
This doesn’t mean that I in any way advocate mass killing sprees by lone gunmen. But I might endorse citizen militias taking back control of the streets in France, so that native women need not live in constant fear of rape. And were this to happen, the State would see its monopoly on (legitimate) violence begin to crumble.
For the time being, I think we should continue to work for peaceful political change, and, in the American context, attempt to takeover the GOP once Trump is out of the way. We can begin now by supporting the candidacies of Augustus Invictus and Tom Kawcynski. But we should not be naive about the prospect of intense & extremely vicious armed conflict. Rather, we need to summon the courage to face up to it. The situation will require readiness and resolve.
And, yes, I say this as a degenerate, city-dwelling, soft-bellied, middle-aged man who hasn’t the faintest notion of how to hold or fire a gun.
When anti-whites use the terms “hate” or “hater”:
1. “‘Hater’ is a slur that anti-whites hide behind while carrying out White Genocide.”
2. “The most hated people today are whites who oppose the anti-whites’ program of White Genocide.”
Relentless repetition of “anti-white” and “White Genocide” will put those terms in white minds and make those terms the lenses through which whites view the world, instead of through the lens of the r-word.
“Pro-white” has some advantages over “white nationalist” IMO, mainly that pro-whites who use it help replace the present “racist/anti-racist” division of society with a “pro-white/anti-white” division of society. “Pro-whites oppose White Genocide, anti-whites support White Genocide. Are you pro-white or are you anti-white?” If they reply that they’re neither, “So you’re on the fence about White Genocide?”
Some other advantages are mentioned in this article:
https://www.fightwhitegenocide.com/2019/06/19/we-are-pro-whites-not-white-nationalists/
I’m a BUGSer, obviously! Cheers! 🙂
I don’t like Greg’s response to the question about violence. Something restrictive is inherently more violent then anything permissive. The fact that liberal societies end up being violent does not change this fact.
Thus, to argue for restrictive policy is taking a position of weakness. This is because it makes your ultimate goals seem less desirable. Why should we implement restrictive migration policies if all people want is to move around freely?
That is why I very much prefer Jared Taylor’s take on this. He simply says, fine, if people want multiculturalism and multiracialism, let them have it. All he is saying is that if some of us want to live among our own people, we should be allowed to do so.
This is to take a position of strength, because it makes multiculturalism seem less desirable. If multiculturalism and multiracialism is so good, why does it have to be implemented trough force? Doesn’t that make it a violent ideology?
I disagree. If permissive societies are more violent than restrictive ones, then we have to uphold restrictions. This isn’t a weak position. It is a responsible position. The problem is that it doesn’t sit well with childish people who make a fetish out of having choices.
I agree on what you say here, but that was not the point. The question about if not white nationalism requires violence is not bad. Legal restrictions on immigration is violence. Because what happens if you break the law? Peaceful ethnic cleansing is also violent as it certainly violates the will of some people.
My point is that your response to the question was unappealing. To call for the restriction on freedoms that people enjoy, for reasons that they are yet to accept is not a convincing argument. The segment was about answering normie questions, was it not?
I am not going to accommodate people whose political thinking is so immature that they are not comfortable with state action as such. There’s no point in that. They are not a large enough group of people to care about. Virtually everyone recognizes that state action is necessary and it entails violence for the non-compliant. The issue for me is to persuade people who recognize that reality that we need to change the laws of society to protect our race.
I understand. The issue for me is sometimes to get along with family members, and sometimes it doesn’t help to be right.
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