Counter-Currents
1,108 words
When Alexandra Stern recently included a section on me in her book Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate, she did so on the strength of a three-part series I wrote in 2017 called “On Vetting and Entry into a White Ethnostate.” At the time, I figured that the more people there were thinking and talking about a possible white ethnostate, the more likely it would come into being one day. And since I knew of no systematic method of determining who would be allowed into such a state, I thought I would take a stab at it. The articles were well-received at the time.
Stern’s treatment of the vetting algorithm I developed was predictably disapproving. For instance, she claims that it “replicates white supremacy’s annihilation [sic] of blackness,” whatever that means. But her displeasure at white people wanting to have reasonably high standards for people entering their nations reminded me of a joke by Woody Allen, of all people. Yes, I understand that the former Allan Stewart Konigsberg is in many ways a morose degenerate, and that white identitarians have very few positive things to learn from him. But this joke is an exception. It appears in the opening of his 1977 film Annie Hall. It goes like this:
There’s an old joke: Two elderly women are at a Catskills Mountain resort, and one of them says, “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” And the other one says, “Yeah, I know. And such small portions.”
Okay, I didn’t say it was a very funny joke.
Anyway, Stern reminded me of this joke because she taps into the contradictory – and in my opinion, childish – psychology of many non-whites on the Left: their animosity towards white people is inversely proportional to their exposure to white people. If my vetting algorithm had required that a “white ethnostates” incorporate greater numbers of non-whites, Stern would have praised me for my morality and commitment to diversity. But because I and many other white dissidents recognize that it’s better for whites to give less of themselves away to non-whites, Stern gets hysterically hyperbolic and accuses me of wanting to annihilate blackness, and likens the anti-Semitism of the “alt-right” to a sword “tipped for blood.”
So, the less of whites she gets, the more she denigrates them, just like those two old ladies in the Catskills. But this is a contradiction. Either Stern and others like her are being irrational or dishonest. If something is inherently bad, you want less of it, not more of it. Certainly, that’s how white people feel towards most non-whites, especially blacks. When they are not personally exposed to large numbers of non-whites in a non-white milieu, then having more non-whites in their country is a fine idea. But once they gain that experience and get to know non-whites for what they really are, then, suddenly, this generosity goes away.
This is what attracts me to the Dissident Right. The desire that whites have to get away from non-whites is perfectly honest and reasonable. It’s based on empirical experience, which, in turn, is based on all kinds of collectible and observable data: genetic, psychometric, anthropological, sociological, criminal, and historical. Both whites and non-whites complain about each other, but only one side is making sense. Observe:
- Proximity to non-whites makes whites suffer. Therefore, whites denigrate non-whites because they want less of them.
- Proximity to whites makes non-whites prosper. Therefore, non-whites denigrate whites because they want more of them.
Which perspective is more honest and reasonable? Which is based on a healthy concern for survival, and which is the punch line of a so-so joke from a so-so movie? This is why whites should never take the complaints of non-whites seriously in a white society. Such complaints are childish, like the toddler who declares she “hates Mommy” because Mommy will not give her the requisite amount of hugs and kisses before bedtime. They are also dishonest because they conceal a selfish ulterior motive: non-whites wish to take advantage of white people solely for the betterment of themselves and their tribes.
An honest and reasonable approach would be for non-whites to praise whites for creating great civilizations, and also to state explicitly that non-whites have it better among whites than among their own kind. Mexicans do not immigrate to the United States because they want to be around Mexicans; if they did, they’d never leave Mexico. Also, non-whites would not want to transform white civilizations into something that isn’t white. That would be tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden egg. If they were honest, they would show more respect for their generous white hosts and for the Truth. Non-whites don’t come to America or Europe because they are doing such a bang-up job running their own countries, after all.
But these people don’t show respect. They act like invaders, and they never fail to give in to anti-white bigotry in their politics. And when whites quite naturally resist this, they redouble their efforts against the whites, the very people who’ve been their benefactors all along – all because they want more out of white people, not less.
This is where “white supremacy” comes in. What is a white supremacist? In the eyes of non-whites, a white supremacist is a white person who wants to get away from non-whites: to effectively give them smaller portions, or none at all. Such a person will want to enforce borders, reduce immigration, eliminate birthright citizenship, and make it easier to apprehend and deport illegal immigrants. Such a person voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and will likely do so again in 2020. Such a person does not, however, advocate for a return to slavery or Jim Crow laws, nor does he push for aggressive, violent, or illegal actions against non-whites. Such a person is not necessarily “racist” or have anything personal against non-whites. But that doesn’t matter. Because such policies harm the racial interests of non-whites, non-whites consider them enemy action regardless of intent.
This is why “white supremacy” has become such a bugbear as of late. This is why non-whites have become so hysterical, and are so quick to attribute the most evil intentions to the majority of whites. This is why they demonize and promise to wage war against the very people who’ve been their benefactors for decades. It all boils down to the Woody Allen Fallacy: The very thing they profess to hate is what they desperately want more of.
Non-whites need to be called out for this. They also need to understand that they have no right to complain about white people, because white people don’t owe them a portion of anything.
Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
17 comments
Or…
Your heart Loves the thing your mouth Hates the most.
What is a white supremacist? Anyone who believes that a majority(90%) white country should be run in the interests of the majority of the population.
It’s an okay joke. And at least Stern goes to the source and cites CC, unlike Jill Lepore who sources but does not cite, and those flaky sub-academics in Ruritania who go on about Greg Wallace and how his Counter-Currents Publishing has a publishing arm.
(Actually I don’t think I read that series, but now I will.)
The litmus test for Alexandra Stern is whether, for her, only completely open borders can avert the ‘annihilation of blackness’, the ‘sword tipped with blood’ etc. I would wager she is quesy about any immigration policy that could preserve the ethnic and cultural status quo in the West, or even slow the transformation. (It would of course be a typical canard to recall the Zionist project in the Middle East, so we must be careful not to conflate its superficially similar concerns with borders and demographics).
My recent experience with our left-leaning friends is that they are unanimous in demanding open borders for the sake of humanity, but shy of discussing the many possible sequlae: the end of welfare, islamification, the importation of ethno-religious conflicts, the obliteration of historic European nations and so forth. In fact those are deemed hateful toxic vile conspiracy theories and not up for discussion — unless one wishes to out oneself as a ‘fascist’ and thereby lose the argument.
Indeed. It seems logical that in racially mixed societies, the ‘annihilation of blackness’ – and all other ethnic identities – is guaranteed in the long term.
Real global diversity will only be built on a world of ethno-nation-states.
The alternative, the capitalist one world market state, is a death sentence for all ethnic identity.
.
” a white supremacist is a white person who wants to get away from non-whites”
This has been stated in various ways before, but you just perfectly encapsulated so called White supremacy. Now if we could just get this into the popular consciousness.
Spot on! Even fish are intelligent enough to stay perfectly motionless above coral reefs, in order that the smaller ones can come out and pick the parasites off of their bodies that they cannot reach. For anti-whites to assume white people are not intelligent enough to see they are being taken advantage of, massively, and shouldn’t oppose that, is downright insulting. Of course the human equivalent of these parasites attack any sign, no matter how small or subtle, from whites suggesting a little racial hygiene. It is anathema to them, for they know well what would happen without us as their host, and fear the delousing procedure will involve violence. That is why people like Greg Johnson are so essential, for putting forward “cleansing” solutions that are gradual, peaceful, and voluntary. They would be wise not to censor such voices of reason.
They screech and yell and throw tantrums because it works. When nonwhites and their treacherous confederates cry racism, the white man capitulates.
It’s like the cleaning lady throwing down her mop every time the bacteria cry “antibacterial!”
I’m reading Ibram X. Kendi’s How To Be anti racist, and it’s very similar in argumentation: Whites are bad, I’m black, but race isn’t real, but I really identify and feel comfortable around blacks because race is a power structure that I have to play into because . . . Whites make me? Meanwhile, race maligns whole groups, and that’s bad, we need to look at individual merits, meanwhile all whites are part of the evil racist power structure.
It’s bizarre.
Addition: Ibram doesn’t ever evaluate the white separatist. His dichotomy is exclusively between supremacists and racists, (anti racist is his third category but it’s silly), Kendi claims that whites want to lord over nonwhite, and they want to do so by segregation (Jim Crow style) or assimilation. Never does he imagine what the vast majority of white right thinks: complete divorce.
The only way Kendis argument makes sense is if we take his boogeyman and place him in neoliberal shoes, because otherwise his thesis can be turned upside down easily… another post for another day, but I digress…
I often remark that without whites in America blacks will only have East Africa and Hispanics Northern Guatemala.
The purpose of slavery was to prevent blacks from running away from white people. Fugitive Slave Laws were expressly designed for this purpose.
The purpose of Civil Rights Laws, a century later, was to prevent whites from running away from blacks, by stripping whites of our rights of freedom of association, freedom of contract and freedom of speech.
“White supremacy” is a rallying call to hate filled anti WHITE “people of color,” designed to incite racially motivated hatred of white people.
Where did you get the nutty idea that Hispanics are Catholic?
Because you go to Mass and see a lot of Hispanics (I use the term in your conventional sense) there?
It’s like saying Hispanics are all Mormons. Just a frivolity you made up off the top of your head.
Hispanics aren’t Catholic and they don’t go to Mass, despite 500 years of earnest, aimless missionary work. To this day most are either pagan, or atheist, or unchurched or, like AOC, profess to belong to some funny big-box evangelical-protestant sect. A few minutes’ quiz on basic matters of Christian Doctrine will make this quite clear.
I don’t know about other “hispanics”, but Mexicans pay no
attention to the laws of the church. Especially Mexican men.
Anyone who attends Mass on Sunday in Mexico will see
that less than 5 or 10 percent of the congregation is composed
of men over 15.
Indeed, Catholicism was banned or suppressed in Mexico for a century or two—I believe we had a little Hapsburg episode in the 1860s in opposition to this?—and the only churches there that are worth photographing were built by 16th century Spaniards, not mestizo mutants.
I’ve seen Breaking Bad and that’s pretty much what Mexican religion is all about. Pagan devil-worship.
Waiting for Mr. Quinn to weigh in, though I realize he was merely being glib.
Comment posted to the wrong article. Ha!
NVM
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