Counter-Currents
Aristotle. Line engraving by P. Fidanza after Raphael’s School of Athens
2,825 words
Part 2 of 3. Part 1 here. Part 3 here. French version here
Author’s Note:
The following text is a heavily edited transcript of an extemporaneous talk delivered at the Northwest Forum in Seattle on June 9, 2018. I want to thank the organizers, the audience, and James B. for the transcription.
The biggest question that we must deal with before people are going to accept white identity politics is not whether it is inevitable or whether it is necessary but whether it is right. People will refuse to bow to the inevitable if they think that’s the wrong thing to do. They will refuse to do what is necessary if they think that’s the wrong thing to do.
White people are highly conscientious. That’s one of our strengths. We don’t have to be watched all the time by CCTV cameras to do the right thing. But that is also a great weakness if people can hack our conscientiousness and turn our moral fervor and moral idealism against our interests. That is basically what is driving white dispossession today. So we have to know that white identity politics is moral.
But how does one talk about moral matters? I believe that we must approach this issue with an assumption that can be illustrated with Charlton Heston’s story about how he became a Republican. It was 1964, and Barry Goldwater was running for president. Every day Heston passed by a Barry Goldwater billboard. The slogan on the billboard was: “In your heart you know he’s right.” And, at a certain point, after seeing the billboard day after day, Heston thought “Sonofabitch! He is right!,” and he was converted. [1]
My underlying assumption, whenever I speak to people about moral issues, is that in their hearts, they know we’re right, because they’re wired the same way as we’re wired. They are wired to have in-group preferences, to be more comfortable around people who are more similar to them, to be less comfortable around people who are more different. Those are their true feelings. They might have a lot of high-minded liberal, globalist ideas clouding their judgment, but that nonsense doesn’t sit well with their own instincts.
That means that in every white Leftist, in every white globalist, we have a fifth column: their own ethnocentric instincts. That’s an ally in them to which we can appeal. We can say to them: “Look, you’re lying to yourself; you’re fooling yourself. You say that you just love diversity. But your behavior patterns don’t indicate that.” As Joe Sobran once observed, “In their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan.” [2]
Thus white liberals are constantly fighting against themselves. They feel they must profess a certain creed to be decent, and yet that creed is profoundly alien to their deeper instincts. Thus we can appeal to the fact that, on some level, they already agree with us.
How can we make our people aware of their tacit ethnocentrism? Through Socratic discussion we can get them to reflect on what they really feel. We can also display the contradictions and absurd consequences of the globalist universalist ideology that pits them against us and against their own better natures.
There are many different ethical theories. Some of them use intimidating technical vocabularies and complex arguments. But you do not need to surrender your ethical judgment to experts, because all these theories are just attempts to articulate what we all know, in our hearts, to be right.
Knowing what is right is not, however, the same as saying what is right. We always know more than we can say. So any attempt to say what is right will actually fall short of what we know. Which means that all ethical theories fall more or less short of the truth.
For instance, when someone says that the good is the same thing as pleasure — a theory known as hedonism — we all know that is untrue. Why? Because if pleasure is the good, there can be no bad pleasures or good pains. But we can all think of examples of bad pleasures and good pains. Nicotine addiction is a bad pleasure. Nicotine withdrawal is a good pain.
If someone says that justice is simply respecting people’s property rights, we know that is untrue, because if a friend loaned you his gun, then demanded it back in order to commit a crime, it would not be just to return it.
If someone says that justice is simply a matter of helping your friends and harming your enemies, we know that is untrue, because sometimes our friends do the wrong thing, and sometimes our enemies do the right thing.
Every moral theory, therefore, is merely a more or less adequate attempt to say what we all know, in our hearts, is right. Because of that, even though in our hearts we know the same things, we inevitably say different things when we talk about the good. Which means that we disagree about right and wrong.
But the only way to overcome these disagreements is to say more, to talk our differences through. In conversation, we can test our partial and inadequate opinions about the good and replace them with broader, more adequate accounts. This process could continue forever, but generally we call it quits when we arrive at a consensus whose unity mirrors the unity of what we already know, even though we despair of ever fully saying it.
Love of One’s Own
One of the foundational questions about identity politics is the morality of ingroup preference, i.e., love of one’s own.
Is there anything wrong with people preferring their own children to their neighbors’ children? If your father said to you, “We have learned that the neighbor boy has much better grades than you, so we’re going send him to college instead of you,” I think most people would recognize that your dad is a monster. There is something unnatural about preferring other people’s children to your own. Your father would have to be mentally addled by some kind of universalist ideology before he would say something like that. But the underlying problem has to be a lack of normal human sentiment.
It is natural, normal, and right to love one’s own, to take care of one’s own, and to give them precedence over strangers. People who lack these sentiments are monsters, and we should not be looking to them for moral advice or examples.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
It is also natural, normal, and right to prefer your friends to strangers, your hometown to other towns, your homeland over foreign lands, your nation over other nations, and your race over other races. Even if you were raised by wolves in a warzone, you would still be tethered to them by such sentiments.
There are historical, cultural, and ultimately biological reasons for these preferences. It is natural to feel a stronger connection to people who share the same historical experiences, for instance, members of one’s own generation as opposed to older and younger generations. It is also natural to feel a stronger connection to people who share the same language and customs, because one can understand and cooperate with them more easily.
But the deepest reasons for these preferences are biological. Genetic Similarity Theory predicts that you will have more harmonious relationships, and a greater tendency toward feelings of solidarity and altruism, with people who are genetically similar.
Is love of one’s own a “selfish” sentiment? Yes and no. Our genes are very selfish. They want to propagate themselves through time. However, because our genes are present in other people, they can better propagate themselves if those who share the same genes cooperate with one another, are kind to one another, take risks for one another, and even die for one another. The more genes people share in common, the more solidarity, cooperation, and altruism they display among each other. Our selfish genes program us for altruism.
Thus it follows that the most unselfish and public-spirited societies are those with the least genetic diversity. The claim that “All men are brothers” aims to foster cooperation, solidarity, and altruism based on an implicit understanding of genetic similarity. But it is not literally true. One cannot have a society in which all men are brothers. But one can have societies in which all men are cousins. And it turns out that some of the happiest societies in the world — Denmark, Iceland — are among the genetically most homogeneous, where all people basically are cousins or their genetic equivalents. [3]
If it is natural, normal, and right to prefer people who are like you, then we have to conclude that the flip side of loving one’s own — namely, discomfort around those who are different, i.e., xenophobia — is also natural, normal, and right.
Thus we have to conclude that there is something perverse about people who prefer the foreign and exotic over the familiar. The bigger the plate in their lip, the more fascinating they become. The term for this is xenophilia.
We have pious Christians who lecture us on the duty of loving our neighbors. But how do they love their neighbors? By inflicting Somali Muslim migrants on them. But this is not loving their neighbors; it is betraying them. Xenophilia is a perversion of natural moral sentiments, which disguises itself as a devotion to high principles. It is a highly selfish form of moral fanaticism and exhibitionism, and we simply need to call these people out on it. These people are as monstrous as the father who prefers the neighbor kid to his own. Again, this is a perversion of natural moral sentiments cloaking itself as high moral principle.
If love of one’s own is natural, normal, and right, then white identity politics is natural, normal, and right. Identity politics is simply the politics of loving one’s own.
Self-Actualization
One of the most compelling moral theories is that the good life is one of self-actualization: of becoming who you are.
But we all know that self-actualization is not a complete account of the good life, because we can distinguish between potentialities that are good, bad, and not necessarily good or bad. Thus self-actualization is not necessarily a good thing, and stifling self-actualization is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, humans have a lot of potentialities, and if self-actualization were simply the same as the good life, then actualization of all these potentialities would be good.
But we all recognize there are bad potentialities, for instance, vices. We all have the potential to be lazy, greedy, or imprudent. We all recognize that there are bad seeds. Would a good society allow Jeffrey Dahmer or Hannibal Lecter to actualize himself? Even Aristotle, who is known as the great advocate of self-actualization, only praises self-actualization in accordance with virtue, i.e., good self-actualization. [4]
We also recognize that it is not necessarily good or bad if one takes up golf or fishing, piano or clarinet, needlepoint or quilting, yet all of these choices involve actualizing various potentialities.
So there is more to goodness than self-actualization. But still, we need to actualize our potentialities for virtue. Beyond that, it makes sense to say that happiness is a matter of actualizing one’s individuality. Potentialities that are not necessarily good or bad in themselves may still be good or bad for you.
Since we are all individuals, you might be better suited for golf than fishing, for piano than clarinet, for intellectual work rather than hard labor, for solitude rather than society, etc. Just as we are more comfortable in shoes and clothes that fit our bodies and the climate, we are more comfortable and more alive when we choose activities that go with rather than against our natures.
Thus we can say that the purpose of life is to actualize our best potentialities, to become the best versions of ourselves. After all, we cannot be anyone else. We can only be ourselves. But we do have a choice of being self-actualized or frustrated, happy or miserable versions of ourselves.
Self-actualization is not just for individuals. It also makes sense to talk about collective self-actualization. Every human being has two identities: the one given by nature and the other given by society, namely the conventions — language, customs, manners, traditions — that we learn from others.
Just as some forms of life are consistent with one’s individual identity and others conflict with it, some forms of life express one’s cultural identity and others conflict with it. When a people is free to express its collective identity, it stamps its identity on the public realm. It expresses its identity in the dates it honors, in the monuments it erects, in the names it gives to its cities and streets, in the language of government, etc.
When a people expresses its collective identity in public, it creates a homeland. A homeland is not just a place on the map. It is a realm of shared meaning, in which people understand one another, feel comfortable with one another, and can live, work, play, and celebrate with one another.
This is why multiculturalism cannot really work. Cultures with opposed conventions cannot exist comfortably in the same system. To choose a trivial example, the American and British systems of driving cannot exist in the same country. Or, to choose a far less trivial example, European and Muslim sexual mores cannot exist in the same society. Trying to force different cultures into the same space causes collisions and conflicts. Multicultural societies basically force you to either fight constantly with other groups about conflicting values and customs, or to stop caring about them, so you don’t fight.
Americans have been sold the tale that we are “a nation of immigrants,” a phrase made famous when Senator John F. Kennedy used it as a title of a book that he wrote for the Antidefamation League of B’nai B’rith. [5] Americans believe that we have a long and successful history of assimilating different European ethnic groups into a common American identity.
So we are told that it is un-American to oppose immigration, even though we never successfully assimilated non-white groups, and even though we have stopped even trying to assimilate immigrants. We are multiculturalists now, which means the abandonment of assimilation.
But assimilationism was no picnic either. If you look at American history, the assimilation of even closely related European peoples was accompanied by a great deal of conflict, turmoil, and bloodshed. And in the end, assimilation often did not take the form of newcomers adopting the dominant way of life. Instead, assimilation meant that all parties simply ceased caring about the things that divided them, things that their ancestors had cared about intensely.
America was an overwhelmingly Protestant nation from its founding. But the conflicts that ensued when millions of Catholics immigrated to America, first from Ireland then from places like Poland and Italy, did not lead to the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism, or to a higher synthesis of Protestantism and Catholicism. Instead, to avoid conflicts, many Americans simply stopped caring about something that used to be central to the identity of the nation.
Now, I must hasten to add that I don’t care about religion. I am glad Americans are less divided by narrow sectarian Christian conflicts. I am glad Christianity doesn’t matter enough for people to fight and die over it anymore. But I also recognize that Protestantism was an integral part of the society that my ancestors struggled to build and bequeath to me, and that we who abandoned that legacy proved ourselves unworthy heirs.
Different ethnic groups are real. White Americans constitute a distinct people. If we are going to be ourselves, we can no longer abandon the public realm to multicultural chaos and retreat into private life. Multiculturalism creates a society in which everyone feels alien. That’s no way to live.
We have a right to a land where we feel at home, where we are comfortable, where public transportation is safe, where children can play without supervision, where we can understand and trust strangers because, in the end, they’re not all that strange. So, from the point of view of collective self-actualization, we need to own up to our ethnic identities and ethnocentric preferences. Then we need to create ethnically homogeneous homelands where we are free to be ourselves. In short, white self-actualization requires white identity politics.
Notes
[1] Charlton Heston, In the Arena (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995).
[2] Jared Taylor, “Jared Taylor Remembers Joe Sobran,” VDare, October 1, 2010.
[3] Marie Helweg-Larsen, “Why Denmark Is the Happiest Country,” Live Science, March 30, 2018; Genetics Society of America, “Genomic Study of High School Students from Across Denmark Reveals Remarkable Genetic Homogeneity,” Science Daily, October 11, 2016.
[4] Aristotle states that eudaimonia (happiness, well-being, living well) is “actuality of the soul in accordance with virtue” in Nicomachean Ethics 1098al6.
[5] John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants (New York: Harper & Row, 1964).
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
50 comments
A nationalist movement of the center, respectful of people rights and traditions can win; a right wing christmas list can’t win.
Time to choose.
What is a ‘nationalist movement of the center’? The ‘center’ of what?
‘Respectful of people rights and traditions’? Whose traditions? What kind of rights?
What ‘right wing christmas list’ are you talking about? I see no reason to lower our expectations until something makes us do so.
I feel like you’re using the language of conservatism/liberalism/propositional nationalism try to capture and control identitarian energies. Am I wrong?
I fully agree with this guy. There are ppl in these spaces who want
1. White countries
2. Normalized anti-gay sentiment
3. Ban trans operations
4. No abortion
5. “Trad wives”
6. Return to Christianity
7. No reparations
8. Southern apologetic dominance in historical narratives
9. Loose gun laws
It is all too much. Basically, these ppl are children who want things exactly as the expected them when they were 12 years old.
12 year old nationalism doesn’t work guys. These ideas don’t necessarily hold together. Many of these goals are FAAARRR less important than others for white survival and prosperity. Including them is dead weight on “our” agenda.
If that is your thing, gtfo to the AmNat movement, which is perhaps less able to win than a moderate white identity movement.
Political movements are not like political parties. They’re more vague and ‘open access’. This situation lends itself to folks bringing the own ‘hobby horses’ to the party. WI can be viewed as either a defensive manuever (to counter existing ethnic identity movements) or as the predicate to WN. I’m not sure if WI is more ‘moderate’ than WN, but I would agree that WN is more specific in its desired outcome(s).
Another moral argument is to borrow statements of rights from the globalists. In their human rights documents, they state that some (among others) of the human rights are:
1. A right to nationality
2. A right to ethnicity
3. A right to culture
4. A right to self determination
That’s what THEY say. We are moral in expecting our rights to be acknowledged and respected.
Therefore:
White Nationalism is the radical notion that we whites have human rights.
Specifically:
we have the right to ethnicity
we have the right to nationality
we have the right to our culture
we have the right to national self-determination
Excellent! The focus on morality advocated here is the key to turning the tide of White opinion. Without that, our best and brightest will continue living lives of unquestioned hedonism.
Because anti-Whites control our institutions, Whites who desire to actualize themselves in the professions, business, or even athletics must support anti-White policies. Given the mindset of those raised with Hollywood values for entertainment and the Jewish agenda for education, a hard-working, self-actualizing White knows he must support anti-White policies to achieve success, and he feels no remorse for doing so. The Right can’t presently do much about the former, but as the middle of this article implies, it can affect the latter.
The Right needs to start Shekel shaming rich, successful Whites. The Right needs to raise White public consciousness so that successful Whites feel guilt for betraying their own people in order to advance their careers. At present, successful Whites feel smug or even superior to those of lower status. This can be reversed by intellectual efforts such as this article which are then advanced through meme wars. Let the traitors and whores know that their fellow Whites [as opposed to their (((fellow Whites)))] snicker under their breath as they pass by and go home to mercilessly mock online the ill-begotten wealth of high-status Whites.
Shekel shaming wouldn’t work with non-Whites, of course. But as this article notes, Whites have an inner sense of morality that can be tapped into for good or bad. Anti-Whites have tapped into it for bad by praising xenophilia while creating a religion of hedonism which can be best pursued with a high income. But in a corrupt, anti-White society, the Right can tap into it for good by Shekel shaming.
good comment.
I have a question, Dr Johnson, along these lines…
I am divorced, middle aged, and a single father. As much as I know that dating sites are hypergamous soul crushers, I do have one that I’ve found to be a little better than most, and I use it.
This will sound autistic, but I do it anyway. Within the first 5-6 messages I exchange with a woman; I’ll matter-of-factly ask her opinion or what her experience is with interracial dating. I’ll even cut to the chase and say, in these general terms, “I have to be up front with you, I’m not really a racist, (yes I say that, but I have a reason) …but I really am off-put by women who date outside their race” My reason for the “not a racist” qualifier is that I’m going to reject this woman anyway if her reaction is hysterical, and I’m going to be more open about my racism if the woman has a rational, racially aware reply, so the qualifier only kind of lubricates a potentially abrasive interaction.
Today I did this very thing with a woman; and she replied back, very quickly, “Your racism is offputting to me and actually disgusts me”. She immediately blocked me. Which is fine. I’m using this as a filter to weed out women I know I won’t be able to tolerate.
My question is, however, how do we prevent this immediate, irrational, practically religiously ingrained knee jerk emotional response? How do we get someone like this to question the religiosity or their beliefs?
The thing is, I’m quite certain that 9/10 of these women who react negatively probably don’t actively date outside their race. They might claim that they are open minded to it. They might even occasionally go “out” with a black man, with subconsciously platonic intentions, just to put a check mark in their social justice credit score box. But only an occasional few attractive white liberal women will actually DATE a black man and fewer will have sex with one (unless they secretly have some kind of sexual bucket list that includes it)
It wasn’t all that long ago, maybe only 20-30 years ago, that most white people would at least acknowledge that “they have a PREFERENCE to date their own race”. This was, not long ago, considered a human right, because our bodies weren’t considered public property for just *anyone to touch. Not dating blacks was considered a CHOICE, and a perfectly valid one. Likewise, a person choosing not to date people who made the choice to race mix was considered, at the very least, a *reasonable preference.
I think these visceral reactions to perfectly reasonable questions are a fairly new thing, peculiar among millennial women.
So how do we get them to question the morality or rationality of their position? I’m even OK with a neutral opinion on this, where people accept the right of people to make a personal choice about sex partners, but where disliking people who make choices that don’t align with our own preferences is also considered rational. (Which is ultimately the claim I made to this woman that got the bad reaction).
Your problem would have been solved if White Dating Sites would exist. I searched in Google : “Jewish dating sites” and found 1,080,000 hits. “Black dating sites” yielded 1,660,000 hits and “Hispanic dating sites” 317,000 hits. Then I searched “White dating sites” and I found 2,510,000 hits. Justice at last? No, all hits were of “black and white dating”, “interracial dating” etc. See for yourself.
White nationalists have some work to do : create our own (real) White dating sites. That would automatically exclude women of the “anti-racist” type you don’t like.
Yeah we do have one white dating site that someone in the movement created. But you aren’t going to stumble upon it be searching for white dating sites. You have to have it shown to you by someone who knows about it.
https://www.whitedate.net/
And if that doesn’t prove what a deliberate conspiracy that the great replacement is, I don’t know what could prove it to someone. White people aren’t even being allowed open communities to pick our breeding partners.
And it isn’t like there isn’t a real market for white dating sites. I have been around internet dating a long time, and I’ve heard many many white women complain about how they get tons of unwanted “hey shawty” messages from black men. Often a woman will give up on dating sites because it frustrates them.
The problem is that no dating site, other than perhaps “Plenty of Fish” when it first came out, has ever organically grown from humble beginnings. They all get a boost from big money investors (((ahem))) who set the ground rules about the market niches they will allow. That’s why whites only dating never goes anywhere.
And then, even when a dating site gets some steam organically, you can bet that the one company that owns all the big ones (I forget the name of it) will buy them out. If our government would invoke antitrust laws, perhaps that wouldn’t happen. But they won’t do it.
i’ve have two 25yr old daughters on match.com, one of which also signed up to WhiteDate.
Match, (expensive) which touts itself as a site which fosters long-term, stable relationships (marriage/family) among its subscribers has horrible filter algorithms, which routinely spit out suggestions, and search query results which seem to completely ignore their stated preference for White/Caucasian suitors, and other benchmarks such as edu level, religion, wants children. the offerings are dismal, in that even among White members, OMG (bridge trolls/troglodytes/leprechauns/freaks/hairies/blunt smokers/players)…. there should be a filter added for the preferences or non-preference of tattoos. 8 out 10 profiles exhibit a ‘selfie’ taken in either a home bathroom or public men’s room(mirror), guys… at least try not to include the urinal in the image…..smh. large numbers of profile shots include the apparent requisite ‘ball cap’, which inevitably hides baldness in even the 20somethings…… or are taken from a reclining position in bed. the offerings are really dismal, so much human garbage.. you’d think the subscription pricing would keep most of them out.
they’ve inquired of some respondents as to the offerings on the female side, the response has been…. too many ‘fatty’ reveals in full body shots, and too many kids…..
sidebar: there is also an over abundance of males who express their religion as Catholic, but preferences for mates don’t require interested matches to be Catholic. I have no idea if they are simply trolling for hookups or a prospective mate’s religion is of very low consequence to an actual long-term match. many Protestants who advert their ‘Jesus’ status include this as a first line deal-breaker, which is all well and good.
WhiteDate, (very reasonable pricing) touts marriage/family as its goal, it is a great idea, but has some drawbacks. the site is mostly for Europeans, at present there are approx 4k membs, most of which are in Europe, so pickings are slim stateside. due to fears of doxxing, most profiles don’t include an image of the member, which is the most efficient first consideration for a long-term relationship, (followed by edu/religion/geography/other deal breakers, etc) and low stateside member numbers provide even more constrained options for those in search of marriage/family.
They may end up trying Elite Singles, the reviews look good, have no idea as to pricing.
Good luck out there, White people, we’re going to need it.
As you point out, ‘anti-racism’ is one of the catechisms of the Woke religion of our time. Converting the faithful is almost impossible. Stay off dating apps. They’re Hypergamy Central. Every woman thinks their no less than a 9 and rate virtually every man as a 4. They’re shopping, not mating.
If you really are concerned about racial matters, don’t say you’re ‘not a racist’. You’re not telling the whole truth and connecting it directly with interracial dating makes it pretty clear that you may have some views about race that may be outside the Woke catechism. You’re not fooling the women with the ‘not a racist’ comment.
The other thing I’ll say, ‘What are you actually concerned about?’. Since your sense is that most women do not actively date outside their race, what is the point of your inquiry? I seems like you’re self-sabotaging.
You missed my point.
I don’t care if a woman rejects me because she thinks I’m racist. If she’s rejects me it’s because of a handful of factors, all of which are reasons that I would reject her as well. Either she truly IS a mudshark, or she is so intersectionally feminist that I would want to strangle her. So I have introduced a reason for her to pull off the mask early.
In the case of the woman who is potentially racially self aware enough to be secretly, or discreetly “philocaucasian”, (why isn’t that a word?) or even unambiguously against interracial dating, I’ve at least “buttered the biscuit” so to speak and made it easier to swallow by using the qualifier. I’ve given her permission to reply “I’m not racist either but I don’t date outside my race”. The difference between me and her is that I’m self aware enough to not really believe myself to not be racist. 9/10 times, a woman wants to absolve herself of being considered racist by mainstream society, even if she refuses to buck her own instincts or family morals (at least in the south where I live, most white parents still generally discourage their daughters from dating black boys). Therefore, I’ve given her the “permission” to speak candidly with me about her dating history and beliefs without forcing her into a confrontation about her overarching world view on race relations. I personally CAN accept a woman who broadly is kind to everyone and possibly apolitical, as long as she isn’t actively behaving in a way that is personally detrimental to her own racial interests. If she’s at least starting on this foot, I might be able to reason with her over time and get her to question things.
Again, I’m not concerned with the outcome where it pertains to the women who will have immediate negative reactions. I wouldn’t want to date an emotionally unstable and irrational woman like that anyway.
I do, however, think it is worth exploring this kind of thing to figure out better ways to “butter the biscuit”, so to speak. My use of the “not a racist” qualifier isn’t ideal. It sort of works most of the time. But it isn’t ideal. And I don’t use it with people who I am more confident in their opinions. For instance, there are a couple of boomer conservative men who I work with who I can have race conscious conversations with. I’ve learned with them that I can say things like, “everyone deep down is a racist, and I am concerned with the future of white people if we don’t start listening to some of our racial instincts”. I can say something like that, but also say that I don’t hate anyone and I think there has to be a better way to live together. These men understand that having racial instincts doesn’t equal hating people. The women on dating sites generally need a little teaspoon of sugar with the medicine, and that’s what the qualifier serves as. If you have a better way, by all means post it.
I think I did miss your point, but I’m glad I spoke up. You’ve clearly given some serious thought to the issue and your responses have given me some things to think more subtly about.
Thank you Hamburger for having a good interaction.
I tend to post screeds that turn into dissertations sometimes, but I try to be honest with my ideas and share them for the sake of discussion.
I certainly don’t wish to be abrasive.
thought i’d share a few more thoughts..
i do admire/applaud your quantitative sorting method on that ‘qualitative’ hot-button, deal breaker issue, as it affects/impacts so many other areas of someone’s life philosophy.
my girls are Red Ice/Lana fans. they wouldn’t have been put off, by your question, but glad to find like company, even if you didn’t meet any other of their ‘criteria’ for best of breed, they’d be heartened to know there are others out there, in the world like themselves. ;D i suppose i’m blessed, most young people that age, don’t know their own minds, in any degree beyond superficial culture.
frm your posts, in your case (age), the goal is assumed to be suitable companionship.
for my girls, the strategic goal is ‘best of breed’ as to potential mate/father and addition to our/their potential mates’ genetic line. anything else is disservice to both, the ancestors of both families and their future posterity.
we want the matches to be stable and beneficial for both families, giving our posterity every possible advantage.
for both circumstances, ‘best practices’ as to tactics to secure that goal are logical.
i’d rather my daughters met someone suitable via more conventional means, such as at work/uni or at a social occasion, but normal social situations and activities require time/physical presence, and they do not desire to find a mate while bar hopping, that’s not their ‘scene’………some of the dating sites, as analytic tools, do provide front end analysis of huge data sets, and w/some personalized tweaking as you have done, more effectively drill down in the query results, to reveal quality options, removing the chaff from the wheat, with a good ROI of your time.
my girls have been taught from an early age, that while they need to develop themselves via higher edu to supplement income for their future families (hopefully remote work, not chained to a desk in a cube farm, both are in computer science fields, close to nailing their bachelor’s), edu/career must walk a find balancing act – their bio-clocks are ticking, they understand they only have so many fertile years to bear healthy children. they understand the lie told to women in the last few decades for what it is.. .”you can have it all”. no, you can’t. a family requires a breadwinner, for a family to happen. men, most aren’t mentally or financially ready before 30, so the data set is almost as tight as for women. time is precious, and youth don’t have an elder’s understanding of its fleeting nature.. *weak smile*
successful child rearing requires at least two parents, (hopefully one granmama or two) with a mother whose presence is a constant up to the age of kindergarten (5), if not later w/financials permitting.
why have them, if you are going to work – to pay someone else, especially some non-blood relative of dubious or negligent intent or to rear your babies, the most important things in your lives? what strategic advantage does such an alien influence and imprinting offer? ……………….anyway……..
bravo to you.. i do hope you find the quality companionship you desire, cheers to your quest.
Oh and the part where you said, what is the point of doing this is my sense is that most women don’t actually date outside of their race?
Two points of doing it. I certainly want to know the ones who do, even if it is only 1/10. And if 8/10 have emotional knee jerk reactions, even if they don’t interracially date, I’ve eliminated the intolerable women who can’t hold a rational conversation and who’ll be accusing me of cheating on them 6 months from now because I came home late from work, or who I’ll have dozens of other conflicts with because their world view is completely alien to my own.
If that only leaves me 1/10 with whom I may be able to connect. So be it. I’ve learned to accept the long shot odds with finding a decent woman these days.
I’m bringing up this topic more because I do think there may be a better way of engaging with women where we get the same information but we might also punch through their programming a little.
You see, I think we have a fundamental difference of ideas or premises where racial concerns about dating and overall racial concerns about modernity and displacement are concerned.
I do believe that there are enough people left in the world who can keep their sexual, dating, and mating preferences separate from their overall views on race that they can reconcile being against race mixing either strictly for themselves or as a general cultural belief, and still be OK with living in desegregated, multicultural globohomo with all the affirmative action rules etc. OK with pop music being almost totally Africanized, but still admit that they don’t date blacks. OK with their boss at work giving black people promotions over them, but still admit that they’d never have sex with a black man.
While I myself do not agree with those overarching views, I don’t necessarily think that they make a white person a horrible person for holding them, nor do they disqualify them from eventually becoming redpilled. So IMHO, someone like that is someone I can tolerate and have a relationship with. And no, I disagree that all women will always see a contradiction in “I’m not racist but I don’t date outside my race”. I think most of the women I’m aiming at will completely understand that statement and
Many will be relieved that I’ve given them permission to reveal one level of racial awareness that they might otherwise not share.
Perhaps one way to reach such persons is to use concepts with which they are familiar and agree, and then use that concept applied in a different way (not unlike what the Left has done for a long time in using the same terms but ascribing a meaning to them that benefits their position). For example, I would hazard that your interlocutor would be against colonialism as normally practiced -from the top down. A more powerful group takes over the area inhabited by a less powerful group and exploits it. But colonialism works from the “bottom-up” as well – that is, what appears to be a less powerful group moves into a civilization built and sustained by a more powerful group and exploits that civilization through mooching, essentially. Why is one form of colonialism wrong, but the other not?
I’m afraid that will not work with Leftists. Such people always root for “the underdog” and Third Worlders are for them by definition “the underdog”. According to their dogma, just like non-Whites “cannot be racist”, so Third Worlders “cannot be colonialist”. And even if they would admit that mass Third World immigration is a form of reverse colonialism, they would applaud that as a well deserved retribution for Western colonialism of the past.
The only argument that has a chance with these people is an appeal to “equality”, which after all is their basic value : White people have as much a right to the preservation of their ethnic identity and thus to their own countries as non-Whites, because “we all have equal rights”. They cannot object to that without “sinning” against their most holy principle which is equality.
Another argument for White ethnocentrism is that all other ethnic groups are ethnocentric and are even encouraged to be so, so why not Whites? White ethnocentrism is as normal and thus as moral as that of others.
The problem with Whites is that they are naturally individualists with a universalist morality. Thus they have developed a weak ethnocentrism. Dr. Kevin MacDonald ascribes that to the evolution of White hunter-gatherers in the North of Europe in which morality but not kinship played the major role. Another cause of White weak ethnocentrism is Christianity with its stress on altruism (the so-called “Good Samaritan” complex). Liberalism with its unnatural xenophilia is but a secularized version of that. Of course this has been exploited by the Jews to the hilt.
Rich Whites who engage in philanthropy don’t help other Whites but always “the other”.
Ethnocentrism does not come naturally to Whites and has to overcome various inner moral inhibitions. It needs its own ideology before it can be accepted.
I definitely think that the secularized version of the most slave-morality, universalist tendencies of Christianity is the main origin of Whites’ fatal, universalizing flaw.
I disagree. Ethnocentrism had to be stamped out of whites through years and years of Jewish brainwashing. And even then, they have not been entirely successful. There is a reason Jews seek to dominate academia, Hollywood, and the MSM.
very good article ..I resonate with the self-actualization drive of the piece. We Whites are intrinsically faustian and lean towards self- actualization /self- realization (which I conflate together ) as a goal.
I liked what Greg said about ” Multicultural societies basically force you to either fight constantly with other groups about conflicting values and customs, or to stop caring about them, so you don’t fight” So true. Here in what’s left of South Africa we see this all the time with blackness being celebrated increasingly, and Whites and Whiteness being attenuated. Companies actually BOAST ‘majority black-owned company’ in their advertising…even in IT! (see BBD). Seriouly!
And: ‘ Multiculturalism creates a society in which everyone feels alien.’ Another gem. I’m keeping it!
I’ve listened to this talk many times, and I think it’s one of the most persuasive pieces of reasoning in the identitarian literature. It’s a knockdown argument. I’m so glad it will appear soon in print, and I can’t wait to get my copy of the book.
White Identity Politics (WIP) is not only inevitable and necessary, it is moral too: it easily passes the tests offered by every normative ethical theory, while the opposing view fails them. This shatters, intellectually, the taboo against WIP. Then to top it off, xenophilia–not xenophobia–is revealed as the attitude that is unnatural, inconsistent and immoral. Bingo.
Suggestions:
Save the Charlton Heston story for the end (as in the speech version), rather than introducing it at the beginning in conjunction with remarks about discussing moral issues generally. It’s more effective there; it’s a great way to end. Inside every white liberal, globalist, etc. there is a fifth column: their own native ethnocentrism, since they are constructed the same as us. “In their hearts, they know I’m right”–that is, about ingroup preference, rather than moral issues generally. Our view is based on who we are, etc. In relation to ethical theories, stating that they simply aim to capture our preexisting moral intuitions is sufficient.
Why not actually quote Joe Sobran on this point, since it’s so funny and poignant: “In their mating and migratory habits, white liberals are indistinguishable from members of the KKK.”
Ethical theories: I suppose that the appeals to fairness, Kantian universalizability, and utilitarianism that you discuss in the speech are coming up next, to follow self-actualization.
What a great and timely piece! The forthcoming book will make its case by presenting both positive and negative arguments: a positive argument for WIP (inevitable, necessary and moral), and refutations of attempts to undermine WIP and National Populism. That will make for a compelling case.
Thanks for your kind words and suggestions. Coming up with a publishable text incorporating both the notes and the transcript is a bit of a challenge.
I hope the great essay “Whiteness” makes its way into the volume. Refuting objections to that concept seems to me fundamental to the project of defending WIP.
I like the phrase, “love of one’s own.” Where does it come from? Is it Greek (“philo-?”)?
|| Now, I must hasten to add that I don’t care about religion. I’m glad Americans are less divided by narrow sectarian Christian conflicts. I’m glad Christianity doesn’t matter enough for people to fight and die over it anymore. ||
Interestingly, they were more ethnocentric when they were sectarian. Christianity was an objective truth for them. It is only when they began trashing { (((Hollywood, TV))) } the Cross and their Christian heritage that the Pharisees and their servile gentile agents began to ethnically cleanse Whites from their own homelands.
addendum: WhiteDate is effectively denied/banned from any sort of mainstream advertising, according to the sites’ owner/admin. becuz ‘raycisssss’. niche dating is A-OK for anyone, LGBTXYZ, inter-racial, BDSM, hookups… except Whites seeking other Whites for marriage/family.
I would just be worried that any sort of site like that would be a self-doxxing trap.
What would you say to people who believe that natural is not necessarily the same as good, or that “is” doesn’t imply “ought”?
Or, like Chesterton said:
The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.
What is plan when you need to convince someone who operates on theological premises? Is the only way to handle it an intimate knowledge of scripture?
If people are in principle opposed to reason, there’s really no way to reason with them, sadly.
The idea that is does not imply ought is just a sheer dogmatic assertion.
@Onions:
Since the context here is Christianity, the answer to your dilemma is this: Scripture forbids White Identity, therefore, there’s no salvation to be found for Whites in the Christian religion, only pain and misery. I’d encourage you to read the writings put forth by the contemporary theologians Russell Moore, John Pavlovitz, and Albert Moehler. If you were raised in the doctrine of Evangelical Christianity like I was, you’ll find their arguments to be a logical, sensible application of Scripture.
The alternative is to do what White Christians did for decades and just ignore the parts of Scripture that, by implication, condemn every policy that Whites ever enacted to defend themselves. In the last 160 years, theologians like Fredrick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. laid waste to those contradictions, so the game is up now. There’s no going back to the days where Christianity and White Identity went hand in hand. If you are a committed Christian who goes to Church, reads the Bible, and prays to God every day, I can assure you that White Nationalism will not appeal to you.
The Christian teaching of ‘Original Sin’ was enough to send me, sulky and defiant, running from Christianity when I was 16. A couple guys at different times in my adulthood, who I thought were charming, moral, righteous fellows with whom I maybe could form a family with, turned out to be fanatic Bible thumpers, one of whom nearly got us both killed in South America trying to convert the ‘natives’ in the midst of Chile’s Marxist escapade. No thanks, Christianity!
@Alexandra:
Here’s an anecdotal story that justifies your experience of white christian men being dangerous to the well-being of their children:
At the church I used to go to, a non-denominational Evangelical church, there was this family that could have been on a National Socialist campaign poster: The husband, wife, and all their biological children were tall, fair, blonde haired, and blue eyed. I didn’t like that they were all so quiet and soft-spoken, because I never knew what they were thinking, but even so, they seemed like a decent family. That is, until they all came walking into church one day with a little 5 year old Negro child that they just adopted. A part of me wanted to ask the kids how they felt about that, but I bit my tongue, because they’ve probably already been brainwashed to support their parents decision anyway.
The kind of whites who are attracted to Christianity have the weakest, most pathetic character out of all the people of our race. We don’t need to justify White Identity to them by appealing to some theological premise, because we don’t owe it to them to use their framework to justify ourselves. They can either accept our framework of reason + emotional appeal, or they can get dunked.
P.S. I enjoy your comments on this site from the perspective of a senior citizen. My dear grandmother passed away last summer, and although I was close to her, I wish she thought more like you did before she died.
|| ” In the last 160 years, theologians like Fredrick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. laid waste to those contradictions, so the game is up now. ” ||
In that very time span there were also serious Christians like Robert Lewis Dabney and Abram Joseph Ryan.
Our dead are not dead who have gone, long ago, to their rest;
They are living in us whose glorious race will not die —
Their brave buried hearts are still beating on in each breast
Of the child of each Celt in each clime ‘neath the infinite sky.
Many days yet to come may be dark as the days that are past,
Many voices may hush while the great years sweep patiently by;
But the voice of our race shall live sounding down to the last,
And our blood is the bard of the song that never shall die.
Abram Joseph Ryan
@Muhammad Aryan:
1. Robert Lewis Dabney was an exception, not the rule. He was a real man, to be sure, but even in his time, he was outnumbered by the wave of preachers of the Social Justice gospel, many of whom, like him, were Calvinists/Reformed Christians. Dabney, like the Pro-White preachers before and after him, cherry picked the Gospel to fit his ideology. Taken in totality, the Bible condemns White Racial Identity.
2. In re: What you said to below to me, which I cannot directly reply to:
Ah, but it wasn’t just us in the 21st century. It was great thinkers and historians such as Edward Gibbon, Friedrich Nietzsche, Revilo Oliver, and…the Rothschild family historian Marcus Eli Ravage, writing in January 1928:
”And oh! I almost forgot the reasons of reasons. We are the stiff-necked people who never accepted Christianity, and we are the criminal people who crucified its founder.
But I tell you, you are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. You resent the Jew not because, as some of you seem to think, we crucified Jesus but because we gave him birth. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity but that we have imposed it upon you!
http://www.patriot.dk/ravage.html
He then goes on to explain in detail how Christianity was imposed upon the White Race.
Lady Galadriel’s narration from the opening of Lord of the Rings can be applied to all those noble leaders you cited. I’m sure you connect the dots:
It began with the forging of the Great Rings.
Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf-Lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and the will to govern each race.
But they were all of them deceived, for another ring was made.
Deep in the land of Mordor, in the Fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord (((Sauron))) forged a master ring, and into this ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life.
One ring to rule them all!
We all fell for a monstrous lie. Time to cast that lie into the fires of Mount Sanai.
Christianity arose in the Greco-Latin milieu. The ‘neo-pagan’ conception of the Levant is seriously lacking.
Do Pagans seriously believe that the ethno-linguistic composition of regions such as Cappadocia, Galilee, Phoenicia, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Ionia, Syria, Antiochia etc has been as it is today for the last 2000 years? I mean Carthage and Cyrenaica is as much European heritage as Athens or Rome. Just because it now falls in an alien culture doesn’t mean it is also alien.
Presentism should be shunned when reading history.
That’s horseshit. A man who does not care for his family. 1 Timothy 5:8. “ But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
The church should be diverse but not combined into one. The church is to be a body. A body cannot function if everyone is a hand.
People who want to follow Christian Faith must abandon the established churches including ending their funding. They should create their own new church bodies preaching the need to care for family first, the need to build a body and appreciate there are differences in people for a purpose.
And number one they must abandon the Zionist movement.
If they can’t do this their faith will simply die out because it is ultimately meaningless and simply a nice social event until the blacks take over and make them kneel and kiss their boots.
The modern Christian Church has been perverted.
@Douglas:
1st Timothy 5:8 might be a compelling verse on the surface, but as they taught us in Sunday School, we must balance Scripture with Scripture so that we may see the whole picture. So, on that note, two things must be pointed out:
1. 1st Timothy 5:8 is not a blank check for a particular race to defend its own people at the exclusion of all others. We know this because that verse and its surrounding passages are all commands to nuclear family members on proper and improper behavior. Now, to be clear, I support the nuclear family structure, but here’s the bottom line: Nuclear families composed of a father, mother, and their biological children do not necessarily have to be all the same race. The mandate for same race families comes from Man, not from God. In God’s eyes, all family formations are valid so long as they profess Faith in Jesus Christ. Christianity is thus a Propositional identity, where people and families are united not by blood or common descent, but rather by shared belief and faith. It can fairly be said that the Churches are nothing more than Bug Pods.
So then, there’s no basis for deriving racial protection from the family protection prescribed in 1st Timothy 5:8. And even then, that verse, when balanced with other Scripture, still doesn’t necessarily mandate family protection, as we can see from…
2. …the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. We all know that Isaac was Abraham’s flesh and blood, his only son, who Sarah birthed at the remarkable age of 99. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a test of Abraham’s commitment and love to God. What we can learn from that is this: There are going to be situations in life where God commands his disciples to sacrifice their own family members in order to prove their commitment to him. That’s exactly what’s going on right now in the 21st century with White families in relation to colored people:
“Oppression” is condemned something like 5000 times in the Bible. Just as many references are made to helping the poor, the downtrodden, and the social outcasts. Christianity is thus the source of the Cultural Marxist “Oppressor vs. Oppressed” paradigm, and in this paradigm, Whites are the oppressors, and colored people are the oppressed. Whether the historical record justifies this or not is irrelevant to the Christians, as “Truth,” for them, is not to be found in any “sin stained” method or discipline of Man. For the Christians, “God is Truth,” and “Jesus is Truth” (John 1 and John 14). Whatever Jesus commands them to do is “Truth” to them.
So then, when the Bible repeatedly condemns oppression and gives criteria for what qualifies as Oppression, its easy to fill in the blanks as to which race commits that oppression and which races don’t. By our own historical account as White Nationalists, we are a race of conquers and explorers, which is exactly the kind of oppression that the Bible condemns. The exception, of course, is the Jews, who, in the Old Testament, went around the Middle East exterminating the host peoples. But does this give Whites a justification for doing the same? No, because Jews are God’s Chosen People, and they have a blank check from God to do whatever the heck they want, up to and including the ritualized sexual abuse of White children. One law for the Jew, one for the Gentile.
In effect, God has commanded nuclear families composed of a White mother and White father to sacrifice their kids, just like he commanded Abraham to do with Isaac. 1st Timothy 5:8 is not a blank check to defend our families in all situations. We must obey the will of Almighty God, and if he commands us to atone for our sins of oppression by letting foreigners do with our women and children as they please, then we have a duty to obey him, lest we stand condemned before him.
I say its high time for the White Race to cleanse such a vile, monstrous god from our hearts forever. The eternal Aryan spirit is the source of our goodness, NOT a demonic, Jewish volcano god.
@DP84
Very enlightening post indeed.
Charles Martel, Alfred the Great, King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, Richard the Lion-heart, St. Vladimir the Great, Queen Isabella, King Charles the Martyr etc didn’t know that they were worshiping a ‘Jewish volcano God’. Moreover, the intellectually sophisticated Greeks couldn’t see through it when they were being conned by St. Paul. It had to be us, the 21st century gadget smart technocratic fountains of wisdom, to finally unearth the 2000-year old Likudnik conspiracy.
Didn’t have anything particular to say, only something complimentary, that I enjoyed the article.
Morality is only what everyone agrees on, purely subjective, a variety of might makes right.
Great article, Greg. I couldn’t agree more.
To find out what a man thinks, observe how he behaves rather than what he says.
“In their migratory and mating habits white liberals are indistinguishable from members of the KKK” – Joe Sobran
My biggest argument for the moral goodness of nationalism is loyalty. Liberal democracy is about the 51% to win dominance over the 49%. Illiberalism states that there is something more important than the 51%, there exists a shared conception of the common good within the people. And if we cannot be loyal to that shared conception and each other then we do not have a nation, instead we are in a battle for survival. And that battle leaves us vulnerable to attacks from Outsiders and treacherous Elites. We should not only repatriate immigrants but also encourage many leftists to join them so that they can have their own Multicultural nations in the global South
White Americans constitute a distinct people . . . we can no longer abandon the public realm to multicultural chaos. Multiculturalism creates a society in which everyone feels alien.”
Truer words never spoken, at least for the multicultural dive that is Los Angeles today. I’m often the only white person on the bus — a commuter to downtown — and I’ve seen East Asian immigrants muttering under their breath about the manners of Latinos or Black or homeless mixes boarding the bus. Truly, there is no way we are all ever going to get along, so we need, first of all, to stop adding more immigrants to the stewpot.
And my biggest worry is still the overwhelming amount of White altruism which blinds our people to the actual dangers of immigration. We are flooded with ‘sob stories’ about immigrant families being separated, etc., and even I get caught up with their plight and still feel a bit guilty when I change the channel immediately. But we must call-out sob stories every time we see them, especially if others are present.
embrace multiracialism , domesticate it and lets do it like our forefathers did 3500 years ago in india
My great fear is that Dr. Johnson might be wrong about white liberals and that they’re not in fact wired in an ethnocentric manner, but that the selection pressures of modernity have bred anything outside of the narrow bugman neurotype out of white liberals. If they are biologically incapable of thinking outside of the narrow idea-space dictated by the upper echelons of society, they cannot be convinced to support our ideas.
There is an important point to be made about how our current system even undermines individual self-actualization.
In multiracial societies, there is racial socioeconomic stratification. We might *want* equality, but inequality is a sure to happen as the sunrise.
What happens in the multiracial society is that certain groups clog access to certain states of being. If you are a white boy in the USA, tough luck becoming a professional athlete. Tough luck playing on your school’s basketball team. Tough luck representing your country in the Olympics.
Why? Because there is no hope of competing with the African minority.
Same for academic pursuits. Do you want to be a scientist? Do you want to go to a top university? Tough luck competing with 1 billion Chinese, who are significantly smarter and more emotionally stable, for genetic reasons, than whites, both of which give advantages in the academic world.
Do you want to simply be considered “cool” by your peers? Not possible if you are not black.
Do you want to be a famous musician? Either be a slut, or be black. Jews refuse to promote much else.
How about being a laborer? Lots of men enjoy honest work. Well, I hope you enjoy living in a trailer park, because your wages have been decimated by the infinite Hispanic labor.
How about living an urban lifestyle, despite not being a high-income earner? Well, you had better enjoy sending your daughter to prom with a black/brown boy, and having brown grandchildren, because you will have to live in black/brown areas.
It turns out that being a lame, uncool suburbanite is almost the only life path open to whites in the USA. How can we say that we are even able to self-actualize on the individual level?
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