They Do This Because They Can

42 comments

1. Viv says:

   June 2, 2020 at 11:57 am

   Trump can’t prosecute Antifa because, in doing so, he would expose who funds them. The laws are already on the books if his Justice Department had any motivation to do so. They know who funds Antifa, also. So that’s out. Expect nothing to happen on that front.

   I was distressed to see Con Inc. basically fold on race. By contrast, everyone fought hard for Kavanaugh even though he was basically #MeToo’d. Political correctness didn’t get in the way of fighting for him. People pushed past accusations of “sexism” and “misogyny.” Yet whites seem totally dominated when it comes to race. None of the establishment leaders can speak honestly about it, at all.
2. Alexandra says:

   June 2, 2020 at 12:16 pm

   All I know is that, at age 75, I have sat through at least 65 conscious years of Black ranting and raving and whining and the occasional huge riot (first noticed fully in the 1965 Watts Riots, or was it ’69?), and so on. And on and on and on. Folks, there is nothing we can do to ever make these people happy. Even if we gave them each a million bucks and a free plane ride with totally FIRST CLASS seating, back to Africa, they would still be whining! I just want to go somewhere AWAY! But, oh, I’m privileged, so I also demand to remain in America. So, let’s begin working underground as best and quietly as we can to figure out a way to get away, but still be here. I know this is the dream of all White Nationalists, beginning with Dr. Johnson and friends. and they’ve written many inspiring reams about this dream. Hopefully, some several thousand others in this country will begin a serious quest for the same ideal today — to get away — and they will find us. Maybe even hundreds of thousands. So, maybe there’s a great silver lining in all this mayhem. Let’s hope so!

   1. Hamburger Today says:

      June 2, 2020 at 3:34 pm

      Love your posts, AO!
3. Beau Albrecht says:

   June 2, 2020 at 12:28 pm

   Here’s a traditional remedy:
   https://rainbowalbrecht.wordpress.com/2020/06/02/bull-connor-knew-how-to-cool-down-a-crowd/
4. Victor Henderson says:

   June 2, 2020 at 12:33 pm

   As realist I have to disagree on some points. I agree that many of us whites have been the victim of state-sponsored injustice the same way sadly George Floyd has been the victim of this as you mentioned. But in the case of Black Americans they have a strong history of state sponsored injustice and lunatic and aggressive white supremacist mob gangs who lynched and burned them, who often tend give us rational white realist and white nationalist a bad name and rep. I also have to point out that Black Americans did build the USA and heavily contributed to the American society and American civilization. I do see Black Americans and Native Americans as Americans, despite our racial difference compared to these masses of Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Arab, Caribbean immigrants who have leeched of our ancestors blood, sweat and tears to make this nation for what it is. ( Especially Asians who I still believe a far more hidden treat that whites overlook as we have seen with CCP China and their agents, but also these South Korean immigrants etc.)
   And as a realist “tear the roof off this motherfucker” has been shouted a lot by these leftist radical Antifa’s who often happen to be young white males and females. Where I live I have seen Blacks protest in peace and calmness. But as the night begins its start to like Gotham city with all types of grimy figures of all races and backgrounds. I would really like to see someone right how the coronavirus, these riots, unemployment actually comes in favour of these CCP Chinese Asian thugs and how they are gaining more geo-political power, while western world is getting weaker and weaker.

   1. Titus Groan says:

      June 2, 2020 at 1:30 pm

      Spoken like a true neocon! “Right” means correct or a direction. “Write” means to represent words with symbols.
   2. Hamburger Today says:

      June 2, 2020 at 3:09 pm

      Black Americans did build the USA and heavily contributed to the American society and American civilization.

      How? And by that I mean in a way that Whites would not or could not.

      My position is clear. It does not matter if there are ‘good’ Blacks or Amerinds or not. This is politics, which, like war, has a singular purpose: To answer the question, ‘Who rules?’.

      In a White ethnostate, Whites rule and White interests take priority. Non-Whites can chart their own course. It would be nice if this could be done peacefully, but it cannot. There are (((powers))) in the land that do not want Whites to have a say in anything, so the option of discourse and negotiation appears to be closed unless something radical happens.

      As for George Floyd being the victim of injustice like Brailsford and Shaver. Floyd was a gigantic career criminal resisting arrest whose BS was too-well-understood by the police to allow them to be taken in by him. ‘I can’t breathe’ is a dodge and the cops know it. The Dindus never to nuffin.

      Save your concerns for White people, who have no advocates or National Lawyers Guild to plead their case and get them out of jail with a slap on the wrist.

      1. pg says:

         June 3, 2020 at 6:26 pm

         “In a White ethnostate, Whites rule and White interests take priority.”

         And what are those interests? Does a white landlord have the same interests as a white tenet? Or does the white landlord want to drive up the cost of rent whereas the white tenet wants it lower? How about a white business owner who employs white workers? Do they have the same interest? Doesn’t the white business owner want to pay as little as possible and get as much work as possible out of his white workers because that’s how a profitable business is run? Don’t the white workers want as high a wage as possible and to have the amount of work reduced? You’re postulating a commonality of and between all white compatriots independent of all personal conflicts and social antagonisms which characterize their daily life. As workers, entrepreneurs, renters, homeowners, retirees, students, teachers, taxpayers, politicians, etc. people differ socially and pursue different and, in many cases, conflicting interests– even if they are homogeneous racially.

         1. Hamburger Today says:

            June 4, 2020 at 6:10 am

            It’s interesting challenge the idea that Whites have unique interests by showing that Whites have some of the same problems with power relations as those of other races. I’m not sure if this is an attempt to employ a typical liberal dodge of race issues — some variation of ‘we are all in this together’ — or if you assume that because Whites have specific interests as a race that they cannot also have other interests. Either way, my view is that Whites may have conflicts with each other but that there is no problem that Whites face that is made easier to solve by having to also accommodate the interests of other races and, ultimately, Whites are not obligated to a universal solution to everyone’s problems, only their own. The National Socialists and Fascists approached the problem of different ‘interests’ within their nations using ‘corporatism’ as their guide and adhering to the Fascist maxim of ‘nothing outside the State’. Whites are a highly inventive, intuitive people. Left to our own devices, we can come up with reasonable remedies for most of our internal squabbles.

            1. pg says:

               June 4, 2020 at 12:35 pm

               I am not claiming that “we” are all in this together, but challenging this very concept of a “we”, of a national, racial, gender collective with common interests, a common good that benefits them all. I’m pointing out that the categorization of people under national and racial categories is first of all a forced categorization, and secondly a false abstraction. What do I mean by this?

               The social relation between a worker and capitalist employer in America is characterized by the same class conflict as in Britain, Haiti, Korea, Germany or elsewhere. The social relation between a tenant and the homeowner is the same regardless of whether they live in America, Britain or Japan. It is the same regardless of their race, gender, nationality, religion, etc.. Nationalists declare all these material interests and social conflicts, circumstances of life, their opinions and beliefs to be less significant when they emphasize their affection for their home country, take pride in being an American, German, Chinese, et al. By doing so, they postulate a commonality of and between all compatriots independent of all personal conflicts and social antagonisms which characterize their daily life. This commonality is an assumption that does not correspond to reality or hold up to critical scrutiny.

               The fact that nationalists identify themselves with their nation by neglecting and ignoring all societal differences and believing that the difference between nationalities are much more important is first of all founded in the fact that all people are subordinated to a state and its jurisdiction. No one has chosen this “membership,” nor can give up his membership easily. The people are subjected to a state by laws set up and executed forcefully by a state power. A nationalist turns his practical subjection into his personal identity, thereby denying his subjection as if the nation-state was the manifestation of its citizens’ national identity, and not the other way around– which is the truth of the matter.

               On the basis of this identification nationalism becomes a weltanschauung (world view). The simple fact that someone was born a child of American, Italian or Japanese parents or – depending on the respective laws of acquiring citizenship – was born in a country becomes the central point of reference for the evaluation of people, their interests, and rights. Everything is viewed and judged from the “nonpartisan” perspective of national identity. Nationalists take a side for “their” nation and this nation’s success in international competition, divide the world into friends and enemies depending upon whether the particular foreign nation serves the interests or stands in opposition to the interests of the home country.

               Within the country nationalists blame foreigners for their own social misery as losers in capitalist competition. Based on the false equation, ‘my own well-being depends on the success of my nation’ they explain their failure as the outcome of foreign nations’ activity and foreigners living in their mother-country, demanding that their nation should stand up against their international rivals and expel foreigners from‘our’ country and send them back to where they belong.

               The fascists did not solve class antagonisms between the capitalist and worker because it is insoluble under capitalism, under a regime of private property. They only regulated it with the power of the state by forcing German business to treat its native workers better. In this way, the fascist call for organic unity is not much different than liberal calls for fair competition. The difference is that it’s a call for “fair competition” within a racially homogeneous collective.
            2. Hamburger Today says:

               June 4, 2020 at 3:15 pm

               If you’re going to problematize ‘we’, I don’t know why you don’t go whole-hog and do the same with ‘true’ and ‘false’ except that it serves your will to power to try to use the concepts of ‘true’ and ‘false’ to privilege your side fo the discourse.

               The social relation between a worker and capitalist employer in America is characterized by the same class conflict as in Britain, Haiti, Korea, Germany or elsewhere.

               Classes exist. Different classes have different interests. Having different interests results in conflict. Class conflict is assymetrical, with each side having different resources to engage in — and sustain — the conflict.

               From my — racial nationalist — perspective, this is just one of the various conflicts that can arise and must be dealt with in the context of an ethnostate. My view — and this is based upon the historical evidence under the Third Reich — is that a more-than-less homogeneous ethnos has more resources to manage class conflict than, say, a multi-racial, multi-cultural, poly-glot empire because it can invoke loyalties outside the commercial/industrial matrix.

               [N]ationalists identify themselves with their nation by neglecting and ignoring all societal differences….

               This is a straw-man account of racial nationalism. Every political perspective prioritizes issues. What you describe is not a defect specific to racial nationalism.

               A nationalist turns his practical subjection into his personal identity, thereby denying his subjection as if the nation-state was the manifestation of its citizens’ national identity, and not the other way around– which is the truth of the matter.

               Being a ‘subject’ of a State is not the same as ‘subjection’ to a State, this is particularly true when the values, policies and practices of the State align with your own vision of the ‘good life’. In such a situation, the State become an extension of my will-to-power, not an impediment to it.

               Within the country nationalists blame foreigners for their own social misery as losers in capitalist competition.

               This is a pretty stock calumny. It’s intended as a shaming tactic. It’s the sort of insult I’d expect from a libertarian, not someone doing Marxist class-based analysis. The reality is that racial nationalist want to exclude ‘foreigners’ for all kinds of reasons. We don’t want them here. That’s all the reason we need.

               The fascists did not solve class antagonisms between the capitalist and worker….[t]hey only regulated it with the power of the state by forcing German business to treat its native workers better.

               Yep, and that was definitely welcomed by the workers.

               In this way, the fascist call for organic unity is not much different than liberal calls for fair competition.

               On the surface you can make this argument because of certain functional similarities, but, because the underlying premises of Liberalism and German National Socialism were quite different, the only way you can assert even a limited identity between them to to assert a privileged epistemological position for your theory that I do not grant.

               Hopefully, this clarifies a few things for you.
            3. pg says:

               June 4, 2020 at 7:21 pm

               Why would I problematize “true” and “false”? That simply doesn’t follow in the slightest, or conceptually have anything to do with the criticism of the false abstraction of “the people” (das Volk), race, nation, etc. What I mean by a term like objectivity is simple: When I use the terms “objectivity,” or what is “objectively true” about politics and economics, I mean the dominating, actually valid purposes of the state and the economy.

               Of course, I do realize that the bourgeois social sciences make the – methodologically – straightforward task of investigating and explaining the world a much more complicated task. It is particularly popular in the field of philosophy to question the categories of objective reality and truth. But it isn’t hard to refute such uncertainties, since the doubters confirm the category of truth every time they claim to reject it: Claims such as “There is no such thing as truth” or even “there is no certainty about truth” themselves claim to be true, and thus presuppose the existence of objective truth. And it is only in the upside-down world of philosophy that people think in such absurd terms. Imagine if aeronautical engineers and mechanics responded to a malfunction leading to a plane crash by saying, “Well, that just shows that there is no such thing as objective truth!”

               The purpose of casting doubt on the category of truth is to raise unfounded doubts about claims to truth without offering any arguments to prove it. Therefore, nobody can lay claim to the truth – which is a particularly effective and democratic way of suppressing criticism. By forcing everybody to respect the validity of other people’s beliefs and claims as mere opinions, everybody’s beliefs and claims are reduced to mere claims and opinions. The opinion that wins the day in reality, therefore, is not the one that is right, but the one that has the might to assert itself. So, you do precisely this when you want to act as if it’s a mere ploy for power.

               If you admit, which you have, that classes exist and that they have conflicting interests, then the whole notion of a common shared national or racial interest falls flat on its face. It’s a myth, a false abstraction. Yet, nonetheless, you stick to it.

               You write, “My view — and this is based upon the historical evidence under the Third Reich — is that a more-than-less homogeneous ethnos has more resources to manage class conflict than, say, a multi-racial, multi-cultural, poly-glot empire because it can invoke loyalties outside the commercial/industrial matrix.”

               It must have been kind of an embarrassment to fascism that the most racially dis-unified of democratic states defeated them in battle. The major fascists of the twentieth century lost their world war, which was supposed to prove their superiority and right to a thousand year reich against the Red Army, which the losers countered with revanchism, and against the most advanced democracy, which made a lasting impression on the conquered peoples: after all, Democracy thoroughly disgraced fascism on its own terms.

               The extent to which a state has resources is a matter of production. If work would simply be treated as the toil necessary for producing the goods that provide a good life for everyone, an additional labor force would make work (and life) much easier. However, under the criterion of capitalist labor, more labor is not a source of wealth for those who work but for those who let other people work for them. But then again, I suspect you have nothing but scorn for a comfortable life, unless it’s a comfortable life lived for the nation and people.

               Democratic states themselves constantly evoke “loyalties outside the commercial/industrial matrix”. The mere fact that people evoke all kinds of moral shibboleths and higher values to justify the subjection the state puts them under doesn’t mean what they’re evoking is true. The mistake of moral critique is that instead of finding out what the truly valid purposes of the state and the economy are, one measures reality according to one’s own ideal of it. When the political and economic life of the nation doesn’t correspond to my ideal, I continue to insist that “actually” the purpose of the state and the economy is to correspond to that ideal, but – for whatever reason – is failing to do so.

               You write, “This is a straw-man account of racial nationalism. Every political perspective prioritizes issues. What you describe is not a defect specific to racial nationalism.”

               The issue is not that one issue (race) is prioritized over another (class), but that the very class conflicts I’ve pointed to are simply denied when one talks about “white interests” or “white community”. Of course, you’re not wrong that this mistake isn’t specific to racial nationalism. Democracy lovers also make the mistake, and plenty of leftists, too.

               You write, “Being a ‘subject’ of a State is not the same as ‘subjection’ to a State, this is particularly true when the values, policies and practices of the State align with your own vision of the ‘good life’. In such a situation, the State become an extension of my will-to-power, not an impediment to it.”

               You need to be honest about the relation of subjection, or whatever you want to call it. It is the state that rules you, not vice versa. The state is a relation of force. It doesn’t change because you “just happen” to agree with its “values”. Korea is about as racially homogeneous a state as you could find, and the government has carried out huge massacres there.

               What does this life in a racially homogenous state consist in? What’s so good about it?

               “This is a pretty stock calumny. It’s intended as a shaming tactic. It’s the sort of insult I’d expect from a libertarian, not someone doing Marxist class-based analysis. The reality is that racial nationalist want to exclude ‘foreigners’ for all kinds of reasons. We don’t want them here. That’s all the reason we need.”

               It’s not a shaming tactic, but a statement of fact. Did Hitler blame the Germans themselves after WWI or did he blame the Jews? What else is it if white nationalists say “White people are suffering! Foreigners are taking jobs and making conditions worse here! It’s the fault of blacks and jews and Mexicans.” Instead of criticizing the competition people are forced into, it’s taken as some kind of natural biological fact, and then it’s basically complained about that competition isn’t fair, and if the foreign competitors were excluded– well, then everything would be a land of milk and honey. As long as everyone submitted to the state.

               What are the reasons you want to exclude foreigners? Because saying “we just don’t want them here and that’s that” isn’t a reason.

               To say that the way the German fascist state managed capitalism was “Welcomed by the workers” is simply wrong. All kinds of workers wanted nothing to do with it, and they were shot and put into concentration camps. Of course, on the other hand, yeah, there were plenty of German workers who supported it. But, in case you didn’t know, just because a worker believes something doesn’t make it true. Today plenty of workers think life under Obama or Trump was really good. Workers will support all kinds of stupid things.

               As for liberal democracy and fascism. They embody two variants of the competition for power in the bourgeois nation state.
            4. Hamburger Today says:

               June 5, 2020 at 6:01 am

               I’ll take up on aspect of your long — but predictable — response because it’s the part that you need to understand if you are to progress in thinking at all:

               Why would I problematize “true” and “false”? That simply doesn’t follow in the slightest, or conceptually have anything to do with the criticism of the false abstraction of “the people” (das Volk), race, nation, etc.

               ‘True’ and ‘false’ are functions of the system in which such judgements make sense. Move to a different system and a new set of true/false dichotomies present themselves. This is not to say that ‘the real’ does not exist, but to work within the obvious limitations of the ability of humans to think about things.

               What is true of ‘true’ and ‘false’ is also true of ‘facts’. They, too, are functions of the systems in which they arise as valuable.

               None of this is to say that there is not some foundational ‘real’ that is out there to which ‘facts’ might conform and be ‘true’ or ‘false’, it’s just that — human fallibility being what it is — you’ll get further intellectually treating ‘true’ and ‘fulse’ and ‘fact’ as contingent, rather than absolute.

               So, when you say that there is no ‘we’ or that ‘the people’ is a ‘false abstraction’ what I’m reading is simply that we don’t share enough fundamental assumptions about the nature of ‘the real’ to have a conversation where the notions of ‘true’ or ‘false’ or ‘fact’ can be usefully deployed to our mutual enlightenment.
         2. Renzo says:

            June 4, 2020 at 9:29 am

            In the cohesive White civilization we should aim for, the landlord and the tenet, the business owner and the workers

            1. have indeed the same *collective* interests: improving the commons such as human and scientific capital, public health, the conservation of a rich natural environment, etc

            2. they pursue these common goals organically, and prioritize them over individual interests to the benefit of all other Whites

            This is what healthy European men (truth-before-face strategy) can do when they are free of the parasitism and undermining of everyone else (face-before-truth strategy). They are able to contain individual conflicting interests within a legal framework that fosters the conservation and expansion of common civilizational assets (such as a high IQ population, or free speech, or meritocratic hierarchies).

            Women and non-whites are not equipped to do any of this, they are either myopic consumers who act based on emotion or they lie, cheat and steal as a matter of course without any regard whatsoever for long-term consequences or the collective good.

            Only White men can create and sustain White civilization, and everything that goes into that – the exclusion of non-whites from our territories and of white women from political power first and foremost – can be categorized as “White interests”.

            1. pg says:

               June 4, 2020 at 12:19 pm

               Many people, including liberals and social-democrats, think that the USA (or most any other nation) is a community of purpose, joined by a common bond, in which each person does his part for the success of the whole. If there is poverty or other such unpleasant things, then this is assumed to be due to a lack of commitment to the common good, the community – either on the part of corrupt politicians, greedy capitalists, lazy underachievers in the lower classes, or all three. But if one looks objectively at the reality of the nation, or race, one find a collection of antagonisms – between buyers and sellers, sellers and sellers, workers and capitalists, etc. The only real commonality that people share is entirely abstract and negative: They share a common passport, and are therefore subjects and instruments of one and the same political power. People aren’t failing to contribute to the common good, because that common good simply doesn’t exist. Liberals, conservatives, fascists, and progressives all buy into this ideology about the common good, especially when they talk about “communities”, whether it’s a liberal talking about “black communities” or a fascist talking about “white communities”. So, you talk about “improving the commons”, but you’ve already assumed ahead of time what needs proved. But if you look around without without rose colored glasses, then you can’t honestly say there is some “white interest” that exists beyond their real existence, which is nothing but conflict and antagonism.

               So, you mention “the conservation of a rich natural environment” as a goal that is common to all whites within this imaginary state. If private property exists in this state, then there is a sorting of the different members of the race into, for example, those who actually decide whether or not a filter is put on a factory or power plant smokestack to absorb CO2. This is the owner’s decision. And the owner wants to incur the least costs possible. The members of the species who eke out their existence as “dependent employees” have, on the contrary, the role of burning coal as laborers in the power plant or of inhaling exhaust fumes and particulate matter as residents of it. So, perhaps the employees and people who live near the factory don’t want toxic sludge dumped into the rivers near them, but the business owners don’t want the cost of dealing with it in a way that doesn’t immediately damage those around. So, again, there’s no common goal here, but only the conflicting interests brought about by competition for money. The state is supposed to come in and regulate this so that everyone is happy, but how could it?

               You would say this materialism of people’s individuality interferes with the nation. The nation is supposed to be their materialism, the higher ideal that they subsume themselves under. They should accumulate wealth so it can succeed in competition with other peoples and push through law and order at home, which is also an expensive business. The working class is no longer a class but just the people who work. Their station in life can’t be something they are ambitious about because they don’t work for themselves but for the nation.

               This already contains idea that they have different interests, but these interests have to function for the overall power of the state. In this regard, what you say is similar to liberal sociology which says there are different forms of organization in society – economic, religious, geographic, etc., and these are all different, but ultimately a natural division that can’t be avoided.

               You want to completely deny that the working class has a different, fundamentally conflicting interest due to its position in the economy. You deny the class character of society; assuming workers and capitalists, landlords and tenets, etc. just have different positions, different functions or statuses which are all important from the point of view of the nation. This is the concept of the nation being an “organic whole” that you mention, all part of one organism or living body.

               “Women and non-whites are not equipped to do any of this, they are either myopic consumers who act based on emotion or they lie, cheat and steal as a matter of course without any regard whatsoever for long-term consequences or the collective good.”

               You yourself seem rather worked up and emotional as you try to deny that women and non-whites also couldn’t be good self-sacrificing material for the state, which a look at any left-national liberation project or modern bourgeois democracy would quickly dispel.

               But what kind of criticism is that? Oh, woman and non-whites don’t fit my blueprint for the total citizen who has nothing better to do than sacrifice himself? They’re naturally not fit for an existence as a human material for the nation! Do you want to expel women from the nation according to this criterion? Even if they’re white? Doesn’t that conflict with the idea that as whites they have a common interest? Or do you just mean to say: women will have to realize their natural place as the inferiors of men, and learn that they’re role in life is cooking, cleaning, and pumping out white babies?! I’m starting to think that the “common interest” you’re talking about is simply sacrificing oneself and serving the nation/race.

               Maybe take a step back, bracket off this emotional partisan prejudice for “the common good of the race” that you have, and think about it objectively: if this homogeneous white society has workers and business owners, landlords and tenets, buyers and sellers, then it is a community of competition. The only commonality they have is that they compete against each other for money. Or will you abolish money in this society and have it so that production is about meeting needs and not making money and profit? If not, then this talk about a “common white interest” ought to get stuck in your throat. All the examples you’ve given are not universal in the slightest– if they were, then why would a state need to regulate and contain them within its legal framework? If they were universal, then why wouldn’t white women also be equipped to let the state step all over them them willy-nilly for the greater good of the race?
            2. Renzo says:

               June 4, 2020 at 6:03 pm

               It’s not even clear what you’re aiming at here, though it sounds like some kind of convoluted centrist free-market libertarian dog-eat-dog radical individualist position.

               Frankly, you sound like a Jew or some other kind of bad actor trying to convince Whites that working together for the benefit of our group (as Jews always do) is a pipe dream, and we should instead accept a reality of hopeless, perpetual chaos – in your own words, “nothing but conflict and antagonism”. Be wary of your fellow White, goy, he is out to get you! Yeah, ok.

               Now, in case you don’t have a racial interest in demoralization and you’re making genuine arguments, here’s my answer.

               “think that the USA (or most any other nation) is a community of purpose, joined by a common bond, in which each person does his part for the success of the whole.”

               Obviously I don’t think that at all, the absence of a common purpose and indeed a common nature of the individuals comprising our society is precisely the problem. What we want is a nation made of people who share the same nature, i.e. the same kind of instincts, capabilities, desires, aspirations, predilections, personality traits, etc. There will always be individual differences of course, but I think everyone gets the significance of aggregates and averages at this point.

               “if this homogeneous white society has workers and business owners, landlords and tenets, buyers and sellers, then it is a community of competition. The only commonality they have is that they compete against each other for money.”

               Sell, buy, own, compete, money, money, money, money.

               Yeah, sure, we are all just blank, exchangeable economic units, where have I heard that before? Whites have absolutely nothing more in common with other whites that they have with subsaharan africans, jews and arabs. They should totally keep working against each other for money, surely the other groups will do the same, they would never play as a team against atomized whites, right?

               In case you’re genuine, what are you doing here? Are you even aware of HBD studies? Do you understand the concept of race as common biological origin implying a set of common characteristics in terms of innate behaviors, needs, etc?

               If you need me to spell it out, here’s a few obvious common interests/civilizational assets that are not monetary in nature, things that white people have historically worked for and protected as a group:

               – aggregate IQ and advantageous heritable personality traits
               – reproductive opportunity
               – military assets
               – territory
               – shared moral codes and mythologies (religion)
               – high trust
               – public safety
               – science
               – history
               – etc.

               “But if you look around without without rose colored glasses, then you can’t honestly say there is some “white interest” that exists beyond their real existence, which is nothing but conflict and antagonism.”

               See above.

               A completely atomized society would be nothing but conflict and antagonism, but people have bonds of loyalty, affection, familiarity, they support each other instinctively when they perceive themselves to be part of the same larger organism, and that is the feeling the organic state wants to incentivize and support. It’s not complicated, I’m just talking about working with the grain of nature. Different races have different survival and domination strategies, and the White ethnostate should be built around the strategy of ethnic Europeans.

               “You try to deny that women and non-whites also couldn’t be good self-sacrificing material for the state, which a look at any left-national liberation project or modern bourgeois democracy would quickly dispel.
               But what kind of criticism is that? Oh, woman and non-whites don’t fit my blueprint for the total citizen who has nothing better to do than sacrifice himself?”

               Wise people know they sometimes need to sacrifice immediate gratification in order to achieve greater long-term goals. Not so wise people should be led and regulated by wiser people lest they hurt themselves and everybody else in pursuing selfish immediate wants. Nobody is oppressing anybody, any more than good parents oppress their children. They are just incentivized to subordinate immediate personal gratification to the greater good of the race, and thereby their own good. If someone can’t pursue their own perceived egoistic advantage because of that, that’s fine.

               This is basic paternalism we’re talking about. The small child may think it’s in his interest to eat ice cream all day and play in the vicinity of a deep pool unsupervised, but mommy and daddy must say no, case closed.

               White women may think it’s in their interest to have sex with whatever 90 IQ rapper takes their fancy this weekend and pursue a career postponing motherhood until the late thirties, and daddy must say no, case closed.

               We know that women on the whole are much happier as stay-at-home mothers rather than as childless workers (of any class), and all they need is to be encouraged and incentivized to follow their better instincts. If a minority of them end up doing the other thing, or frustrated because they can’t be everything a man can, that’s fine. It’s not complicated.

               You seem to have this idea that any form of collectivism results by definition in a total, absolute denial of individual interests, but that is absurd, if nothing else because the individual is not separated from the race. Individuals constitute the race, and the race protects its individuals.

               Unfortunately, it’s one of the few things non-whites do better than us (see Kevin MacDonald’s latest book).

               “Maybe take a step back, bracket off this emotional partisan prejudice for “the common good of the race” that you have”.

               Actually, letting go of that “emotional partisan prejudice” is exactly what got us in this mess. “Emotional partisan prejudice” for the common good of the race – racial pride, racial solidarity, racial power, racial elevation – is exactly what we need more of, and by the look of things, we’re on the right path to finally get it.
   3. Viv says:

      June 2, 2020 at 3:22 pm

      Based on your comments, you aren’t remotely a white nationalist. You should head over to the Heritage Foundation, where you will fit right in.
   4. scott johnston says:

      June 2, 2020 at 6:43 pm

      Your comment is utterly moronic as America was a 98% white country until the 60s so the idea that blacks built america is laughable.
   5. Renzo says:

      June 3, 2020 at 6:16 am

      Guys, if you expect everyone that comes in contact with WN websites and authors to already be a WN, how then are these websites supposed to increase our numbers? When I started reading CC years ago, I was nervous about pictures of Hitler on the book covers…if I had commented about it and people had reacted angrily as you’re doing with Victor and told me to head to the Heritage Foundation, maybe I wouldn’t be with you today.

      To Victor: many of us here were once where you are now, but what we have learned since changed our minds on a variety of subjects, including:

      – the reasons why blacks and non-whites in general behave like they behave
      – their role in shaping the country
      – who represents the greatest threat to the interests of people of European origin worldwide (spoiler: it’s not Asians)
      – why the mainstream right in America and most of Europe should be considered inimical to our interests just as the left
      – why the media and the schools that taught you to think like you think today and as many of us did a few years ago are in the hands of enemy agents

      If you are just now dipping your toes into White Nationalist perspectives, these are great places to start:

      1. the American Renaissance YT channel has plenty of videos to learn about the real differences between races and a lot of data covered up by the media and academia. This is where I personally started the journey that led me here.

      https://www.youtube.com/user/AmRenVideos/videos

      The website is http://www.amren.com

      2. The Culture of Critique (banned from Amazon and other stores) is a foundational book for us and one whose ideas are now taken for granted by any thinking man who’s been in this sphere for more than a few months.

      https://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/BookDetails/227999-The-Culture-of-Critique
      https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-culture-of-critique-kevin-macdonald/1113698168?ean=9780759672222

      And the author’s website/organization: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net

      3. The White Nationalist Manifesto (also banned from Amazon and other stores) is a short and clear but comprehensive summary of our ideas by the founder of Counter-Currents:

      https://counter-currents.com/2019/08/new-from-counter-currentsthe-second-edition-of-the-white-nationalist-manifesto/

      If you approach these materials with an open mind and compare the ideas here expressed with the realities you can see with your own eyes – as opposed to narratives pushed by or allowed in the mainstream media – I believe you will find them far more accurate and truthful.

      1. Hamburger Today says:

         June 4, 2020 at 6:14 am

         Nicely said. This kind of assembly of ‘White Nationalism 101’ material is something I hope the new website will provide.
   6. Rock N Rolly Coaster says:

      September 28, 2020 at 6:38 pm

      How in the world was Fentanyl Floyd the victim of a “state-sponsored injustice”?
5. dalai_lama_trapeze says:

   June 2, 2020 at 1:14 pm

   Great article. I’m stuck in a big city, was never on the Left per se (read too much Strauss & Heidegger in college), but fancied myself bohemian in my 20s and 30s, though in truth I was simply a spoiled narcissist. I remain something of a narcissist, but got turned on to Counter-Currents back in early ’16. My political awakening has yet to inform how I actually live my life, however, and so I remain in the city, working the same pointless job in hospitality.

   And I am very nearly completely atomized. No wife, no kids, fewer friends with each passing year, zero political power. I make ironic and mischievous political remarks, but that’s the extent of my profile. And yet somehow, if my antenna is right, I believe I am detecting a sudden sea-change in the opinions of people I talk to. We’ve now shifted gears from surreal (lockdown) to all too real (riots), and it is shaking people up. The thing about hospitality is that I talk to more people than most. Casual & shallow talks, but still. And even if I hold back my true views, I get some sense of what white urbanites are thinking.

   I just hope we can find a way out of this mess. I fantasize that once order is restored (probably only by shooting looters), then all important political leaders in the country could convene and, in a triumph of statesmanship, agree to a 3-way partition, a black ethnostate, a white ethnostate, and a liberal cosmopolitan state. Imagine, if blacks had their own ethnostate, they could rule & police themselves! They might just agree to the offer! But of course this will never happen. The elites would nix it because it would mean the loss of their empire. It will take them years to realize that the empire is already lost. America’s imperial aura will not survive riots in 140 cities. The entire world can see that she hasn’t the cohesion to prevail over a determined foe like China. And so we will descend inexorably toward civil war and collapse as the elites blindly cling to empire’s last remnants.

   1. Buttercup says:

      June 2, 2020 at 2:33 pm

      White Americans will survive this unless nukes start being lobbed around. They have overplayed their hand.

      1. Pretty American says:

         June 2, 2020 at 5:21 pm

         “White Americans” is redundant. Just say “Americans,” who are by definition only white, a distinct ethnic group. Americans are white people born in the US or who came here so early in tbeir lives that they were formed in the US and have no connection to their birth nation. They speak American English as their first language and imbibed American culture effortlessly just by living their lives in the US, which is their country and no one else’s. Think about it: no black citizen of the US would ever call himself American, it would be “African American” or “black.” Same with mestizos and Asians. Only white Americans call themselves Americans, so let’s drop the “white” part. Not picking on you in particular, I see “white American” used all the time by writers on our side who are smarter and more gifted than I, but they should avoid redundancy.

         1. pg says:

            June 4, 2020 at 2:35 pm

            US American nationalism differs from the so called “national identity” asserted in many other countries which often refer to a particular ethnicity, culture, language, and race as the content of their national identity. The national identity of the US, a nation created by immigrants from different countries, ethnicities and cultures, was from the beginning founded on the belief that all Americans share the same “values”. If Americans are asked to explain what their national identity is they will usually refer to the American dream of “freedom and the pursuit of happiness” laid down in the American Constitution. Independent of where the people originated from, which ethnicity or race they belong to, what makes them Americans is that everyone has the same right to pursue his private interests, i.e. compete on equal terms at least in principle (“pursuit of happiness”). In this respect reference to a specific ethnicity, race or culture is not typical for the Americans who are often, but not always, proud to represent the unity of diversities or difference.

            The difference a nationalist sees between “us” and “them” is not necessarily functional from the state point of view. In times where the state’s economic might is based on international capitalism, where goods are exported and imported and immigrants contribute to the domestic work-force “trading partners” and “foreigners” are welcome if they contribute to the success of a capitalist nation. If the state defines foreigners as being useful for the state and for business then this political point of view might contrast with the nationalistic point of view of the “average American” who begs the state that “immigrants” and imported goods should not be permitted, who says, don’t let the foreigners steal “our jobs”, and “keep it made in America.”
   2. Hamburger Today says:

      June 2, 2020 at 3:32 pm

      I have been lately thinking about the ‘atomization’ you describe and the isolation to which it leads. This is an area where the Cause needs to look closely at itself to see what can be done to move the many Whites who are in the same situation into a less-isolated position. I see this as critical. It’s also central to our enemies strategy and that is the most difficult to overcome. We (still) have Gab (@Hamburger Today) and Telegram to chat. IRL is more complicated. Maybe someday, CC can grow to include a service that will vette and connect people or perhaps WhiteDate.Net can add a ‘friends’ aspect to allow like-minded folk to get together safely and securely.

      I’d like to encourage you to go easy on yourself. I get this sense that you feel you should be doing more or having more. Consider that the entire system is against the White Man in one form or another and that daily ‘playing the game’ is exhausting and doing it successfully enough to stay in the service industry is indicator of inner fortitude. Think of yourself as an enemy agent gathering intelligence that might come in handy at some future date.

      Stay strong. Whites survived an Ice Age, I think we’ll survive this.
6. Don says:

   June 2, 2020 at 1:18 pm

   Good essay. Good points all. They do it because they can and they can because they have the protection of the law and their victims don’t.
7. John Wilkinson says:

   June 2, 2020 at 2:56 pm

   …and because we won’t

   …do what is necessary
8. Ole Boy says:

   June 2, 2020 at 3:04 pm

   I listened to a podcast with Rush Limbaugh today with “the breakfast club”, Africa America’s voice in the morning. As would be expected, he was non confrontational and any time he was confronted with “we must end white supremacy”, Limbaugh would spout something about liberal this or liberal that. I’ve been hearing for years about this “conversation about race” that need to happen. Maybe someone from this site should try to arrange a real ”conversation”. We all know that “the club’s” (masters) would never allow this to happen. Call them out! First and last comment. Thank you.
9. Renzo says:

   June 2, 2020 at 3:22 pm

   Can I just point out that for years people from all sides of the Dissident Right have been calling Curt Doolittle and John Mark fedposting deluded weirdos (or actual feds) because they’ve been predicting a nation-wide shakeup of some kind and advocating separation as the most practical agenda to push?

   While everyone else has been busy infighting and endlessly critiquing and theorizing, “propertarians” have been formulating actual, concrete policies (even a revised constitution, in fact) and specific demands to rally white people around, in preparation for the moment even the normies would start feeling enough heat to really pay attention and look for leadership and a way out.

   Well, Civil War 2.0 and separation don’t seem so far-fetched anymore, do they?

   I’d love to hear a conversation between CC authors (ideally Greg) and John Mark, in light of the recent developments.

   Here’s his channel, for everyone who’s not aware of him.

   https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIGlVALFPYRROlXk511Cfhw/videos

   Super effective videos. Here’s a few of the best imo. Mostly targeted at right wing normies, but very interesting for us too.

   Propertarianism: the power of Western Civilization
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtD8sF8cKN0

   Civil War in America: who would win? (lots of data)
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJh7Ye1Qvc8&t=7s

   Reciprocity: the right wing’s moral authority
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EItVNVP_6yo&t=1273s

   Don’t talk like a leftist: truth-seeking hacks
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLj0vutFgF0

   1. John Wilkinson says:

      June 2, 2020 at 4:19 pm

      I maintain a degree of respect for Doolittle. I miss being on Facebook and reading his comments. He’s no fed. He’s brazen, and for sure underestimates the actual feds… but he himself is not a fed.
   2. Charles Dartington says:

      June 2, 2020 at 4:55 pm

      Agreed.
   3. Bruno Bucciaratti says:

      June 2, 2020 at 6:29 pm

      I’m familiar with John Mark. He did some good work when he first started on YouTube.

      I stopped taking him seriously when he said Law Enforcement would side with us WTSHTF. Say what you will about Charlottesville, it shattered that illusion forever.

      1. Renzo says:

         June 3, 2020 at 6:27 am

         I agree that law enforcement siding with a genuine White right wing insurrection or whatever seems very unlikely, BUT:

         1. as I recall, John Mark usually says that the police would be impotent against such a thing, simply because they don’t have remotely the numbers to counter an organized 4th generation warfare type force distributed across a huge continent, as they are barely sufficient to contain normal urban crime – they don’t have the numbers or the training for that kind of conflict, so they’re kind of out of the game

         2. John Mark does seem to believe that a majority of the MILITARY would side with what he calls “the winning right” (i.e., people who know the score about race and egalitarian, liberal ideals); but even there, he doesn’t say that they would 100% side with us, just that the rank and file would become unreliable enforcers for the current rulers, because too many of them would at the very least refuse to attack their own citizens and extended family members, so the military would be in chaos, and many, too many, would in fact defect to our cause.
         Consider 2/3 of even a largely non-white, feminist, tranny-infested military voted for Trump – now consider what Trump promised as a *candidate*, the dogwhistles, the 2016 energy. It’s not the cops that are tossed in the zionist meat-grinder by the hundred thousands. Also, the number of ex-military in the country – men with field experience, capable of tactical organization, trained with military weaponry and equipment etc. – apparently far exceed the number of active duty military personnel, so…

         Besides, the reason JM’s videos are interesting is not mainly Civil War 2 talk, but rather the ideas about what would follow, what kind of system could and should be implemented. Give him a second chance.

         1. Lord Shang says:

            June 3, 2020 at 4:00 pm

            I think that talk is interesting but premature. Racially freed whites will figure out our own needs very well. I want the Old Republic (minimal government, states’ [regions’] rights, free enterprise economy, strong moral traditionalism) sans nonwhites; Greg Johnson seems like more of a secular social democrat, sans nonwhites. See the commonality?

            All that matters is getting enough whites to recognize that the true “American experiment” (not self-government, but polyethnicity, and esp multiracialism) is a total failure; that WE would be better off without ‘minorities’ in our lives and polity; that we have a moral and a human (biological) right to separate peacefully; and that our children’s (and indeed, our own) futures are gravely, personally threatened by the continuation of this failed totalitarian experiment.

            And then, of course, actually gathering enough whites into a contiguous set of states, and laying the groundwork of previously passing “nonbinding state level resolutions” favoring secession, so that when the time is finally optimal, we simply declare ourselves independent. Would some Dishonest Abe wannabe actually send in Fed troops to force us to remain in the Union, esp if the nation were simultaneously convulsed, as now?

            I doubt it. “Lame-stream” CONservatives, esp in blue states like mine, would be our worst enemies, as they would recognize that, without us (and Dr. Johnson notwithstanding, most white racial preservationists, in America anyway, are more conservative than progressive/lefty), they would be as dominated by the Left as CA or NYC Republicans are by the Democrats today. But I doubt most such conservatives, being fundamentally good people and real if delusional Americans (apart from evil neocons), would actually send troops to fire upon us peaceful separators. And most people on the left, if they were at all rational, would welcome this separation as their best chance to achieve total domination, albeit in an America smaller than today’s.

            It really is peaceful separation or civil war and the collapse of civilization.

            1. Renzo says:

               June 3, 2020 at 5:16 pm

               “Peaceful separation or civil war and the collapse of civilization” is exactly how propertarians would put it.

               “That talk is interesting but premature etc”

               What Doolittle and Mark would say to that is that the system that led us here was obviously incapable of protecting us from infiltration and corruption, therefore a restoration of even the purest form of the Old Republic would be likely to lead to the same outcomes a few centuries or decades down the road. So we better have that talk now.

               We know Western Civilization is something special and unique that only we could have built, and we know whatever system newly race conscious, unified Whites would come up with would be pretty awesome. BUT ALSO, we better figure out what DIDN’T work in the past and come up with a stronger system this time around, preferably one that will make infiltration, corruption, and the slow slide into soft, feminine egalitarianism impossible.

               That’s what Propertarianism is all about.
            2. Jageo says:

               June 3, 2020 at 11:43 pm

               And will you pay your White Workers a living wage or treat them like coolies? And when they complain, will you threaten to bring in colored labor? And then do so on a “temporary” basis only of course? The Capitalist ethos is a huge part of the problem historically and presently.
10. John Wilkinson says:

    June 2, 2020 at 4:22 pm

    Meanwhile, George Will hates you too, Whitey

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/politics/george-will-donald-trump/index.html

    I probably associate with more blacks on any given day than George Will does in a year.
11. Rhodok says:

    June 2, 2020 at 11:38 pm

    If you like to see a kind-of liberal that is getting black pilled against his will, check out the youtube of Scott Adams no 1010. I like him despite his occasional leftism, but issue 1010 really stands out because he is almost begging to not be blackpilled.
    The big irony is of course that it is unavoidable. Though he will probably never be an ethno-nationalist, he may yet accept our idea’s as the only way forward, even when claiming all the way that it ought not to be so.
12. wanred says:

    June 3, 2020 at 12:40 am

    Weren’t some of your questions answered already?

    “On the other hand, many unanswered questions remain. Did Floyd have any pre-existing medical conditions? Were there any drugs in his system? Did he or did he not die of asphyxiation? Was Chauvin following official police protocol while restraining Floyd? I would like for all the evidence to be revealed after a thorough investigation before reaching a conclusion.”

    Source(s):

    “It came after the preliminary results the official autopsy claimed Floyd, 46, had not died from strangulation or asphyxiation
    It blames his death on a combination of heart disease, ‘potential intoxicants in his system’ and being placed in restraint by police officers”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8371557/George-Floyds-autopsy-claims-died-underlying-heart-conditions-not-strangulation.html
13. ghost town planner says:

    June 3, 2020 at 7:37 am

    “I will not help you hurt me or my own.”

    A guiding light for whites: ten words; one syllable each; iambic pentameter; chantable; terse.

    A statement expressioning the overarching principle directing and checking all my actions, reactions, policies, endorsements.

    The mantra principle is powerful. Use it.
14. Another Ghost says:

    June 4, 2020 at 12:10 am

    A weapon of mass destruction set to be unleashed upon the world. Civilized people will talk around the problem and quarrel with each other instead of addressing the poison rotting each nation away.

    Outsiders see what they are meant to see as they accept and absorb the excrement from an alien plane they understand only through the internet/television. Their behavior will internally adjust to suit such a situation and when met with opposing views or contradictions they will react aggressively. You have insulted their worldview . . . a worldview they have adopted from never having seen the world, but a worldview regardless. The “red pill/blue pill” and “Matrix” memes of time passed are more relevant than ever but now cliché and ineffective because everything we have is cliché and ineffective because this is no longer reality.

    A tribe would protect itself and each other not only by pointed weapon but by communicating with each other. Word and thought have become the weapons of ancient times. But truth does not matter, this is not reality – you will never craft a weapon capable of stopping billions of dollars of infinite voices crushing you into oblivion. That is their Ragnarok.

    Genius, science, truth etc. etc. are not factors anymore, they do not exist because this is not reality.

    Unleash this weapon, this weapon of unreality, against the world and watch it be eaten by every soul and watch those souls ravish themselves unto unreality. A biblical wrath set to fester upon the flesh of the world.

Comments are closed.