1,067 words
Much has been said in recent months about the cult of radical Leftism donning a veil of religious zealotry over the George Floyd death and Black Lives Matter protests. In truth, America’s excessively libertine, egalitarian idealism has always been a twisted morality play that relentlessly seeks to destroy the strong and healthy in favor of the weak. Nothing has really changed. Yet, the plot of this drama has taken an inexplicably twist in its most recent scenes.
For the last 70 years of post-war consensus, our dysfunctional Republic has adhered itself to the weak glue of civic patriotism, even if it was mostly just for show. Through this superficial form of patriotism, which is loosely tethered to Randian objectivism and selfish materialism, a deracinated and alienated people have managed to tolerate each other by focusing on individualistic pursuits and consumption.
Since the Civil War, American civic patriotism has been defined by the enemy without, rather than enemies within. Hitler, Japan, Communism, the USSR, jihadism, etc. These were unifying boogeymen that distracted us from the racial tempest within our own borders. But America’s taste for foreign conflict has grown sour with the never-ending War on Terror. With that shift in sentiments has come a renewed focus on domestic problems. Civic patriotism is dead, no matter what neocons do to resuscitate it, and in the wake of America’s death throes, radical Leftists have seized the opportunity to jockey for power within the Democratic Party.
Nothing does a better job of exposing this skin-deep faux patriotism than the pomp and circumstance of Independence Day. Still, as fragile as these civic bonds are, it is perplexing that the mainstream Left has openly embraced the dismantling of civic patriotism by Antifa and BLM. They are allowing these terrorist organizations to act as a solvent to corrupt what remains of American cohesiveness.
It’s tempting to blame this on “Orange Man Bad” Trump derangement syndrome, but at this point, it has transitioned into a full-blown revolution with a life of its own. A Joe Biden presidency will not be able to contain it, because they’re attacking the very institutions that the center-Left (that he’s helped manage) has adeptly exploited the last 70 years.
Over the July 4th holiday none of our once-sacred symbols, save for MLK monuments, were spared the wrath of this neo-Marxist Leviathan. One might even ponder the ultimate sanctity of shrines to King himself, once the mob figures out that his public message was one of reconciliation as opposed to the manic vengeance that propels their insurgency. It is inescapable at this point. Leftism has morphed beyond cultish religiosity to open insurrection against everything white, to even include iconic progressives like Woodrow Wilson as victims.
It doesn’t stop there! From Mount Rushmore to the “Star-Spangled Banner,” nothing is safe from the angry mob and its Woke Capital endorsers. One might even imagine Lady Liberty herself eventually becoming a target. One would also wonder what the game plan is here. To what end is this madness taking us?
Have the neo-Marxist rabble-rousers who have taken the driver’s seat in Left-wing politics really thought this through? What purpose could there possibly be in dousing the institutions of classical liberalism with kerosene and setting them on fire? Liberalism has succeeded, albeit tenuously, for a very long time at holding this rickety galleon of a country together. This is because it is an affirmative ethos, at once inspirational and lofty while naively idealistic. What this mob is pushing as their absolute value is anti-racism — a negative, caustic motivation that is supplemented with hateful anti-white rhetoric. The only logical conclusion to this course of action is one of two things: either racial separation or the wholesale mass slaughter of whites in open genocide.
Let me make myself crystal clear in this essay. Anti-racism has been the engine behind classical liberalism since the end of WW2. It is nothing new. It has been allowed to entrench itself only because classical liberalism tolerates it. This has worked for the duration, so long as anti-racism has been afforded a two-way street. Once academia saw fit to redefine racism as an affliction unique to whites, the trappings of liberalism had to be shed. This has culminated in the frenzy that we are witnessing today.
For hardened white nationalists, this idea is nothing new. We’ve been warning about this slippery slope for years. It started with Confederate monuments and symbols. The Virginia Battle Flag, statues of Robert E. Lee; these were early warning signs just a few short years ago. Still many of us, myself included, held onto a thread of hope that it would stop there. The unyielding attacks on Wilson, Churchill, and Saint Louis IX make it abundantly clear that all hope is now lost.
To be sure, the process will continue to be lingchi and not all-out-war, at least for the foreseeable future. Our demographic displacement hasn’t reached the requisite critical mass just yet. White self-hatred is certainly pandemic, but our racial esteem has not sunk so low as to voluntarily take cyanide pills. One has to hold out hope that something will give. The consequence of that is unmistakable. War. It will not be averted by Joe Biden or four more years of Trump. It will only be hastened by a black female presidency if and when that comes to pass. This path we’re on was inevitable. The trajectory we are on is irreversible. It has too much steam. Prepare yourself, it is coming.
Therefore it has never been more urgent that white people awaken and see the truth.
Voices such as Counter-Currents continue to be muted on social media. Deplatforming tactics escalate while Google suppresses search results. We are not alone, as sites like VDare, Amren, and even milquetoast libertarians such as Stefan Molyneux are targeted.
I truly believe that these tactics will prove to be futile, but ultimately that depends on the tenacity and veracity of dissidents. We can never relent in our mission to spread the truth.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
13 comments
At my age, after having been aroused to the problem of ‘race relations’ at about age 15. it has been 55 years of bitching and whining and moaning, almost word for word, from the Black community, and this past month was the icing on the cake. I only hope it won’t take the Millennials and current crop of protestors 55 years to learn that this accusation of ‘racism’ NEVER ends, no matter what you do. They will always come up with another sad story, another button to push in your young heart. Only time tells you the truth. Well, time has brought me White Nationalism and brilliant rays of light — through the writings and comments here — to give me hope that we can leave this insanity behind, and learn to ignore them, and have a place of our own to flee to. I doubt genocide will occur, though we are outnumbered nearly 10 to 1 on the planet, but we are mostly armed, both with weapons as well as superior tactical alertness in our genes, developed over thousands of years. We’re OK, they’re not.
Five possible reactions for whitey:
1) Fncking die already
2) Grovel harder
3) Ignore & hope
4) Race realism (ethno nationalism)
5) Become the racist they fear
I am afraid that many people will not even pause at option 4 but go directly to option 5.
Optiions 4 and 5 are not mutually exclusive but, more importantly, they don’t amount a political solution to the problem. I believe that we can present a rhetoric that is both true and persuasive to all parties in this conflict except (((the instigators))).
The reason this conflict is possible, even necessary is because of the erosion of social capital within every community in America except the Jews. And the most important resource in social capital is trust.
My belief is that openly talking about people not trusting each other is a good way to get to the question of races not being able to live together in close proximity, emphasizing that the point of the enterprise of racial separation isn’t separation per se, but the restoration of conditions of trust within communities, a restoration of community standards within different exclusive communities.
We need to make it clear that separation is not segregation. Under segregation, one race held all of the social, political and economic cards while another race played the hand they were dealt. Under separation, the different communities run their own show. Members of the community own all the resources of production within their territory. Over time, all non-ethnics must divestment their holdings in these communities.
As absurd as it may seem, ‘Trust us’ may be the best slogan WN’s can use. We know we’re not the bad guys the Jews make us out to be. And my guess is that just about every WN or Kluxer can name at least one non-White that they know who is ‘one of the good ones’. My point is that we go directly at racial tension and racial separation as a matter of creating trust communities for the American races and American ethnoi.
My impression is that Blacks know Whites don’t want to be around them and that knowledge is something the try to repress as much as possible because it’s painful. Perhaps what really needs to be said is that their ‘bad eggs’ make them all look bad and Whites don’t want to be forced to be among them. With a choice however, we might be able to build a new lever of trust, of courtesy and respect that will allow the races to form a new, healthier relationship.
I agree that options 4 & 5 are not only not-mutually-exclusive, but in the very long term (> 10.000 years) are in fact the same. However I may be completely wrong about that, and in any case that is currently not even on the horizon yet, hence I split them into two options.
About Trust
It may even be a more perfect strategy than you realize as trust is an inherently white-european thing. I.e. it will appeal on a sub-conscious level to all whites (probably including the extreme left) from western european descent. But it will not appeal much to anybody else.
It undermines the left, it appeals to all whites, and non-whites don’t know why we find that so important.
I do think ‘trust’ effective as the central metaphor of an above-ground racial nationalist movement. Since I’m not keen on deception as a political strategy, I think ‘trust’ should be tied to an open admission that the end-goal is to transition the peoples of North America to a confederation of ethnostates. During the transition, the goal will be to build up trust between the races and ethnicities as much as possible as well as informal enforcement of separation to further the creation of ethnostates.
Whether non-Whites can fully understand the intensity of White feeling for trust in relationships, I think it would be fair to say that trust is at least aspirational for non-Whites and would have it’s appeal. Certainly it would be hard to be an opponent to a political enterprise based on trust.
When we look at factors that increase trust (and these have been researched) then a big contributor is homogeneous societies. Hence that would be an implicit outcome from a strategy centred around trust.
I would not call it a deceptive strategy, it would be very very real. The fact that it dos not work to well for non-whites does not matter at all imo. Whites would flock to it.
Does trust appeal to non-whites?
I would not know. Maybe, maybe not. I tend towards not, at least not in the same way it does to us. For example I would guess that for hispanics trust would run along family lines, for Chinese it would probably run along burocratic lines. It seems that only for whites trust is a thing an sich.
I believe that ‘galvanizing’ politics has its place. By which I mean, where a political enterprise enters a phase where stark contrasts between ‘us’ and ‘them’ are the only way to consolidate a following and direct communal energies toward a task. But galvanization is at tactic, not a strategy and must come at the right time. Whites are no longer the majority in the US. Whites are not even on the ‘same page’ as regards race. If, by some miracle, pro-White Whites acquire territory for an ethnostate, 60% of the country would try to destroy it. ‘Trust and Transition’ is a way to reduce the number of active racial enemies WN’s have to contend with. A multi-racial party dedicated to ethnostates would have both the moral high ground and be able to A-B test various methods for accomplishing a find confederacy of ethnostates. At this point, I think the strategic — as well as moral — thing to do is avoid making enemies where none need be made and to encourage the creation of conditions for coalition.
I may be misunderstanding your message, or we may be talking cross purposes.
Appealing to ‘trust’ will -imo- only work on whites. But without antagonising non-whites. They simply don’t care about it, it is not on their radar. No matter how you try to use ‘trust’.
Personally I had a great AHA moment when I understood that how I feel about insubstantials like ‘trust’, ‘truth’, ‘logic’ etc are -indeed- personal. Other people feel them differently. While people of the same race will typically share the same kind of feeling towards insubstantials, this should not be projected onto people of other races. It can work for some feelings, but with others we would be completely wrong.
Things like ‘trust’ were developed as a genetic trait in western europeans, it should -imo- not be projected onto other races without accounting for (genetic) differences between the races.
I think we were just misunderstanding each other. ‘Trust’ as a central ideal avoids galvanization by some races while resonating with White people. It’s not as political as ‘solidarity’ (though that is the end-goal) or as esoteric as gemütlichkeit. Also, as you point out, social capital (trust) is measurable, so a political movement based upon ‘trust’ can empiricially evaluate progress/failure.
More of the same. How does it even make sense that they’ve targeted an abolitionist statue?
It’s perplexing, but yet it all makes sense in the face of genocide. Even a black slave is evil if he didn’t hate white people and participated in white civic society.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/06/frederick-douglass-statue-torn-down-rochester-new-york-anniversary-july-4-speech?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1
Making sense is a white thing.
You should have asked that question a long time ago, Mr. Wilkinson.
When “Holocaust” education became compulsory for your children and “Holocaust” museums sprouted like mushrooms (if my count is correct, 73 in the US only), we should have seen it coming. Especially since we knew the “Holocaust” narrative is 90% fake, an artificial distortion of events – much like the Floyd story, aimed at bending knees – we should have asked what the game plan is and to what end the “Holocaust” madness will take us.
But exactly like in the preceding World Wars, you thought you are on the right side of history. You didnt realize that the whole white race was targeted by the usual suspects, not just one white tribe.
The White Guilt Cult is a frenchise, the original show was the “Holocaust”. The BLM guilt cult is only a new implementation. Expect others to be seen.
And dont worry about the statues of Wilson and Churchill. They brought us into this mess.
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