Just download and print!
2,068 words
French translation here, German translation here
The Left characterizes the United States and other white countries around the world as systems of “white supremacy” and “white privilege.”
White Nationalists claim that the United States and most other white countries are committed to “white genocide”: the “great replacement” of whites by nonwhites, which is the predictable consequence of political decisions to promote sub-replacement white fertility, race-mixing, and race-replacement immigration.
Which of these diametrically opposed positions is true?
There’s an easy way to find out. In a white supremacist society, you should be able to declare that “It’s okay to be white” without controversy or consequences.
Indeed, in a white supremacist society, the only criticism you might receive is for being too tepid. After all, “okay” simply means “adequate but not especially good.” It is the equivalent to giving white existence a grade of “C.” Being white is apparently nothing to envy, but you wouldn’t kill yourself over it either.
You can buy It’s Okay to Be White: The Best of Greg Johnson here.
When the slogan “It’s okay to be white” first appeared on 4chan’s /pol/ in 2017, it was promoted as a diagnostic tool to help convince “normies” that we live under anti-white regimes. After all, how could anyone object to “It’s okay to be white”?
The slogan does not claim that being white is great. It does not claim that being white is better. It merely says that being white is okay, which is the faintest possible praise. Furthermore, “It’s okay to be white” says nothing at all about other races. It certainly doesn’t denigrate them.
So on what grounds could one object to saying “It’s okay to be white”? As Tucker Carlson put it, “What’s the correct position? That it’s not okay to be white?”
If multiculturalism is truly an ideology of equality and inclusion, then multiculturalists should have no problem saying “It’s okay to be white.” They would grant it the same status as “Black is beautiful” and “It’s okay to be different.” Indeed, whiteness is one form of difference.
Clearly, one could object to a statement as innocuous as “It’s okay to be white” only if one really has something against white people, specifically a deep hatred or prejudice. This is why it is such a useful diagnostic tool.
“It’s okay to be white” flyers and stickers were posted widely in the United States and other white countries, primarily in the Anglosphere. As its creators predicted, the slogan provoked an immediate and intense backlash, far out of proportion to the inoffensive message.
Upon seeing “It’s okay to be white” signs and stickers, the first reaction of hundreds of people was to call the police. This can be verified simply by entering the words “police” and “It’s okay to be white” in the search engine of your choice. (DuckDuckGo gives the best results.) This happened even in the United States, where the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects freedom of speech. Here are a couple of my favorite headlines:
- “Sickening to Know People Think Like This” – Police Investigate “It’s Okay to Be White” Signs in Scotland
- 150+ Cases of Outrage, Manhunts over “It’s OK to be White,” Poster Activist Responds
Indeed, sometimes people deemed these posters too hot for the local cops to handle, so the Federal Bureau of Investigation was called in:
To put this in context, ask yourself how many flyers and stickers you see in a typical day. Dozens? On a university campus, you might see hundreds. Then ask yourself how many times you were tempted to call the police. Most people would have to answer: never. But when hundreds of people saw “It’s okay to be white,” they were convinced that it is illegal—or that it should be.
Once the police were called, of course the press were alerted, and locals were asked to share their opinions about the flyers. Most people interviewed are certain that “It’s okay to be white” constitutes “hate speech,” even though it says nothing negative or hateful about anyone.
I’ll pull quotes from just one article to give a sense of the sort of statements that are typical: John Swinney, Deputy First Minister of the Scottish Government, declared: “This is atrocious and has no place in Perth or any other part of our country. We must stand together to resist this unacceptable material.” Peter Barrett, a Perth councilor, said: “This is despicable hate speech. It is covert racism disguising white supremacist views. People should be in no doubt this is no innocuous joke.” Local antiracists claimed that people of color had called to share their feelings. The “terrifying attitudes” expressed by “It’s okay to be white” made them feel “sickened,” “disgusted,” and “unsafe.”
My favorite political statement comes from Mayor William Dickinson, Jr. of Wallingford, Connecticut: “whoever posted the signs reading ‘It’s okay to be white’ don’t speak for the people of Wallingford,” he declared, speaking for the people of Wallingford.
Given that higher education is a citadel of the extreme Left throughout the white world, reactions to “It’s okay to be white” on university campuses are especially extreme, as one can see by typing the phrase plus the word “campus” into any search engine. Here are my favorite headlines:
- “It’s OK to Be White” Flyers Lead to Promise of “Severest Disciplinary Action” by Western Conn. State U.
- Ohio universities involve FBI in investigation of “It’s okay to be white” and white nationalist group’s postings on campus
- Oklahoma law school student is questioned by FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and expelled for posting “It’s Okay to be White” flyers on campus
Naturally, university administrators—especially in Podunk schools—can be counted on for the most vehement denunciations of “It’s okay to be white.” The fulminations of President John Clark of Western Connecticut State University are typical: “I want to state directly and without equivocation that if any member of our university community is found to be party to these revolting actions they will be subject to the severest disciplinary actions, including dismissal as well as possible civil and criminal actions.” These are not empty threats. A student at Oklahoma City University School of Law was expelled for posting “It’s okay to be white” and ended up talking to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.
My favorite “It’s okay to be white” story is from Australia (75% white), where Senator Pauline Hanson of the nationalist One Nation Party proposed a non-binding statement condemning anti-white racism and declaring “It’s okay to be white.” Although politicians constantly append their names to all manner of high-minded but empty proclamations, and although not a single Senator in Australia should have had a problem with affirming that “It’s okay to be white,” the resolution was narrowly defeated on October 15, 2018.
Is any of this behavior consistent with the claim that the United States and other white countries are systems of “white supremacism” and “white privilege”? Obviously not. If we lived in a white supremacist system, people would be afraid to call the police about “It’s okay to be white” flyers and stickers. College administrators would be afraid to threaten students with punishment. Legislators would be afraid to vote against “It’s okay to be white.” But instead, they know that the entire establishment—political, business, media, and academic—is anti-white. Thus it will approve of their behavior and give them a pat on the head.
But just how anti-white is this system? Is it really committed to white genocide? One can interpret “It’s okay to be white” in at least two ways. The most natural reading is “It’s good to be white.” But the word “okay” is such tepid praise that maybe we should interpret the phrase more along these lines: “It is acceptable to be white,” or better, “It is acceptable for white people to be—to exist,” or “Don’t kill yourself over being white.”
You can buy Greg Johnson’s From Plato to Postmodernism here
A society in which one can be punished for merely asserting that “It is acceptable for white people to exist” is obviously hostile to the very existence of whites. It is a society in which it is unacceptable for white people to exist. But if this is true, wouldn’t it be natural to explore ways of getting rid of whites altogether? The genocidal implications are obvious.
One might counter that those who object to “It’s okay to be white” do not object to the existence of white people but merely to white pride and white self-assertion. Of course, “It’s okay to be white” is not a statement of pride and self-assertion. It is absurdly unassuming, almost an apology for existing. But even that is apparently too much self-worth for the preachers of “white guilt” and self-abnegation.
However, even the ideology of “white guilt” is implicitly genocidal. First of all, there is no path to absolution from white guilt. As long as non-whites are unequal to whites, whites will somehow be held guilty. And because inequality is natural, it will always exist. Second, we live in a world of racial strife, and a race without pride or self-assertiveness—a race burdened with eternal guilt and self-reproach—will fall prey to races without such handicaps.
The best-case scenario is that whites will forever be poisoned with spurious guilt for the inadequacies of others, then milked for free stuff. In short: slavery. The worst-case scenario is outright genocide. And given that violence and instability increase with diversity, orderly factory-farm slavery is the least likely outcome. Thus objecting to white pride—or even mere white “okayness”—is ultimately objecting to white existence as such.
Do the people who object to “It’s okay to be white” consciously promote white genocide, or do they know not what they do? Most of them don’t know what they are doing. White genocide is the long-term result of the principles they act on, but most people don’t think about the long-term. They unwittingly promote white genocide while thinking they are being moral, pragmatic, or even selfish, because they know that they will be rewarded for anti-white signaling.
The great value of “It’s okay to be white” is that when one attacks such banal pro-white sentiments, it brings the implicitly genocidal programming of the Left very close to the surface. If you get hysterical about white people merely existing and not feeling suicidal about it, what do you really stand for anyway?
Of course, the real point of “It’s okay to be white” is not to save the souls of anti-whites but to educate ordinary people. This is why we need to keep “It’s okay to be white” constantly in the news. The same is true with “All Lives Matter,” which can get you killed. More to the point is “White Lives Matter,” which can get you fired.
Force the Left to say “It’s not okay to be white.” Force them to say “White lives don’t matter.” And make sure that everyone knows it. Also, be sure to take down names. If a doctor, lawyer, professor, or politician does not think it is okay to be white, then how can he be trusted to serve the interests of whites? White racists are routinely fired on the assumption that they cannot deal professionally with non-whites. Anti-white racists need to be held to the same standard. A white person would have to be nuts to go under the knife of a surgeon who says “White lives don’t matter.” We would be foolish to expect anti-white professors to grade us justly. Whites must be protected from such people. It is our job to hold institutions accountable.
When the entire establishment comes together to denounce “It’s okay to be white” or “White lives matter,” it decisively refutes the Left’s thesis that we live in systems of white supremacism and privilege. It also exposes that multiculturalism does not envision a world in which whites enjoy equality and harmony with other groups.
The multiculturalist utopia does not envision whites at all.
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.
20 comments
I take great pleasure from the fact this statement enrages our enemies. They of course want it shut down because it exposes the hypocrisy of their cucking and virtue-signalling, while simultaneously showing sleeping Whites the hatred others have for them. We need to really push it more, and of course create others using humour – another weapon we have which puts the left in hissy fits.
This was an excellent effort for several reasons. One of them is that it drove the usual suspects berserk, making cringeworthy denunciations about innocuous counterpropaganda. It puts them on the defensive to make them act like pearl-clutching Victorians on the fainting couch suffering from a case of the vapours. By all means, let’s keep making them look stupid.
Well, I assume I’m stating the obvious, what elites object to in “its ok to be white” is the implication that the prevailing political temperature is that people think it’s not ok to be white. That in fact minorities are not hated, marginalized and made to feel unwelcome, but in fact the pendulum has swung beyond some tipping point and whites are despised(the truth). Hence they must vigorously shout down this rhetorical play by whites.
“All lives matter” is similar in its rhetorical strategy. The implication is that we are in fact not acting on reckless and sadistic disregard for black lives, but hold all lives to be sacred. That’s trying to deny and cover up the problem of the wanton slaughter of blacks and the indifference of the broader white population(nonexistent except in rare cases).
Elites are highly vigilant to these rhetorical strategies and contortionist themselves into an Orwellian tangle trying to demonize and stamp out these statements. Demonization merely requires social disapproval which generally comes from above, especially if backed by legal or social consequence. There need be no logical rigor behind it.
Let white flight become white fight.
I try to put up this poster, as is, on Facebook at least every other day, in my “What’s on your mind” window, the first thing that pops up on FB. However, I add something else to the mix — as an Art History student, I find wonderful 19th Century portraits of lovely White ladies (and men, though women predominate), or a group of Whites relaxing in a park or by the sea, and post that beside it. Auguste Renoir has many fine such portraits of ladies, and mothers and children. The Pre-Raphaelites as well present fascinating portraits of contemporary — for their time — women, posing as Greek Goddesses or figures from mythical scenes. Yet, the plot thickens — when I visited the Birmingham, England Art Museum last summer, it seems there was an ‘uproar’ over these paintings by the ‘people of color’ art historians, critics and art scholars. It seems, they feel, that this style and period of portraits depicts all women in a bad light (i.e., offensive to feminists), and they particularly dislike the Pre-Raphaelites, who used only White models for their paintings and other artworks. So, if you wish to ‘spice up’ your posts, add these portraits alongside “It’s OK to be White” posts online. Nothing is sacred to these Leftist loonies, and we have to attack on all fronts. And, as well, the men who see these magnificent portrayals of women will be thinking twice about losing them to Leftist nonsense.
Post it with something by Ingres or JL David like Napoleon on His Imperial Throne, Oath of the Horatii, or maybe Jupiter and Thetis.
It would be tempting to append it on a separate page with, “And sometimes it’s pretty awesome,” but I know we aren’t supposed to do that.
The Australian story is actually even worse than suggested here.
The motion was initially passed with support from the Liberal party (our ‘conservatives’ – Australia is very upside down, I know). It was after media uproar that they came out and said it was a mistake and put it to a vote again. The second motion was the one that failed.
The Seven Stages of It’s OK to Be White:
A blank piece of paper
It’s OK
It’s OK to Be
It’s OK to Be White
It’s OK to Be Pro-White
It’s OK to be Pro-White and Advocate
It’s OK to be Pro-White and Advocate for a Separate Homeland
PS Imagine what would happen if you posted any of the first three in a workplace or school. The Enemy immune system would be thrown into a tizzy.
We must secure our existence as a people, and a future for white children.
Otherwise this is their fate:
https://disrn.com/news/man-arrested-after-viral-photo-shows-him-kneeling-on-white-toddlers-neck-in-support-of-blm
What they really are afraid of is that one morning White people will wake up with a racial consciousness and then the revolution would begin.
It’s not so much the slogan It’s OK To Be White (elegant in its simplicity) but the mere fact that Whites will start thinking of themselves as a people with collective interests.
One can understand why the fabled people of color would fret over a reawakened White racial consciousness, superficially viewing it as a precursor to a return to segregation and European colonialism. More critically, an awakened White world would quickly and ruthlessly put an end to the race hustles, the shakedowns, the mass migrations and the riotous insurrections. Not to mention there would be some long overdue payback for the iconoclasm, the farm-attacks, the sex-slavery rings and the destruction of cities built by White people from Detroit to Malmo.
The real question is why does the White nomenklatura go along with this farce, from mayors of New England cities to the campus commissars? Reading their pearl clutching statements on the It’s OK To Be White flyers one is reminded of the ritual denunciations of blasphemers, heretics, Trotskyite wreckers and Goldsteinian thoughtcriminals. It’s like they have been handed a script with the usual buzzwords, generated by echelons of much higher pay grades and to be repeated as mantras. If the System is so fragile that all it takes is five innocuous words to shake it to its core, one wonders how long it would last in the face of a general pro-White information ops campaign.
There’s a meta-angle here. The point can be raised: why is It’s OK To Be White not covered by the First Amendment? Use this issue to attack the contradictions of the System. And show White Nationalists to be the advocates of Free Speech.
It’s the White thing to do.
“The real question is why does the White nomenklatura go along with this farce, from mayors of New England cities to the campus commissars?”
But that is always the real question. It goes back to whites as evolutionarily defective, or at least maladapted to this particular sociobiophilosophical bottleneck. I didn’t fully awaken to this aspect of white psychology until about 20 years ago. For decades before that, I kept thinking – naively, I now see – that one day whites would awaken from their racial slumber if only enough could be presented with the truths about racial reality. For that to happen, I recognized that somehow we had to get around liberal/Jewish mass media and school control. I long assumed that in turn would require sheer relentless individual activism and truth-dissemination (Person A awakens Person B who awakens Person C, etc), as well as some “breakthrough” charismatic political leadership to hasten the process and build the mass political movement necessary for real change.
Finally, I thought that for this to be effective, white preservationists had to re-seize the moral narrative, or at least demonstrate the justice of our demands (in terms which appeal to – would be seen as morally acceptable by – modal White Christians). I have long understood that our positions, at least in their moderate, ‘defensive’ form (that we want peaceful territorial separation along with political secession and new sovereignty), are perfectly ethically allowable, if not mandatory (ie, those white Americans – the group which founded and built this nation – who never wanted to be subjected to totalitarian racial integration/conquest, and who wished to preserve the ethically acceptable racial status quo ex ante – to continue to inhabit a White America, must be afforded the opportunity to live in their birthright manner now denied to them; otherwise WE are victims of ongoing ‘systemic’ racial injustice {in addition to the innumerable specific harms we have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of both nonwhites and white race traitors}).
Thus, I was very excited by four contemporaneous sets of events across the 90s. First was the founding in 1990 of the race realist but not racist American Renaissance (at the time I was already a multi-year subscriber to Instauration, which I liked a lot, but could see Christians might find objectionable). AR just reported the facts, the science and sociology, of race, without distracting (if understandable) invective or falsehoods. I strongly supported this approach, and thought it would herald new race realist breakthroughs among at least conservatives – that the facts and arguments offered in AR would eventually seep into mainstream conservative discourse, gradually awakening ever more whites to the nation-wrecking racial policy mistakes (coercive integration/”civil rights” and mass immigration) of the Sixties. The same year also saw the inauguration of the anti-immigration quarterly The Social Contract. Chronicles magazine throughout this time was also publishing brilliant essays by an increasingly racial nationalist Samuel Francis.
Second were the race or nationalist-oriented candidacies of David Duke in Louisiana (1990, 1991), and Pat Buchanan (1992, 1996 [his 2000 Reform Party effort was hobbled from the start]) and Ross Perot (1992, 1996) at the Presidential level. Duke came close to a state triumph; Buchanan and the less ethnonationalist Perot made good shows in their races, esp 1992 for Perot, and 1998 for Buchanan. Although none of these three won anything, I thought a new era of America First civic nationalism – a movement which would reduce or halt the nonwhite immigration invasion, and be a precursor to a future white nationalism – was aborning.
Third was the slew of race realist and nationalist books that started to get published by more or less mainstream publishers as early as 1991, which I think was the publication date of Jared Taylor’s Paved With Good Intentions. The next half dozen years gave us, inter alia, Seligman, A Question of Intelligence; Itzkoff, The Decline of Intelligence in America; Herrnstein, Murray, The Bell Curve; Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behavior; Brimelow, Alien Nation; Lynn, Dysgenics (later that decade also, Eugenics: A Reassessment; still later, many other similar titles); MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone (and Separation and its Discontents, and the Culture of Critique towards the end of the 90s); Williamson, The Immigration Mystique; Levin, Why Race Matters; Jensen, The g Factor. These were, I repeat, all published by mainstream publishers. There were also many excellent books published by specialized racialist or nationalist outfits, like Nelson, America Balkanized, and Pearson, Race, Intelligence, and Bias in Academe, and Heredity and Humanity; along with the newly 2020-relevant Chittum, Civil War Two.
Finally, a fourth source of optimism was the general public’s increasing impatience with (mostly black) thugs and their violent street crime. Tolerance of street crime, an ever-worsening problem from the mid-60s to the mid-90s, dramatically declined from the mid-80s on, resulting in a host of salutary changes in the 90s. Many states saw huge improvements in citizens’ Second Amendment rights, from eased restrictions on “concealed carry” firearms possession, to newly strengthened “your home is your castle” laws, making it easier for lawful persons to protect themselves from home invaders without fear of later liberal (“anarcho-tyrannical”) prosecution for killing the criminals. The NRA saw notable increases in membership. Many states, including “blue” ones, enacted “three strikes and you’re out” mandatory prison sentences to circumvent liberal thug-coddling judges. Other reforms, like stricter bail and probationary provisions, were also widely legislated. Finally, the virtually ‘salvational’ election of Rudy Giuliani as mayor of then-dying (perhaps today as well) New York City inaugurated a new era in smarter and more proactive policing, recognizing that NOT tolerating small, “quality of life” crimes (aka, “broken windows policing”) would alleviate generalized conditions of disorder and in turn lead to a reduction of more serious crimes. These policing improvements would spread across the country.
Together, these sets of reforms – more respected firearms freedoms, longer prison sentences for thugs, and more aggressive policing – and these alone, led to dramatic, measurable decreases in all forms of violent crime, something today’s “millennial” morons don’t recognize (but soon will, as crime continues its predictable, post-“Floyd” explosion).
Together, these sets of events led me to a sense of racial optimism in the 90s. All that was needed, I thought, to trigger a mass white racial awakening was some means to bypass the leftist media. And then came the commercialized internet.
(To be continued.)
Lord Shang presents a good summary of the situation in the 1990s, especially the points about the implications of the law and order campaigns.
I was involved in some activism during that era. There were two basic fronts:
1) Building an activist conservative-rightist student movement, especially to retake the campuses.
2) Countering the rising tide of anti-White identity politics, then just in their incipient stage.
These things were frequently discussed by young conservatives, often in hushed tones in hotel suites off of big dollar GOP candidate fund raisers or dorm rooms outposts on lefty campuses.
And the 1990s were probably the last time the country could have been turned around without a major struggle. The US was still basking in the glow of the Reagan administration and, if nothing else, the rise of Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America indicated that the Republicans were in position to take decisive action. Conceivably, a Republican Congress could have pushed through legislation ending affirmative action and the other anti-White programs, especially on campus. The Republicans could also have supported conservative student organizations (via funding, lawyers, media platforms) and turned them into a major activist force (think of a rightwing version of the 1960s counterculture).
To give one example: rightwing talk radio hosts might have routinely given a forum to campus conservative activists, and up front coverage of protest actions against leftist university administrations: “This is Bob Dornan broadcasting live from UC Berkeley where conservative students are conducting a sit-in at the student union to demand the university support White South Africans against the terrorist Nelson Mandela.”
But insofar as there was conservative activism, it was channeled into supporting mainstream GOP politicians who, once elected, disappeared into distant capitols and obscure think tanks, never implementing anything useful other than issuing the occasional fund raising letter. It’s worth listening to Sam Dickson’s experiences with YAF for insights into this thing.
And while the conservative elites were flocking to their Beltway country clubs, rightist street activists were left to fight on their own against the rising tide of cultural marxism and anti-White identity fronts. If nothing else, the failure of Republican leaders to rally behind the Whites of South Africa indicated the permeation of egalitarian ideology into the elites, and presaged even greater capitulations to come.
We are today living with the consequences.
But it is never too late to learn the lessons – and take action.
A still better slogan would be: “Anti-White racism is not OK”. Objections to that slogan would mean that anti-White racism is OK, and expose our opponents as racist. It would also put the very idea of “anti-White racism” into the center of attention and put our opponents on the defense. Or try: “Whites have rights too”.
This is a kind of propaganda Judo, using the power of your opponent against himself.
They would just deny such a thing existed since it goes against their semi-religious dictum that Whites can’t be racist because they have the power. It’s ok to be White goes underneath all this and that is its power. Of course your accusatory statement follows logically and is a going on the offensive – it might be appropriate at some point once they were softened up with “It’s ok to be White.”
People generally expect white people to be nice. That makes it easier for white people to get a job or rent an apartment. From the perspective of a nice black guy, that’s not fair.
This is a definitive treatment of “It’s Okay to Be White” and the reactions to it. But I’d like to go back to Schmidt. Something has been bugging me. I don’t see how his views of the political could be consistent with those of the ancient Greeks.
It was my understanding that the Greeks distinguished sharply between the public and private spheres of human activity, and reserved the political—the life of the polis—for the former, as what transpired among fellow citizens, that is, friends. Relations between the polis and foreign entities, that is, potential enemies, were not political. This is the view put forward by Hannah Arendt in The Human Condition, and it seems to accord with Greek history and philosophy.
The public sphere (the polis) was the domain of freedom, not necessity. It was characterized by equality, speech, and freedom. It was the domain of the distinctively human, that which separates us from other animals (speech and reason). The private sphere, the oikos or household, was the realm of necessity, in which the functions we share with other animals were carried out: eating, drinking, sleeping, procreating. Relations between the citizens of a polis and foreigners were mostly financial and hence private; thus our term “economics,” from “oikos-nomos.”
The private sphere was characterized by inequality (women, slaves, children, animals); force and command, instead of speech and rational persuasion. A citizen must master the private domain before he could emerge into the public sphere of freedom. The person who shunned the public life was the “idiotos,” someone who lived in his own private world.
The polis was not so much a physical space as the psychical space constituted by the aggregation of free (male) citizens. The public or political, indeed, reality itself, is what is revealed by speech, since meanings are public.
So there seems to be a marked difference between the Greek view of the political and that of Schmidt. Normal public affairs among friends/citizens was the essence of the political for the Greeks, but evidently not for Schmidt.
I see the teachings of Arendt and Schmitt as complementary, with Arendt’s “Human Condition” a sort of recasting of Heidegger (and Aristotle) for an American audience. Political action, in Arendt, is a substitute for Heidegger’s clearing of Being; it constitutes a shared disclosure of authentic differences and meaning among men. What ultimately lends political action its seriousness and truth, however, is the possibility of the city’s destruction by a competing city or people, which is to say, the anticipation of the city’s death (or enslavement of its citizens after defeat). Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction draws it force from the real possibility of physical killing or demise. “A people which exists in the political sphere cannot, despite entreating declarations to the contrary, escape from making this fateful distinction. If a part of the population declares that it no longer recognizes enemies, then, depending on the circumstance, it joins their side and aids them . . . . If a people no longer possesses the energy or the will to maintain itself in the sphere of politics, the latter will not thereby vanish from the world. Only a weak people will disappear.”
Reb Kittredge notes that, in Arendt, “the political—the life of the polis—[is] what transpired among fellow citizens, that is, friends.” But Reb–and to some extent, Arendt–begs the question of what the many speeches and glorious actions among citizens concern. Ultimately that concern is to perpetuate the city’s freedom & identity, to hand-down its distinctive character to future generations, to ensure that it does not disappear in the face of enemy peoples.
Also, I am not sure where Rob finds textual support in Arendt for his assertion “relations between the polis and foreign entities . . . were not political.” Yes, Arendt distinguishes quite rigorously between the public and private realms, much as Schmitt strives to separate the political from the economic, the moral, the aesthetic, and so forth. But merely because ordinary intercourse with a foreign entity is often economic in nature does not eliminate the fact–quoting Schmitt again–“that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible.”
In a free society there would be no need to say, “It’s okay to be white.”
It would be an innately understood truth.
I’ve printed off 75 pages. Lets see how this goes. It’s not the most heroic gesture, but we must take risk and show courage in all aspects. I intend to spread the obvious message for all of us.
Agitate all you want with the Its Ok To Be White. They will just continue shrieking about it and accuse you of being racist. Just dont get caught, who knows what they might charge you with. Police investigations of flyers. I would laugh except its true. But its A-OK to destroy statues and riot/loot.
The best thing that could have happened is now happening. The left and globalists have revealed just what they think about whites. They want you dead and erased. End of story. Even liberal whites are now scared. Thats why in the blue north east states gun sales are up 1000%. And everyone is buying them for the same exact reason .
Hate to burst everyone’s bubble but whites will not do anything until something really drastic happens to them. Right now whites are just trying to say afloat and keep what they have. In other words the left has to hurt them badly. Dont worry though, if the left gets all three parts in November it just might happen. Any one or combination of these these things might be the trigger:
-Confiscation of assets (houses, land, cars, boats, savings, retirement, etc..) to be redistributed to minorites.
-Firearms confiscation.
-Legally defining whites as oppressors with legal sanctions put in place. We are almost there with this via affirmative action.
-Mass firings of whites in companies to be replaced with minorities. This has already been done to some degree with H1Bs. However it could easily be extended beyond whats being done now.
-Permanent violence against whites at all levels – rapes, robbings, murder. We have this already with Antifa and BLM but it can easily be amped up.
-Amnesty for illegals.
-Open borders.
-Massive increases in taxation to pay for handouts.
If people think the left is going to back off, they are wrong. The elite who provide the money to the left have doubled down on this. Witness all the corporations and govmt turds pandering to BLM and Antifa.
Realize one thing – globalists and communists are two sides of the same coin. They will never stop and never go away.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.