You are here because you are convinced of the rightness of your ideas. This is not meant in a specific, epistemological sense; as in, your ideas have been verified by some kind of universal truth or that they are backed by data drawn from rigor, though these things could be applied to many of the ideas we hold on the Right. I mean that you are convinced enough of what you hold to be true that you are taking a risk in upholding it, even in the face of great adversaries. Even browsing Counter-Currents comes with some small personal risk, which is to say nothing of being someone who has their boots on the ground or their face towards the public.
The truth that we uphold on the Right is one that is affirmed through lived experience in ways that can be both eye-opening or even overwhelming and disheartening to people who feel as though they’ve been violently shaken awake. It is far from ideology, in which one claws at experiences that validate a worldview easily modified to make sense, an exhausting game of acrobatics that helps a person escape the dreaded brain-buzz of cognitive dissonance. No, white nationalism lies upon a very simple premise — the races of the world are better off going their own ways. It is not invalidated by positive interactions with members of a different race; a white nationalist does not leap to conspiracy theories or existential crises when a black man helps him change his tire. (Really, the principled white nationalist is just upset there are not more black men like that.)
We have no use for byzantine explanations of world events, the hallmark of someone swept up in a cult or brainwashed ideology, because our diagnosis for the problems that we so often predict beforehand is simple: Separate. We have no need to call upon God, economics, Cthulu, dialectical materialism, post-colonial ethics, or any other number of convoluted explanations to dismiss any number of events that do not jive with how we see the world. What we engage in is simply pattern observation, recognition, and recall, something that even the dullest people are capable of doing, though they’re often told not to share what they’ve induced with the world.
Progressives have the opposite problem; imagine the copes that a man assaulted by an aggressive Negro must cobble together in order to carry on living, justifications the consistency of tapioca. “Surely, this personal dispute was simply the result of systemic problems entirely out of my hands!” In his head, this individual is not truly convinced of the rightness of his ideas. His lived experience must play second fiddle, in a delicious instance of irony, to his thought experiments in which he plays God with forces of nature in order to shape the world into something that his gut can tolerate.
A man who lacks conviction is therefore weak in more ways than one. He is weak in life, incapable of determining the right course of action in the face of events he does not understand. He is also rhetorically weak, both for the fact that those with greater conviction are able to sniff out his uncertainty and exploit it, and also because his means of finding truth vary greatly depending upon the circumstance.
As a consequence, the natural conclusion of individualist or progressive ideologies is that of conflict aversion. Any attempt at convincing a man of the righteousness of deracinated liberalism is really an attempt at convincing him to lay down his arms and stop fighting. When your ideology dictates that such a state of affairs is the highest good, it is difficult — or perhaps, even inconsistent — to summon up the polemic force necessary to make a compelling case for your ideas. The end result is a dreadfully boring dichotomy. When approaching liberalism critically, one has two options: either being a “good person,” i.e., agreeing and therefore not fighting, or, in a sleight of hand, being a “bad person,” becoming “canceled,” because one is granting that conflict exists and therefore hazards that the weakness of liberalism may be exposed.
We do not have this issue because our worldview holds that conflict is inevitable, and is in fact a feature of human interaction. Conflict can be avoided through policy that creates domains with like-minded individuals, but it cannot simply be struck from societies — especially societies wherein different interests are at play. Not only this, but we hold our values as true in the real sense, in that we believe them to be both defensible in the abstract and observable in our actions. Consider the passionate storms that make up the speeches and essays of nationalists, those that either strike terror in hearts or ignite fires in souls. Compare this to a lecture about free trade or ebonic yammering about reparations. The Right is the only group still capable of cutting with our tongues, because we are the only people who dare to utter the words that are increasingly being cited as grounds for assaulting their speaker. We know we hit close to home. There is something critically important to that.
There is a metaphysical component to this, as well. When we consider the liberal who shirks and retreats, we see the opposite behavior in white nationalists. If we hold our ideas to be true in our minds, then we also act as if they were true in the real world, and in doing so, became capable of actually shaping the world in our image. The white nationalist worldview does not exist in our heads as an ideal, as the worldview of a liberal does. We see it and can interact with it in space and time, because the world and history unfold before us in ways that are both predictable and manipulable. A man who carries himself with the attitude of the victor, whether in the realms of ideas or on Earth, already has one leg forward in the race. If we care not for the appeasement of other men and the sensibilities that presently threaten to destroy us, we are masters of our own destinies.
The level-headed nationalist is unsurprised by most world affairs. The liberal appeals to the great unknown when confronted with just about any world event, holding that their ignorance or indignation is a justified response to affairs that require endless deliberation and an eventual consensus; a consensus that is, invariably, out of their hands. White nationalists do not claim to know everything, however, just that we know what we certainly know. The strength of our ideals comes from the fact that we are vindicated at almost every turn, which is also a telling sign of what direction we ought to be taking our discourse in.
When we are convinced that we are correct, we take swift action that makes this apparent to the world. Statues are coming down now. We warned the world of this in 2017 in an event that, no matter what one’s opinions of the aftermath are, shook the entire Western political paradigm to its core.
We were right that they wouldn’t stop at Robert E. Lee. We were right then, we remain right now, and we are fully aware of this fact.
We’re right every time we check the “early life” section.
We’re right every time some shady money shows up in a political campaign.
To be quite frank, we were right even about some of the things that were considered a bit kooky a few years ago — like elites in government trafficking children.
Many of these things have entered the consciousness of the body politic, and have produced (predictably, again) tepid results. “Epstein didn’t kill himself” has an entry on Know Your Meme. If you ask your Uncle about statues getting knocked over, he will probably tell you about law and order. Now is the time to remind people that we told them so.
It is that self-assuredness that is appealing and powerful in the eyes of the larger body politic, the people who don’t sit around making too many decisions by themselves. Liberals, individualists, and corporate marketers do not possess the same authority in their rhetoric. While it may seem that even the most apolitical of people in your life have managed to swallow critical race theory overnight, remember that this is done not out of reason, but out of simple conformity. We ought not to be thinking of how to reach them, and rather be thinking about how they can reach us.
Absent a rigorous understanding of your own worldview, you are susceptible both to attacks from those who seek to undermine your confidence and bad faith and the derision of those who sense you do not emanate power. It is not the place of those on the Right with an intellectual or esoteric bent to attempt to pander. Defiance in the face of those who lack conviction signals that you are a person who cannot lose, even when you are told that you are losing. The correct response to a slogan like Black Lives Matter, for instance, is not something like “All Lives Matter” or even “White Lives Matter.” It is “I do not care.”
As of right now, the people that shape the narrative have a comfortable cushion of wealth and social capital to rest upon. But these cushions are built upon rickety foundations and circular reasoning that does not hold up to the scrutiny of someone intrigued by people who seem to be able to predict the future. Statues are coming down now because the West evidently does not believe in itself enough to protect them. Now is the time to believe in ourselves, and instead of engaging in fruitless “discussion” with those who seek to destroy us, we ought to disconnect entirely.
The short-term setbacks of deplatforming or making the switch to other platforms yourself pain us because we feel as though we have lost an audience or a form of income. I won’t deny that such things are uncomfortable and even disheartening. But take it as a sign that you’re onto something that enrages our enemies, and continue pushing. Being somewhat underground appeals exactly to the sort of people who are most capable of effecting change in the long term. We want to court the radicals and the people impressed by the fact that we’re unfazed by our enemies. They may be culturally strong, but they are still morally weak.
So, let us continue to laugh at them. We should not be afraid of being rude, dismissive, mocking, or vulgar in the face of people who explicitly wish to see us dead. When we grant someone a place to speak with us, make it clear that it is on our own terms, not theirs. We are, believe it or not, large enough and culturally impactful enough that we no longer need to extend an implied olive branch out to everyone we meet in the hopes that we can court them over with niceties. Instead, we can court them with conviction. People should ask to join us. We should not beg for them to.
At a time when white nationalism finds its way into the news cycle, whether as a boogeyman or a warning, people will become interested by themselves. This site exists as testament to the fact that we have done our homework, if these people are interested in such a thing in the slightest (many are not). Otherwise, assume those engaging us rhetorically are doing so in bad faith, unless you already know them to be a friend. The chances are high that they are. Don’t waste your energy on these people; we have it figured out. Let them know you’ll consider making concessions once you’re in charge.
Before I ever take action, I remind myself of the fact that it is impossible for me to make everyone happy, but it is theoretically possible for me to piss everyone off. Let us find it within us to piss everyone off. I have a hunch we’ll impress a great many of them in the process. After all, we know we are right.
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.
Leaving Father’s House: The Early Nietzsche
The Counter-Currents 2021 FundraiserCounter-Currents & the Facebook “Enemies List”
Remembering Friedrich Nietzsche (October 15, 1844–August 25, 1900)
Χάιντεγγερ εναντίον Παραδοσιοκρατών
Remembering Savitri Devi (September 30, 1905–October 22, 1982)
Remembering Martin Heidegger:
September 26, 1889–May 26, 1976
What Do You Say When Someone Accuses You of Racism?