Counter-Currents
5,389 words
The demographics problem is a growing threat, perhaps the greatest one facing Western civilization. Minorities have been bloc voting for ages, of course. The problem is that when whites finally muster the political will to stand together and take our own side, we might be less than half the population by then. In an electoral system, this would mean that within our very own homelands, we would lose control over our destiny.
One could argue that this already has happened, since the politicians sold us out long ago and certainly aren’t taking our side now. Of course, things are likely to get worse the longer the demographic shift continues. Our governments have been coddling minorities ridiculously, giving them nearly carte blanche since the 1960s. However, they certainly won’t roll out the red carpet for us if we become a minority. Anyone who even thinks the day will come when non-whites decide that they don’t need any more preferential treatment, now that they’re in charge, will be in for a bitter disappointment. The present racial spoils system will only get worse if they become a collective majority, and perhaps far worse. What then?
Presently, we need to start making plans for what can be done if whites become minorities in our own countries. The usual suspects expect that it will be “game over” for us if it comes to that. Some are gloating about it already. Breaking up their coalition is one way to spoil their plans.
A possible way forward
Alliances of convenience are familiar in parliamentary systems, in which politicians representing two or more parties vote as a legislative bloc. However, it also works for racial dynamics. In fact, this already has been done by the opposing side for a long time. The old political model was that the Left represented the proletariat, which opposed the bourgeoisie. Cultural Marxism changed this; the Left now represents the liberal-minority coalition, and it’s pretty obvious who they’re opposing.
When the realignment was fully underway in the 1960s, the most important constituencies of America’s Evil Party were organized labor, Boomer radicals and pacifists, feminists, GLBTs, and non-whites (mostly blacks, since others weren’t numerous yet). This has been in flux over the years. The GLBTs became increasingly important. So did immigrant racial minorities, whose numbers grew tremendously after the floodgates were opened. The Left eventually threw the proletariat under the bus; only the Dissident Right cares about them these days. Muslims are the newest additions, even though including them in a liberal coalition makes no sense, and those who did so may come to regret it bitterly. The introduction of new “fat studies” curricula into places like Washington and Oregon State Universities provides a hint at where things might go in the future. I hardly can wait for furries and otherkin to get invited on board the cultural Marxism bandwagon.
This illustrates that the alliance has changed slowly over the years. An area of opportunity will be to rebalance things our way. The above-mentioned constituencies have little to nothing in common besides shared grudges or the desire to milk society for more freebies. Note well, all those groups have natural interests of their own, which in many cases do not coincide. They would be considerably less hostile, and some not at all, if they weren’t part of an anti-white coalition telling them that they’re oppressed. In fact, a fine art has been made out of inflaming resentments, while blaming other people for stirring up trouble. The glue for this coalition is cultural Marxism, a concept that has gone by many other names such as the Rainbow Coalition, intersectionality, and progressivism. Although it’s a great subversion strategy, it’s a lousy ruling strategy.
How much longer will cultural Marxism be able to hold these centrifugal elements together? So far, they’ve done a pretty good job of maintaining solidarity against normal society while settling their disagreements out of public view. However, as things become further radicalized, the arrangement will become increasingly unwieldy. This essay assumes that the wheels eventually will fall off the bus, or come close to doing so. At this point, it’s not entirely unlikely. Merely a prolonged power outage is enough to plunge a city into full-scale vibrancy, so what would happen if the EBT cards stopped working?
Practicality
The System will face new challenges if parts of their motley coalition start to walk off the plantation. Some might decide that we’re not so bad after all, or even could look to us for support. For us, some metapolitical effort ahead of time might pay dividends later on. (Undermining The System’s credibility to their constituent elements is one step in the right direction.) As the reformed KGB spook Yuri Bezmenov pointed out, it’s difficult to block a powerful opponent, but easy to push him further in the direction he already was going.
Even the Stupid Party has tried this after they finally saw which way the wind is blowing. After decades of neglecting the porous southern border, they attempted to form an alliance with Hispanics. (Part of this “Hispandering” included Bush the Younger’s silly campaign speeches in Spanish.) However, trying to court “natural conservatives” away from the Evil Party failed utterly. The Democrats represented the promise of more free goodies, and the Republicans didn’t have anything better to offer.
As nationalists, we won’t have much to offer Hispanics, other than free one-way bus tickets to the south of the border. Giving away the Southwest to a bunch of squatters is out of the question. It would be workable to grant them a designated cultural zone, or even limited autonomy, in areas where they were a majority in 1965. However, the “Aztlán” revanchists won’t be happy unless we reset the Mexican border to 1835, and throwing them a bone only would encourage them. (Then, of course, they’d keep on colonizing what’s left of the USA.) Unlike civic nationalists, we shouldn’t demand that they just assimilate. Instead, they’d be better off staying close to their language and culture. Most are unassimilable, and these ones who have no hope of fitting in eventually will have to go back to where they belong.
Likewise, some other groups in the liberal-minority coalition won’t be very suitable to turn into friendlies. The best we can do is to encourage them to follow their own natural interests, rather than participate in a united front against normal society. Radical feminists, who specialize in sowing discord between the sexes and often suffer from neuroses, are another example of a group unsuitable to win over. (Note well, feminists and women are not identical categories!) The moderates who believe it’s only about equality are deceived but harmless. As for the radical feminists — the pampered snowflakes who think The Patriarchy is oppressing them, or those who run the feigned powerlessness shtick while they have massive institutional and legal support — there’s no hope for them. The anti-Western agenda is more important to them than actually supporting women’s rights, and this is easy to demonstrate.
You can buy The World in Flames: The Shorter Writings of Francis Parker Yockey here.
No, I’m not smoking crack
Understandably, some of the possibilities detailed shortly will be difficult for some on our side to accept. Consider it an area of discussion, rather than an absolute policy position. These are about some opportunities for mutual support that might become available. First, it’s necessary to discuss why we might want to come to terms with any groups that have been opposed to us in the past.
To paraphrase one of Sun-Tzu’s points of strategy, unless you have the capability of completely overwhelming an opponent, then leave them a way out. They can comply and do what you want them to do — in this example, by retreating, which means they save themselves easily by yielding territory. Otherwise, if they know that their backs are to the wall, then they’ll understand that the only way to save themselves is to fight like proverbial cornered rats. That won’t come out well for you if you don’t have the capability of completely overwhelming them. Sometimes a “carrot and stick” approach is more effective than all stick and no carrot.
Adapting this principle to our example, if a particular group thinks we’re out to get them, then they’ll certainly fight back. (This is rational on their part, and I wish our own people were this rational.) On the other hand, we won’t be able to win over anyone by appealing to fine liberal principles. The synthesis is that we can bargain for mutual support in terms of practicality, and most preferably from a position of strength. All agreements should be considered final, but contingent upon their future good behavior. Most importantly, there is a difference between making a constructive deal and giving up the farm.
Why bargain at all? If — just as a thought experiment — I got elected dictator, then I’d assemble a fleet of troop transports and passenger ships. Anyone I didn’t want around would have to pack their bags and get lost. With absolute power, that’s easy to do. (Some Dissident Rightists, if they were elected dictator, might go a step further and also assemble a fleet of helicopters.) Being dictator is fun, isn’t it? “Might is right” for the win! These things aren’t happening now, because we’re not actually in power.
Instead, the globalists are calling the shots in our societies: Deep State swamp creatures, limousine Leftist CEOs (“woke capital”), Zionists, Eurocrats, meddlesome UN cookie pushers, etc. One could count all the major institutions that actually are on the side of real Americans, and still have enough fingers left over to flip off the others that have abandoned us. It’s hardly different in most other Western countries. There are many fine proposals about how to fix things, but the necessary precondition is to generate the political will to do so. If whites were united, there would be nothing stopping us. Since this isn’t happening thus far, most of the politicians think that they have impunity to get away with misrule like open borders policies, free trade agreements, anarcho-tyranny, etc.
Since we’re not in a position of absolute power, what is presently within our grasp? One of the more popular proposals on our side is something I’ll call Generalplan Ostrich. This involves fleeing to some remote area — for Americans, this means a square state, or far to the northwest — while the rest of the country that used to be ours goes to hell. However, after decades of “white flight,” we should know that running away is only a temporary measure. If we’d stood our ground and started pushing back long ago, we probably wouldn’t be in this mess now. If we retreat from society, we’d lose any remaining influence that we do have and any chance of acquiring more. (Is this how it began for the Kurds, the Lebanese Christians, the Persian Zoroastrians, and the Egyptian Copts?) Moreover, as long as The System lasts, we still wouldn’t be safe. Some bureaucrat still might notice we’ve “gone Galt” and plop a housing project full of Somalis right in the middle of our planned community. Worse, we could be rounded up on some pretext, or get the Ruby Ridge treatment.
More seriously, those who choose the “extreme white flight” strategy have their reasons, but the point of this discussion is that lack of control over our destiny is most undesirable. I don’t like recent developments any more than anyone else here, but things aren’t looking good presently. It could get worse before the white public realizes what’s at stake and (more to the point) starts consciously acting in furtherance of our own interests. At least as an interim measure, we can pursue alternatives that could open up some other possibilities. Forming a coalition might work out better than Generalplan Ostrich.
In the future, we can expect that the political landscape will shift; no regime lasts forever. When this happens, it’s possible that the wheels will really start coming off the bus. One day, the ancien régime will be circling the drain due to its own incompetence, or washed up entirely. They’ll run out of old monuments to destroy, and the tactic of pointing fingers at Joe Sixpack is going to start losing its sparkle. The freebie checks will be late, and maybe even the TV screens will go dark. No more bread and circuses!
This doesn’t mean that I support accelerationism. Rather, I favor planning ahead. As for now, The System refuses to control rioters, but they’ll gleefully prosecute anyone trying to defend themselves or protect their property. If things break down in the future, anarcho-tyranny might turn into plain old anarchy. Opportunities will arise, and we’d better be ready to act on them. Some metapolitical outreach by us now can help when the time comes.
After all is said and done, we might not get everything we want. However, we still can get better results than what the globalists would do with us, since they wouldn’t even leave us alone if we opted for Generalplan Ostrich and exiled ourselves to some remote area. All that said, the following are some groups that might be receptive to us, at least partially, once the spell of cultural Marxism starts fading. Consider it to be a non-exhaustive list.
East Asians
This category includes the people formerly called Orientals before political correctness caused that inoffensive word to fall out of favor. Sizeable communities worth outreach include the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese (excluding the Hmong, who can’t get their act together). On the positive side, they’re intelligent, they don’t ruin neighborhoods, and they cause little trouble. Other than that, there are some things we have in common. Some points of Eastern philosophy are similar to Western stoicism. Better yet, their homelands don’t have political correctness. In fact, the Chinese created the term báizuǒ to mock Social Justice Warriors and the like. (Some are surprisingly friendly.) The Japanese tend to have healthy instincts too. Weren’t they on the right side at one time?
Currently, Orientals abroad tend to be liberal. This has been explored, and the short version is that they consider themselves as “the other” and vote accordingly. That is to say, they define themselves in cultural Marxist terms. A few are rather snotty as a result, which is unfortunate and quite undignified. Instead, they could be persuaded to support their own interests, which don’t necessarily coincide with the Leftist ideology of the Current Year. Why would they want to belong to a coalition full of malcontents, weirdos, and welfare entrepreneurs? Instead of allying with blue-haired feminists and transdoodles, why not instead team up with whites who share their traits of intelligence and civilization?
Moreover, there has been some evidence that the politically correct consensus is beginning to turn against Asians. They might need friends too someday. They might’ve noticed that white nationalists don’t have too many bad things to say about them. Even as early as the Rodney King riots, they certainly must’ve noticed that it wasn’t us burning their shops. Although it will be imperative in the future to remove troublesome populations from our presence, the Orientals are not on target.
There will be only two modifications to relations in the future. First, there will be no further immigration. (Their ancestral countries haven’t opened their borders to house millions of us, now have they?) Second, we’ll set aside the neighborhoods that they already inhabit as designated cultural zones. The populations must remain distinct. Note well, I do not approve of genetic confusion, and neither does any other real white nationalist. There are Asians who might appreciate that about us.
American Indians
In the early days, relations between whites and Indians got off to a very bad start, to make a long story short. The “hearts and minds” approach was tried early on, but failed utterly again and again. (Many Indian tribes were quite warlike, including to each other. Therefore, peaceful coexistence with them only could be achieved from a position of strength.) However, the fighting ended in the early 1890s, and after that, things got better. As I summarize in an upcoming book:
Now, Indians don’t starve to death in winter or have to go Donner Party if the hunting was lousy in the fall. A compound bone fracture doesn’t lead to permanent disability. Literacy and education have broadened their horizons greatly. The ones who hang onto old grudges have computers to complain about us to the rest of the world, often from the comfort of their dwellings equipped with running water, electricity, air conditioning, modern appliances, and other conveniences. The list goes on.
There was a half-hearted effort to get them on board the cultural Marxist bandwagon during the 1960s-1970s. However, that has simmered down for the most part, other than some silly collegiate postcolonial studies boondoggles. Some Indians are still sore about what happened over a century ago [1]. However, at least in my experience, that seems to be rare; most Indians see the benefit in having us around, or at least wouldn’t prefer the alternative.
Presently, Indians are the only race in the USA that has living spaces set aside for them, and in the future, this arrangement can stay like it is now. That is what is natural according to our own ideology. If anyone abrogates that arrangement, it’s going to be the globalists. They certainly don’t want us having our own living spaces, but globalist ideology technically forbids it to anyone, and they’ll move onto other targets if they ever get us out of the way.
Blacks
The prospects aren’t very promising here. Earlier this year, I would’ve been somewhat more agreeable to the idea that blacks and whites should try to reach common ground. Recent events have reinforced my skepticism about the possibilities of such a thing. The problem is, and has been, that amicable relations take effort from both sides. That clearly isn’t happening, and probably never will.
Some blacks do fit into society as good citizens, which is commendable on their part. (Black professionals and church ladies are fine by me.) However, it’s necessary to make policy based on average behavior and its aggregate results rather than on statistical outliers. As of late, the oversized black underclass has shown once again that they’ll use any racially charged misfortune (or specifically, those that don’t go their way) as license to loot and burn from coast to coast.
If that’s how it’s going to be, there is no point trying to coexist. Making peace would be great, of course. However, that’s not going to happen so long as — to name one of many problems — routine law enforcement carries a constant risk of igniting yet another wave of riots. In a large country, it’s unfortunate but statistically inevitable that there will be police encounters that turn ugly. Usually, that results from actions initiated by a citizen up to no good. This is especially so when dealing with a fraction of the population that has an out-of-control crime rate.
Although a lot of the rioting can be traced back to Leftist demagogues, tricky deep-pockets foundations, and other outside agitators, enough is enough. Let the blacks be happy at last — in their own country. The good news is that this is something we can help them with, and The System certainly won’t.
Metapolitically, any outreach to blacks will be a tough sell. The very best results that can be expected on a broad scale would be to demonstrate to them — or at least to some of them — that Joe Sixpack in Flyover Country had nothing to do with their collective problems. Black nationalists in particular could be a receptive audience. Actually, we have some goals in common with figures like Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X. One might be surprised to know that black nationalists and white nationalists can cooperate on pretty good terms. (If everyone got along just as well, then I might be a liberal.) They want to live by themselves, governed and policed by their own people, and we want this for them too.
Muslims
The System’s “bomb the world, invite the world” anarcho-tyranny strategy has left Western nations full of millions of Muslims who have remarkably little appreciation for their host societies. Even if not for that, their culture — largely informed by their religion, which is perpetually stuck in the 7th century — is incompatible with ours. Therefore, as soon as the adults get in charge, the Muslims will have to go back to where they belong. White converts are relatively few in number. They’ll have to adjust.
This is going to be a short section, because we don’t have too much to offer them. What we can offer is that when Muslims get back to their homelands, we will leave them alone if they leave us alone. That’s better than what the neocons are doing.
Jews
To begin, once again, I’d like to remind everyone that I’m not smoking crack. Although I generally avoid the topic, I’m aware that they wield influence well beyond their numbers, and that their trouble per capita ratio is elevated relative to the general public. The good news is that, even if they’re not always as smart as they think they are, Jews don’t suffer from low IQ or low impulse control like some other populations. Therefore, they’re capable of modifying their own behavior, and this is what we’re going to expect henceforth.
Why should they? If anti-white sentiment gets much worse, then Jews are going to be in the same boat as the rest of us. (In fact, they should’ve figured that out a long time ago.) None other than Norman Podhoretz wrote the following [2]:
To the Negroes, my white skin was enough to define me as the enemy, and in a war it is only the uniform that counts and not the person.
If only they had any idea how true that was, bad behavior on their part would change in a hurry.
These days, some strategically claim that they’re non-whites [3], but real non-whites don’t believe them and think that’s duplicitous. Presently, many Jews might regard Rightist survivalists, gun-toting rednecks, and so forth as a bit provincial, to say the least. However, if anarchy erupts one day, they certainly will need some friends, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t extend a helping hand to those among them who haven’t been hostile toward the general white public.
There are some sober-minded Jews (in fact, I know some) who are very upset about the irresponsible and destructive actions by certain short-sighted elites and radical types. For one thing, attempts to build an alliance with blacks ended up backfiring badly. I can understand that they’re pretty appalled about those at the top being a disgrace to their own people and ruining the reputation of the rest of their brethren. Some recognize that the golem strategy was a very bad idea in the first place. They’re right; it was unnecessary, and it’s caused them tremendous bad publicity. Worse for them, the “golems” are getting ideas of their own — just as they did in the ancient legend — and the situation may well spin out of control.
Everyone would be immensely better off if the old conflict ended between Jews and their host populations. Realistically, it’s a tough sell and will require effort on both sides. It would be great to see some straight talk and open dialogue within the Jewish community about the wisdom of continuing to back elites who keep making the same mistakes, pursue counterproductive practices, and tarnish the reputation of their brethren. On our part, we should make it clear that the dispute stopped being about religion a long time ago; we only disagree with the bad behavior of some of them. If those ones will stop doing that — or could be persuaded to do so — then nobody would have any significant reason to dislike them.
In the future, how Jews will be received by us should be entirely up to them on an individual basis. (That’s hardly unfair, is it?) Given the circumstances — and I hope they’ll understand — we’ll have to be selective. Receiving solidarity from us in the future should be contingent upon their good behavior now. Those who haven’t participated in anti-white agitation or similar misdeeds should be considered as friendlies, and we can stand together in times of crisis. On the other hand, any who might expect to play both halves against the middle, and then decide to cast their lot with us at the last minute, will make themselves look awfully silly. Finally, as for all those (((“whiteness studies” professors))) and others exhibiting bad behavior, it will be entirely their problem when the vibrant hordes turn on them.
You can buy It’s Okay to Be White: The Best of Greg Johnson here.
Garden-variety white liberals
We need to start figuring out how to get common non-ethnic liberals, and even Leftist radicals, to reorient their loyalties correctly. This is especially so if outreach to the abovementioned other groups seems unworkable or unpalatable.
There’s been some discussion here about whether to regard them as enemy collaborators or as wayward kinfolk. The fact is that they’re both. They’re instrumental in diminishing white solidarity, and some are very troublesome as a disloyal opposition. However, if they cut it out, they obviously wouldn’t be a problem. Another way to regard them is as cult members, which is how a lot of them have been behaving lately. Their ideology is demonstrably wrong on many points, propped up by fallacy, wishful thinking, and absurd tautologies. Despite this weakness, it’s difficult to get through to them, especially when the TV says unbelievers like us are evil.
On our side, it may be productive to figure out better ways to deprogram them. Although it’s frustrating to deal with them in their indoctrinated condition, each one who we can get through to is one less enemy on the field. A major part of the mess we’re in now is because a massive propaganda campaign divided the white public against itself, and many of us no longer have the natural solidarity that unites peoples. Proverbially, white liberals won’t take their own side in a conflict.
Another part of the mess, of course, is that The System is ideologically aligned with them. It goes along with whatever silliness liberals dream up, while suppressing and discouraging sensible dissident thought by way of several formal and informal penalties. However, a worse possibility might emerge, in which Leftist True Believers stage a coup and impose hard totalitarianism. Unless that happens, further degeneration of liberalism might be self-limiting.
Liberals of the 1960s only had to declare that they were for peace, progress, fairness, equality under the law, and some other fine sentiments which seemed great until the full implications became clear. Today’s liberals must be enthusiastic about their country being flooded by incompatible foreigners, must oppose freedom of speech (unlike all other liberals before them), must disbelieve in basic biology (like the existence of males and females as distinct categories), must adhere to an unwritten and changing laundry list of PC taboos, and so forth, or at least go through the motions convincingly. What happens when things get even crazier than that? Many, and probably most, will have lines that cannot be crossed.
For example, any liberal with even an ounce of gray matter still functioning in his/her/its/xir head knows that defunding the police is a terrible idea. When pressured by True Believers to go along with that, the rest of the gray matter might — with luck — start to wake up from its long slumber. If their local police force actually does get defunded, they’re going to see reality in a hurry. (I’d rather that enlightenment weren’t as costly to them, but that will be their call.) For another example, some might see that there’s something wrong with the fanaticism, self-abasement, and all the rest of it. They already should have, but if the heat keeps getting turned up, the cognitive dissonance might become too much to take.
For those who join us at a late hour, how much of a credibility gap they’ll have to make up for is in proportion to their past misdeeds. Ordinary liberals who didn’t do anything objectively bad should be accepted as-is. Former disagreement can be overlooked easily, if that’s all it was. Minor peccadillos aren’t a serious problem either; it should be understood that few among the public are unscathed by today’s dysfunctional conditions. On the other hand, Leftist journalists, politicians, Antifa members, professional diversity trainers, and the like will be expected to earn our trust if they want to rejoin civilized company.
Note well, “Saul on the road to Damascus”-type conversions are going to be uncommon, and there are reasons to be skeptical about those. Perhaps the best standard will be “trust but verify.” Afterwards, if former Leftists wish to be taken seriously, they will have to prove themselves, and surely there will be many opportunities to do so in the times to come. As for attaining any kind of prominence, though, they’re late to the party; the glory will go to those who were right all along.
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.
Notes
[1] I once attended a small lecture put on by an old Comanche. It turns out that his goal was to rant about how whites are terrible. This included all of his audience, people who shown up because we wanted to learn something about his culture. Although he had historical gripes about a war that had been over for a century, none of us were going to hold it against him that his own ancestors didn’t fight according to Geneva Conventions standards. There was a tape recorder (made in Japan or China with white people’s technology) playing mournful music to set the mood. Also, the lights were dimmed, but a small fire in the middle of the conference room as the only light source would’ve had a better effect. (I should’ve asked if he rode in a car to the hotel, or got there on horseback.) I’m happy to say that most Indians aren’t like this.
[2] This was from a famous 1963 article called “My Negro Problem, and Ours” in Commentary. In brief, Podhoretz describes how he evolved from his previous un-woke attitudes about race, and unfortunately, the conclusion is literally cucked. (Since Commentary is a Jewish opinion magazine, he probably meant it.) I prefer the younger and wiser version of him.
[3] It’s a controversial subject, but this wasn’t always so. Even in the 1960s, Jews didn’t hesitate to consider themselves as white ethnics. Prior to that, if they had been regarded as non-whites, then none of their ancestors would have been let into the USA. The first references of Jews identifying as whites are in the Old Testament. It’s only recently that some of them want to jump ship. Nice try! It’s too bad for them that the only people willing to take their claim at face value are certain white nationalists; the last people they should want to convince about it.
I’m not too inclined to split hairs. I’ve seen the data, and Jews are not that much different from Southern Europeans. Jews sort of form a transitional population, as one might expect, between Southern Europe and the Middle East. (The Khazar hypothesis is rather overrated, though the sola scriptura Karaite sect is probably related to them.) The Ashkenazi subgroup, comprising 90% of the USA’s Jewish population, is even more similar to continental Europeans. They’re half Italian, long ago descended from Judean merchants who moved to Rome and married the locals. Since they don’t have matrilineal Hebrew descent, then they’re technically just Italians according to their own rules, not that they generally care to split hairs about it themselves. In Israel, the Ashkenazim tend to look down on their purer Sephardic neighbors and call them “Cushites,” although referring to Hebrews as blacks is quite a stretch.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
30 comments
Jews are Semites and about as “white” as Eskimos. Myself, I would never wish to erase the molecular distinction between Aryans and Jews. As for compromising with the other non-white, or rather anti-white elements in our population, I far prefer ethnic cleansing, mass sterilization, genetic engineering, and clean-sweep genocide.
Ethnic cleansing, mass sterilization, genetic engineering, and clean-sweep genocide sound like permanent solutions to the problems plaguing white society, and if circumstances are such that these practices become the only method by which the sanitation and restoration of American society could be achieved, I would not oppose them. They should be considered last resorts, however – when the “soft cleanse,” peaceful segregation and organized repatriation become impossible for instance – because there is a moral question. Wide scale genocide is invariably a human tragedy and a mark of villainy whenever it occurs, and whites are notoriously focused on morality. Such barbarism should be beneath us.
If things ever become so dire, I hope that all of these far-reaching proposals, that of ethnic cleansing and genocide in particular, be solved in a civil (race) war and honest military conflict between two sides, resulting in the forceful expulsion of peoples, and not through some clinical and clandestine government-mandated campaign of mass homicide of the weaker races, which would quickly turn into a Hollywood fantasy of Third Reich cruelty.
Well, that certainly says it all! And, I agree completely — but please don’t tell anybody I said so. This is indeed our dilemma today.
There are some Whites formerly from the Left, like myself, who have come to the realization that the Right is the logical place to be intellectually and from a survival point of view.
The other White folks on the Left could be mostly deprogrammed by the same techniques which programmed them in the first place: through primary and secondary education, television, film, music, and mass media. They are just as malleable one way as the other way, which is why the Left is going all out to censor and vilify everything possible coming from the perspective of the Right.
I’ve not given up hope yet, but the future is looking mighty grim for us, I concede.
* ||| Is this how it began for the Kurds, the Lebanese Christians, the Persian Zoroastrians, and the Egyptian Copts? |||
Began what for Kurds, Lebanese Christians, Persian Zoroastrians, and Egyptian Copts? Except the Lebanese Christians, the rest adopted Islam. What is the implication here? If you are trying to construct an analogy between the Whites and Persian Zoroastrians or Egyptian Copts or Kurds, it will be a fool’s errand. The Copts, Zoroastrians, and the Kurds didn’t ‘retreat from the society’. They gradually embraced the new creed.
* ||| …their culture — largely informed by their religion, which is perpetually stuck in the 7th century — is incompatible with ours. |||
Not at all contesting your right to have your own culture on your own soil, I must, nevertheless, add that those who married the spirit of the age quickly became widowers. I am glad our culture remained ‘stuck in the 7th century’. At least, we preserved our faith amidst incessant ‘modernist’ and ‘enlightened’ contumely. The progeny of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Robespierre, Voltaire, and de Sade who thought they had exorcised ‘the dark ages’ (whatever that means), are now paying dearly for their forefathers’ libertinism and satanic hedonism. It is not that our ancestors were all pious and didn’t have indulgences of their own but that there were REDLINES which they never crossed. And we remain grateful for that discretion.
“They gradually embraced the new creed.”. This was via demographic replacement. Allso, if your ancestors had redlines that were never crossed, apparently forming a religion around a pedophile and mandating 1500 years of cousin marriage wasnt one of the redlines.
Who replaced whom? Egypt and the rest of North Africa speak a Semitic language but they are NOT ethnically all Bedouins. Likewise, Kurds and Persians who happen to be Muslims are not an Arabic progeny. We are Indo-Iranians. Our forefathers belonged to Zoroastrianism or other traditions and then they adopted Islam. Some didn’t and migrated eastwards to the Gujarat coast.
The rest of your argument doesn’t merit a reply. It smacks of frustration which is somewhat understandable since, lately, you all have been going through a lot, and, therefore, it is natural that your emotions get the better of you and force you to take intellectually lazy positions on subjects you don’t have any grasp of.
Don’t open unnecessary fronts. We are NOT your enemy.
…”The rest of your argument doesn’t merit a reply. It smacks of frustration which is somewhat understandable since, lately, you all have been going through a lot, and, therefore, it is natural that your emotions get the better of you and force you to take intellectually lazy positions on subjects you don’t have any grasp of.” …
This comment really just seems like teenage gas-lighting at best to me.
“Don’t open unnecessary fronts. We are NOT your enemy.”
I would like you to expand on this comment as I have not experienced otherwise. I would be interested in a further essay on this topic submitted to CC if possible. Honestly, I would like you opinion on this.
Greetings Mr. Phillips,
Thanks for commenting in the thread.
Well, to address your charge of ‘teenage gas lighting’, tell me, Sir, would you take me seriously, if on any forum, I were to quote the NYT, BBC, Washington Post, CNN, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Hoover Institution, Victor Davis Hanson, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, etc. and other kosher gatekeepers as authorities on the subject of White Nationalism? Wouldn’t I be brazenly misrepresenting the tenets of this movement? Would I be considered then an honest interlocutor?
I have learnt the dynamics of White Nationalist phenomenon from serious thinkers like Messers late Jonathan Bowden, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor, Kerry Bolton, Anthony Ludovici, and Sir Oswald Mosley etc.
Now, when someone speaks on Islam and takes the most intellectually challenged positions that resemble the ones Neo-con regime change fanatics and Philo-Pharisee Islam bashers like Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Michel Houellebecq, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Raymond Ibrahim, Pamela Geller, Maryam Namazi etc. adopt, then, it betrays nothing but sheer laziness. The situation demands pity not anger.
Secondly, as for the second part that deals with ‘unnecessary fronts’ and ‘We are not your enemy’, look, it is perfectly legitimate and reasonable to declare, ‘we don’t want Muslims or Islam in or around our racially segregated domains. The faith clashes with our culture. Therefore, Muslims should either respect this arrangement or pack their bags.’
However, what does one gain when he casually insults the single most revered figure of a tradition knowing full well that it is an extremely sensitive issue for the whole religious community?
What prevents him from keeping his criticism confined within a racial context?
How does this advance his purpose?
Doesn’t one hurt his own cause of segregated existence when he openly declares a war on a faith, that albeit he couldn’t fight given the dire circumstances of his own dwellings?
After a century of Sunni Arab-White West bonhomie that wrecked Islamic lands as well as demographically devastating the White West, the center of gravity has shifted towards Shia Islam and its Arab allies. That should be good news for White Nationalists who like us equally detest these neo-con Philo-Pharisees and their so called characterless ‘moderate globalist Muslim’ allies who sit in the West and squeal about ‘reforming Islam’. (Note that the diaspora in Western Europe, Canada, the USA, Australia etc is overwhelmingly Sunni)
It was reassuring when some sections of White nationalists castigated the Judaic Trump regime for cowardly assassinating Gen. Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mehdi Al-Muhandis who had crushed ISIS and other Sunni Arab proxies. This forum (Counter Currents) too rightly condemned this infra-chivalrous act.
I believe Islam with a Shia political vanguard can reach an understanding with a White Nationalist West, and that we can have a peaceful coexistence.
But if a White Nationalist West too intends to behave like Paul Wolfowitz and Christopher Hitchens when it comes to the Middle East and Islam, then I can declare with full responsibility that we are battle-hardened and prepared for every eventuality.
The question is do serious White Nationalists have the stomach for another protracted struggle near as well as away from home?
I have serious doubts.
Regards,
“Don’t open unnecessary fronts. We are NOT your enemy.”
Well, If Greg doesn’t post replies to your comment, then I guess we really are. Very disappointing. …
To give but one example, there is a remarkably high degree of genetic continuity between Ancient Canaanites and Modern Lebanese populations, despite their location at the crossroads of history. Which is to say, the current ongoing genetic restructuring of hitherto White societies is far more sweeping and radical than anything Middle Easterners have experienced.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/142448v1
I think there’s a little confusion here about religion, race, and the dynamics between the two. Can’t changing an entire region’s and peoples’ beliefs for another set of beliefs in a relatively short amount of time count as “demographic replacement” in a way (demographics simply meaning a population and its characteristics)? Entire cultures get upended and re-framed — some more than others. It is the submission of one group(s) to another group’s religion/values. As the centuries wear on, it will naturally seem like it wasn’t submission at all, and the victors’ beliefs will be thought of by the descendants of the “losers” as their historic beliefs, too. Meanwhile, there will barely be a memory left of the pre-conquest people and their societies, how they lived and worshiped. Of course, the Middle East and central Asia are not the only examples of this phenomenon.
I’ve always hated the term, “dark ages,” too. But that just shows how in Europe, Christianity had become so dominant, that they were able to denigrate and label much of pagan and pre-Christian Europeans between the era of Rome and the Renaissance as benighted semi-primitives. It actually proves my point.
*||| Can’t changing an entire region’s and peoples’ beliefs for another set of beliefs in a relatively short amount of time count as “demographic replacement” in a way (demographics simply meaning a population and its characteristics)? |||*
That ‘short amount of time’ contains at least three hundred years within it. It took three centuries for Islam to become the dominant faith among the non-Bedouin people outside the Arabian Peninsula. And whether anyone likes it or not, theologically Islam was way more powerful as compared to local pagan belief systems. Their fate was sealed when the common folk began actively embracing the creed which appealed every section of the hierarchically ordered society.
*||| Entire cultures get upended and re-framed — some more than others. It is the submission of one group(s) to another group’s religion/values. As the centuries wear on, it will naturally seem like it wasn’t submission at all, and the victors’ beliefs will be thought of by the descendants of the “losers” as their historic beliefs, too. |||*
Cultures are bound to ‘get upended and re-framed’ if they lack strong foundations. An ideologically formidable doctrine can withstand various assaults no matter how aggressive they are. Almost a century of assertive State-Atheism couldn’t eradicate Islam in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Likewise, Kemalism and Pahlavi costume drama failed to dilute the faith in their territories (Turkey and Iran respectively) either. As for the ‘victors’ beliefs’ and ‘submission’, well, Mongols invaded our lands much more ferociously than the Bedouins. Why didn’t we adopt Tengrism? Conversely, it was the victors in this case who adopted the ‘ losers’ ‘ creed. Mongols conquered physically but were themselves conquered metaphysically.
Lastly, what the Whites in the United States have been experiencing is clear, methodical racial displacement. They are losing their dwellings to a racially different folk. They are facing extinction. Moreover, this hostile folk is being assisted and projected by traitorous sections of the White Majority embedded in strategic sectors of the power grid.
And, frankly, I don’t think such a scenario warrants an analogy with the Middle East and the spread of Islam.
The Jews have made themselves unwelcome over and over again for millennia. It’s who they are. Individual Jews who regret being Jewish cannot be the problem of Whites. If today’s Bronfman’s do not understand how the Bronstein’s result in hard times, they’re just lazy. The information is out there (see, Esau’s Tears), they just don’t teach each other facts about their race.
However, that’s the least problem with this essay. The essence of White Nationalist politics is racial separation. Every thought, every action needs to be guided by two principles: (1) Is it good for Whites? (2) Does it further the goal of racial separation?
Future politics is not going to be electoral politics. That’s what the last four years has been about. Future politics is, basically, Fourth Generation Warfare on the installment plan and many Whites already realize this. To the extent that electoral politics — ‘coalition politics’ — gives Whites and advantage in acquiring territory and further the goal of racial separation, its a useful tool in the White Nationalist toolkit but it cannot be the only tool in that toolkit.
For far too long, Whites have mistaken having the moral high ground as vital to being able to proceed. We must dispense with that kind of thinking. What is required to secure the existence of our people and the future of White children is a firmness of purpose that comes from a complete immersion in White Nationalist sentiment.
We must, in our hearts, become the future we wish to live in.
“For far too long, Whites have mistaken having the moral high ground as vital to being able to proceed. We must dispense with that kind of thinking.”…
I agree. The genetic traits we have are a disadvantage to us in the current climate, and our enemies know this and use it against us. A ‘short, sharp shock’ followed by a sincere determination to reclaim our inheritance is in order.
As I always say, propaganda and the study of sound frequencies in our subconscious (Subliminals, Rife frequencies and biokinesis) is extremely important for our “war”.
I also feel that we should have a similar perspective on the world as Friedrich Nietzche had on the Evolution of Humanity and religion.
The link below is how Nietzche saw the world (texts in German)
https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche,_Friedrich
Biokinesis exemple link:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRL5CgT7v-0_Vh1XIdC-L5A
“Winners create their own rules” Rachel Amber
I forgot share this link to:
https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/06/nietzsche-on-the-jews/
>As I always say, propaganda and the study of sound frequencies in our subconscious (Subliminals, Rife frequencies and biokinesis) is extremely important for our “war”.
Yes, but effective propaganda isn’t all that congruent with crackpot notions that elicit laughter in the general public and tired sighs in fellow travelers. Is it?
threestars
Nope, it has nothing to do with laughter or things like that, but put through audio editors (like Audacity) statements with an extremely low volume in music, movies and other (subliminal) advertisements such as: I love my race.
I am free from negative statements about my race.
If you are interested in frequencies, have a website as a test: https://onlinetonegenerator.com/432Hz.html
Thought-provoking article. I see four ethno-alliances in the future:
Jews and rich white liberals
Post 1965 non-white immigrants (split up into rich East Asians, Hindus, and Muslims and poor Hispanics)
Whites (split up into poor rural and rich suburban)
Scumbags, BLM/ANTIFA Lunatics, and African Americans
The easiest thing to do would be to split apart African Americans and post 1965 non-white immigrants. I can truly say that Hispanics, East Asians, African immigrants, Afro-Caribbeans immigrants, and Muslims are much better people on average than African Americans. It’s actually an offense to group them all together as “non-white.” I think we do that because we want to be separate from all non-whites, which is a good goal, but we should achieve it by focusing on the good things whites will lose by mixing with post-1965ers rather than insult them by lumping them together with African Americans. They’re much more intelligent, civilized, cooperative, and law-abiding than African Americans on average.
There isn’t much hope for separating the Jews and rich white liberals cohort from African Americans. Jews have a fetish for the suffering little guy, and lefty whites like to play Grizzly Adams and be friends with fearsome criminal American blacks, so I don’t think there’s any potential there. If African Americans were even worse than they are, Jews and white liberals would like them even more. They all want to be Grizzly Adams but instead of hanging out with a grizzly bear they want to hang out with a ghetto thug–so long as they can retreat to their comfortable suburbs and nice parts of town.
I apologize in advance if this seems harsh — it is written with (tough) love…
You write:
“…how Jews will be received by us should be entirely up to them on an individual basis.”
No, no, NO! It must NEVER be up to a jew how we shall “receive” them.
We must not, in fact, “receive” them at all!
No jew can judge a jew in our eyes — only a red-pilled & angry white man can judge a jew!
And we must judge them untrustworthy.
You go look the hundreds of millions of us they have genocided (not to mention all the torturing, raping, robbing, and brainwashing, among so many other crimes), you look our lost ones in the eyes and tell THEM about how you want to let the Jew determine how we are going to “receive” the jew.
This is about race, not individuals, not about some mythical individual good jew, it is about their race attempting their final genocide of our race, and our fight for the 14 words.
We know what their race is, what it has made itself: our eternal and implacable enemy bent for thousands of years with religious fervor on our enslavement and genocide.
If some individual jew wants to help us let him fight his own race on his own time and his own dime, and nothing to do with us.
If he actually does something good for the white race we may choose to notice, maybe appreciate, maybe remember when the time comes to mete out justice.
Even if one jew in a million is trustworthy, so what? You will never know for sure (until his knife goes into some white persons back), that he isn’t one of the other 999,999.
Let any “good” jews out there do their own thing as they will, at their expense, their risk — not at our expense in RISK or even the TIME and ENERGY it takes to keep talking about them, or to “Ally” or “make coalition” with them.
No more talk about the mythical unicorn of the good jew — it is a very jewish way to waste our time and energy.
As the hero of the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler, said: The folk cannot follow the jew.
…and we can’t follow anybody who wants to trust a jew either.
Of the groups listed, it is white liberals I find to be the most unlikely to reach common ground with. The others are at least rational. The white liberal is the strangest creature to ever walk the earth.
They are indeed part of a cult but deprogramming is easier said than done. And we should not assume they will “wake up” when the mob comes for them. Cult members have shown they will “drink the Kool-Aid” if that is what the cult demands.
Once they are no longer useful to the various minority groups they champion, it is they who will be without a coalition.
We have a social problem because the Jews own everything and we’ve been propagandized for the last 100 years. Also because public dialogue has been stifled, the Christian population has been affected by the idea that one should not even scrutinize the religion of of the Jews much less understand their history. Therefore the superstition of the “chosen people” still flourishes freely within the Christian realm advanced by Jews among their ranks who have been doing this for centuries.The idea that Jews have survived as a race rather than a religion is a misconception. If not for their “false religion” they would have disappeared into the surrounding nations as did their brethren Israel melding and evolving culturally with the nations that received them.Only their “chosen people” religion could have held Jews together. Now they have invented Communism for the atheist Jew who was not enthusiastic with the Zionist ambition and the beleaguering of the world became permanent.Only until Christians rid themselves of their philosophical dependency on the Jew will public discourse return and that’s not likely to happen.Apparently the 3 major religions of the West believe that a final terrible “solution” must occur and it appears that’s where we’re headed.By the way the Jews have made the blacks the way they are today. This proves that truly being a Jew is being one in the mind.Jews have been proselytizing forever when necessary and incorporating disbelief in Jesus into a religion eventually only produces snobbish,self righteous, contentious people.Can we give the blacks their own nation , no. If we could would it work, no. Lincoln wanted to do this and the plan was squashed. Probably because it was looked upon at the time as being inhumane. But ultimately it would have worked for America.Now if a separate nation were attempted,some would go, some would not. On it’s own it would certainly fail so it would inevitably become another foster child for the taxpayer like Israel. This is what Farrakan said. ” They give billions of dollars to Israel without which Israel would fail. Give us a nation of our own with billions of dollars of support like you do them.You create and sustain the illegal state of Israel,why not do it for us” ?This actually makes sense but I don’t know of any territory in America where this could ever take place unless all the white people were willing to leave.
“I’ve seen the data, and Jews are not that much different from Southern Europeans. Jews sort of form a transitional population, as one might expect, between Southern Europe and the Middle East . . . . They’re half Italian, long ago descended from Judean merchants who moved to Rome and married the locals. Since they don’t have matrilineal Hebrew descent, then they’re technically just Italians according to their own rules.”
I had long subscribed to this theory, and have even repeated it here at CC, but it was recently explained to me that although Jews plot close to Italians on PCAs (principal component analysis), they don’t share many IBD (inheritance by descent) markers with Italians. The reason Ashkenazi Jews plot so close to Italians, therefore, is the north-of-the-Alps admixture that pulls them further “north” and “west” than than they would otherwise appear on PCAs. In terms of true similarity, Sephardics are probably closer to Italians than the Ashkenazi are. The Ashkenazi have a significant Mediterranean component, but the admixture event(s) remain(s) a mystery. Greece or Anatolia seem just as likely to me as Italy. And don’t forget that Judaism was once a proselytizing religion, and there are reports on the record of Greek converts. Then too, the Philistines were of Greek origin, so it gets very messy. As for the math, Ashkenazi are roughly 45 to 50% Levantine, 15 to 25% German or Eastern Europe, the balance Mediterranean, picked-up in Italy, Greece, Anatolia, who knows.
That said, I agree with the author that Jews are white ethnics. Their mtDNA is heavily European. They are perhaps best understood as a mercantile caste rather than a separate race.
Also don’t forget that Christianity itself started out with a large ethnically Jewish contingent, and was a very proselytizing group.
If our purpose is to preserve our people, culture and civilisation then it would be wise to explore all avenues. I suggest that despite the Left’s efforts we are not universally despised and that rather than wallowing in the vainglory of the most extreme measures, we might try standing up for ourselves a little first. To that extent I concur with this piece.
ashkenazi Jews are a savage, collectivist, high-IQ non-White race out of Turkic Asia, i.e. Khazaria:
see Eran Elhaik’s large sample DNA study, “The Missing Link of European Jewish Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and Khazarian Hypothesis”
PDF on the net, & case closed. The semitic Jews are a relic of the original Roman-era diaspora along the Mediterranean littoral, Italy included.
and (((they))) intend to kill us. All of us.
GJ, I’ve read nonsense on this site many times. But this lunatic essay caps it. By 2030, Whites will sink to minority status in ‘Murka. Facing a hostile amalgam of
Blacks/Browns/Yellows/Muslims run by lethally hostile Jews. If the Jewbuck does not collapse by then, which will precipitate a tag team massacre that some of us might survive, Whites are done.
Yes. If we wanted a microcosm of the problem with modern Whites, this article provides it. He still thinks people are nice and want to be our friends. We’re being genocided and most are cheering or at least trying to get in on the gibs, including many Whites. The higher you go, the more you find such mattoids.
Beau Albrecht does good work for the cause of the 14 words, but this essay was a bridge too far. It was profoundly misconceived from the start. I still don’t really understand what he was trying to achieve.
What we want is an ethnostate – a politically sovereign territory in which only pure-blooded racial Europeans reside. NO ONE ELSE LIVES WITHIN THE ETHNOSTATE’S TERRITORIAL OR POLITICAL BORDERS. The specific political, juridical, economic, and social architecture of the ethnostate are subject to future determination.
Obviously, Albrecht’s essay is written with an eye to white (American) well-being in pre-ethnostatist times. I suggest that the search for alliances is silly when there is so much proselytizing to do among our own people. WRT all nonwhites, our position is clear: we want peaceful separation. Our behavior in the time before we have achieved that should be based solely on advancing or defending white interests at every opportunity. Thus, while we should not seek out interactions with nonwhites (indeed, fraternization with nonwhites should be discouraged as much as possible – especially as it can lead to miscegenation), we should welcome any opportunities to pit one alien group against another, if doing so advances white interests. We can reach out to Orientals on issues like police funding and opposition to affirmative action; to blacks and maybe Amerindians on immigration reduction; to Muslims on reducing Zionist influence, and to Jews on fighting Islamist terrorism. Although I have been relentlessly anti-immigrationist since the late 70s, I think we can make the most political inroads with Hispanics, esp on deregulatory and economic growth issues. Hispanics are more pro-business than other nonwhite groups, imo, except maybe Jews; I mean, more amenable to voting as we want based in part on a shared pro-business, pro-growth agenda. Whites need a pro-business agenda, as most of our people work in the private sector, something unlikely to change for institutionally discriminated against whites. This is true of Hispanics, too.
More fundamentally, this essay needs to be recast. The search for alliances should not involve race. Nor should it involve very much reaching out to congenitally mentally defective liberals (let alone antifa types!). We might be able to make some inroads with the LGBTQueerists, though I wouldn’t expect much.
Where we should be doing outreach is among our own white people who are NOT screwed up (as all committed liberals and leftys are), but not (yet) white nationalists. We need to deepen our reach among our own people, NOT self-defeatingly broaden it among aliens. We need to reach out to white labor unionist members who keep voting for the party of multicultural leftism; to white businessmen greedily supporting mass immigration with no thought to long term consequences, and to white workers harmed by that labor importation; and esp to Christians alarmed by our positions without grasping their fundamental morality, or the coming danger to white Christian well-being. Of course, this latter outreach, too, should be based solely on advancing white interests.
After all, has Albrecht forgotten that whites are still about 60% of the US? White nationalists sure as hell are not 60% of even normal whites, let alone all whites. If we could get half of whites to become at least moderate WNs, that would be the most powerful 30% of the country. We must go where the gold is.
What of the big business lobby that wants cheap foreign labor? They often fund Bush 43 type Republicans. How can they be defeated? Their ideology appeals to basically no one, white, black, whatever. But they are very well funded and often get the support of the media over their Republican primary challengers.
Comments are closed.
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment