- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Building Coalitions

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?


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 [1] 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 [2] 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. [3]

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 [4] 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 [5], 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 [6] 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 [7] 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 [8] 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 [9].) 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 [10], 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 [11]? 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 [12] 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] [13]. 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.


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.


The System’s “bomb the world, invite the world [14]” 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.


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 [15] a long time ago.) None other than Norman Podhoretz wrote the following [2] [16]:

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] [17], 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 [18] 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. [19]

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 [20] 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 [21] for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.


[1] [22] 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 [23]. 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] [24] 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] [25] 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.