A little more than five years ago, I began this ongoing experiment of badthink as a writer for Counter-Currents. So far, I haven’t been doxxed, and thankfully my rich and satisfying normie life has continued unimpeded. I’m still a little scared. I’m also proud of the body of work that I have accumulated — 315 articles so far — and hope to continue indefinitely.
When noting my wooden jubilee a couple of months ago, I realized that a collection of my various coinages might be in order given that many more people read me today than when I started in 2016. I have a tendency to make up words or to give novel names to concepts, and so figured that compiling my best into a single article might allow readers to tell which ones are useful and which ones not.
Here we go, in chronological order.
POE, or the Presumption of Equality (March 11, 2016):
Remember #OscarsSoWhite? At the time I was annoyed at how blacks in Hollywood were trying to force their way into the Oscar picture by accusing the Academy of racism every time a black actor or director got snubbed. The prospect that such snubs might be justified never seemed to occur to them. It seemed as if racial equality was an a priori thing with these people, and not being given this equality caused them to act with obnoxious urgency. I figured there should be a name for this phenomenon since it can be seen far beyond the lack of black achievement in the cinematic arts:
“The Academy Awards and the Four Rules of POE,”  one of my first articles for Counter-Currents, came out of this.
Where in law we have the “presumption of innocence,” with blacks we have the “presumption of equality,” or POE, for short. Of course, POE is a complete fiction. It ignores the near-universality of black crime rates, misbehavior, and academic failure while discrediting the vastly greater accomplishments of whites. Despite its utter falsehood, however, POE has been central to the very identities of millions of blacks ever since W. E. B. DuBois emerged over a century ago as an intellectual leader of their race in America.
After noticing a consistency in how pro-black activists act according to POE, I developed the four laws of POE:
- Never violate POE.
- Always attack those who violate POE.
- Never presume the equality of people who violate POE.
- Always ignore the consequences of POE.
Negative Identity (October 19, 2016)
My article “On Negative Identity”  resulted from my disgust with John Podesta’s response to the 2015 San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack in which fourteen people were killed and twenty-two injured. Podesta was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief at the time, and, thanks to Wikileaks, was exposed for writing in an email, “Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.”
So, basically, Podesta was caught wishing that it had been a white guy and not a Muslim who had gone on a rampage. I then considered the degenerate mind one would need to make a comment like that. From my cogitations, “negative identity” was born:
But Podesta’s comment reveals a lot more than he intended. In fact, it hits at the core of the identity crisis which is troubling whites these days. Many commenters on this site and others have expressed the idea that whites need to re-acquire a racial identity in order to withstand the pressures of political correctness, cultural Marxism, and non-white immigration. After reading Podesta’s email, however, I’m no longer so sure that this is true. I’m beginning to think that Leftist liberals like John Podesta already have a racial identity. It’s just a negative one; one that stinks of post-Christian moralizing. People like Podesta believe that whites are inherently sinful people, and the only way for whites to redeem themselves is to internalize this low self-esteem until it becomes part of their identity. They’re not rejecting their race. They’re embracing it as if it were an original sin. This is the path to salvation not only for them, but for all whites.
White Submissivist (February 3, 2017)
This was my attempt at devising an epithet similar to “cuckservative” but reserved for whites on the Left rather than on the nominal Right. I really wanted this one to sting in the way that “cuck” and “cuckservative” stings people like David French and Jay Nordlinger of NRO. Anyway, that’s how I feel about these white shitheads who kneel at Black Lives Matter rallies or allow BLM to use them as human shields. Could there be a better way to describe such people? “They Are White Submissivists”  made the top-ten that month, but sadly I don’t think the coinage took hold. Here’s to hoping it will some day in the future.
My suggestion is to turn the Left’s biggest weapon right back at them and shove it down their scruffy throats. If they want to call us “white supremacists,” fine. In response, we should call them “white submissivists.” In fact, we shouldn’t wait for them to call us anything. We should lead with “white submissivist” and see how they take it. The term is new and still relatively obscure; I have only seen it in a few comments and Twitter feeds. It rolls off the tongue well enough. It’s a mean-spirited personal attack that doesn’t single out any one person. It keeps all the shaming and ridicule behind “cuckservative” and places it on a much bigger stage. And, most importantly, it fits.
The Spectrum Axis (May 3, 2017)
Inspired by the line in the film Moneyball about “getting things down to one number,” I wanted to create a graph which could illustrate what I saw as the four major concepts which drive all viable political movements in the United States. These concepts are Equality, Freedom, Tradition, and Race. A successful political movement placed along a unified axis can encompass any two of these four concepts. For example, the modern Democratic Party embraces Race and Equality, whereas the modern Republican Party hunkers down amid Freedom and Tradition. In “The Alt-Lite and the Spectrum Axis,”  this is what I came up with:
Note that Tradition and Equality never meet. They are opposites, and therefore a political movement which claims to adhere strongly and equally to both is either not being honest or won’t last very long. The same goes for Freedom and Race. A political movement can gravitate towards one of these but not both. This is not to say that all race realists or ethno-nationalists wish to do away with individual freedoms or that traditional societies never uphold equality in the eyes of the law. A political movement can pay homage to all four of these concepts at once. It’s just that, according to the Spectrum Axis, it must somehow combine two of these as its raison d’être, and it doesn’t really matter which of the remaining two concepts come in third and fourth in order of importance.
Selective Subjectivity (July 30, 2018)
I discovered this concept when I was bemoaning how whites and only whites are taught to be objective about their own history these days. All races and civilizations have done bad things in their past, but whites are the only ones who must flog themselves on a daily basis because of it. Selective Subjectivity describes a healthy mindset in which a person, a nation, or an entire race can admit to the good and bad in their past while focusing subjectively on the good. It’s self-serving but necessary if you want life to remain worth living.
Such Selective Subjectivity can be applied in the same manner to populations and races. What makes for a healthy individual should also make for healthy populations, that is, a balanced understanding of both good and bad in the group’s collective past but with a self-serving emphasis on the good. When this popular memory is on the whole positive, then people are more confident, they enjoy a greater sense of belonging, they have a strong sense of identity, they are quick to protect or advance their own interests, they revere their ancestors and respect their traditions, and they are hopeful about the future.
“On Selective Subjectivity and the Hijacking of White History”  is one of my best essays, so please have a look if you’re so inclined.
Demoskrieg and Diaskrieg (January 14, 2019)
A great truth is a statement that is as true as its opposite…as opposed to a triviality, whose opposite is false.
— Niels Bohr
Inspired by the quote above, I decided to tackle the Jewish Question head-on. I devised two perspectives on the problem which not only directly oppose each other but also possess at least an element of truth. These conflicting outlooks prescribe a set of tactics for whites to employ against their Jewish adversaries in the culture wars and reflect differing fundamental worldviews on the nature of the problem.
As white nationalists, should we consider the Jewish diaspora and Israel as different heads on the same beast and envision our troubles with them as (to coin a term) demoskrieg, that is, long-term evolutionary warfare between peoples or races? Or, rather, should we view them as separate beasts and engage more with the diaspora since it poses a more direct threat to white interests? To coin another term, this would be diaskrieg, or, short-term evolutionary competition between different diasporas.
In “Demoskrieg and Diaskrieg,”  I summarize the differences between demoskrieg and diaskrieg as follows:
Demoskrieg: Engaging Jews with the same weapons with which they engage whites. In this case, “weapons” refers to the reliable Jewish tactic of using blacks , browns , and aboriginals  as weapons against white civilization. It also refers to its more recent flipside: the white gentile tactic of using the Palestinians as an excuse to condemn Israel .
Diaskrieg: Focusing on reversing the influence of diaspora Jews (more specifically, Liberal Diaspora Jews, or LDJs, as I have referred to them before ) and deliberately limiting attacks on Israel, thereby giving Jews a convenient out should whites ever convince them to beat a retreat from traditionally white homelands.
Recently, this dichotomy came up in my conflicted assessment  of Philip Giraldi’s take on the recent Ramadan Riots in Jerusalem. My ethnonationalist principles tell me to not to come down too hard on the Israelis who see Palestinians as a threat to Israel’s Jewish identity. (Would leaders of a white ethnostate behave much differently in the face of a belligerent black minority?) I would prefer diaskrieg, that is, contending only with globalist Jews whose policies directly harm whites in their own countries. And since neither Palestinians nor Right-wing Israelis express any love for whites qua whites, I don’t see why whites should get mixed up at all in these endless Middle Eastern disputes.
On the other hand, my fervent desire not to lose the worldwide cultural war leads me to align a little more closely with diaskrieg these days. First, this is the war the Jews relentlessly wage against whites. Secondly, despite not being entirely honest, it works. So why shouldn’t whites wage demoskrieg against the Jews in return?
Of course, the issue is a lot more complicated than this, and I am still more than a little bit conflicted. The article delves into it in much greater detail. Please check it out. Like the previous one, I believe it’s one of my best.
The Woody Allen Fallacy (August 26, 2019)
This one, I am proud to say, got picked up by American Renaissance. At the beginning of Annie Hall, Woody Allen, in one of the several times he directly addresses the audience, tells a joke.
There’s an old joke: Two elderly women are at a Catskills Mountain resort, and one of them says, “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” And the other one says, “Yeah, I know. And such small portions.”
From this tepid stab at humor I endeavored to boil the anti-white attitude of most blacks down to its absurd and contradictory axioms:
- Blacks hate whites because white people are bad.
- Blacks also hate whites because they can’t get enough of white people.
On the other hand, white attitudes towards blacks are much more consistent. Whites recognize that they are more inclined to suffer due to their proximity to blacks, and therefore wish to get away from them. I point out in my “Woody Allen Fallacy”  essay that people with consistent attitudes should not take seriously the complaints of those with contradictory attitudes. For blacks, that contradiction can best be explained by the Woody Allen Fallacy: professing to hate the very thing they want more of.
The ISEE Model of White Survival (August 14, 2020)
This appeared in part two of my “Trump Should Wargame Secession Too”  series which responded to another statement by John Podesta. This time, Podesta, while wargaming the 2020 election among Democrats, suggested that Biden not concede if Trump came out on top. He also suggested that various blue states secede before allowing Trump back into the White House.
My big idea in part two  was that, once he wins reelection, Trump should also wargame secession in case the Left does anything drastic. If the Left wishes to split off from America, so be it. Yes, the idea is dated after what happened last November. However, my main point was that a breakup of the United States could only benefit the Dissident Right because it would lead to a country that is much whiter than the one we have now. I know it wouldn’t be white enough for most of us, and that we all harbor dreams of a white ethnostate. However, the ISEE Model of White Survival demonstrates how this could be achieved gradually (like Greg Johnson’s “Slow Cleanse” ).
Until this very moment, as I am typing out these very words, I have believed that Antifa, BLM, and the militant Left in general are the despicable enemies of civilization. But now, I am not so sure. Certainly, they are evil and in a shooting war would need swift killing. But what if, by shaking the foundations of Western society so vigorously, they are inadvertently serving the interests of the true Right? What if, by wreaking so much havoc, they are offering the Right a precious opportunity for achieving its most important goal: Escape.
I’ll say it again: Escape.
Note that this goal is not military victory, nor is it a white ethnostate. At least not yet.
It was with the goal of escape in mind that I created the ISEE Model of White Survival. An ethnostate can only be reestablished in stages, like so:
The whole point of this is that, if ever there is a real secession, all white nationalists should shut up about white nationalism. Here’s why:
Since Ethnostate is Stage 4 and Escape Stage 3, it would make sense that anything jeopardizing Stage 3 also jeopardizes Stage 4. As such, the secessionist-minded Right should be as inclusive as possible and accept as many conservatives, traditionalists, Alt-lightists, and anti-Leftists as it can. At this point, the essence would be to attain the manpower, weapons, money, and materiel to properly secede. So mouthing off about the gloriously high walls of the fabled Whitemanistan during Stages 2 and 3 might be a tad counter-productive and scare away people who could potentially help us. Race should not be a deal-breaker at this point, although it almost goes without saying that the secessionist Right must have a significant white majority to begin with in order for the ISEE Model to work — my guess is at least eighty percent. Finally, if the breakaway Right-wing society proves to be viable after several years and is able to withstand the external threat of the Left-wing baseline society, then and only then can whites start planning to form a real white ethnostate.
Counter-Plugging (May 7, 2021)
My most recent coinage can be used in conjunction with demoskrieg, mentioned above. It describes how a person, a nation, or a race can support dysgenic behavior among enemy populations while forbidding such behavior among their own. It appeared in the essay “Counter-Plugging the Ramadan Riots,”  and the term seemed to take hold among the commenters. I think Counter-plugging is a fairly apt way of describing how Jews swing far Left as a diaspora but far-Right in Israel. They want what’s best for themselves and what worst for their enemies.
Anyway, it’s been a great five years writings for Counter-Currents. Thanks to all my readers and commenters. Your support and comments have made it all worthwhile.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here: