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

Our Disdain for the Normie

[1]1,346 words

Many people have characterized 2021 as the year when they realized exactly how bovine the public is. While speaking disdainfully of “normies” was always present on the Dissident Right, even before the internet, when the old hats called them “sheeple,” 2021 — with its twentieth month of lockdowns, masks, and now vaccine hysteria, coupled with the sham election in America, the hard-Left swing of the so-called Conservatives in Britain, and the people’s total compliance with it all — proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the public is just as easily led by the nose and incapable of independent thought as we always suspected it to be. Sheeple, cattle, slaves, whatever you want to call them, they have no will outside what they’re told by the authorities to will.

Now that we’ve understood this, the question we need to answer is, what are we gonna do about it? Recently, someone pointed out to me that I have a strong disdain for normies. I indeed stand guilty of such disdain, but I’m not so proud that I can’t admit that such disdain is foundationally wrong. To hold a normie in disdain for not being able to manifest an independent will is like holding a dog in disdain for not being able to drive a car. But irrational though it may be, the disdain I and others on the Dissident Right have towards normies is very real, and deserves exploration.

I look at the average pooch, and it is in all ways that matter an inferior being to myself, and yet I have no contempt for it. It is very good at being a dog, at sniffing, at running, fetching sticks, using emotional blackmail to obtain free meat at the butcher’s, and being a good boy, but unlike me, it cannot drive a car, it cannot write an article for Counter-Currents, or even poop in a toilet. The difference between a dog and a normie, of course, is that I do not expect the dog to be able to do the things I do. Part of it is probably because the dog doesn’t look like me. For all our internal differences, the morphology of my set is very similar to that of the normie. We have all the same bits, all the same parts, and all in the same order. If I have sex with a normie woman, there’s a chance I’ll impregnate her. I can even speak to the normie, if not quite communicate with him [2]. So, what’s to stop a normie from manifesting an independent will? If I can do it . . .

This is the line of reasoning that a libertarian took with me recently when he complained about the public’s lack of skepticism towards various theses that are being put out there without evidence or arguments. If he can do it — if he can rise above his programming, if he can break the conditioning, if he can demand evidence before believing something — then so can the people. I pointed out to him that he is in all likelihood not a normal man, is probably of higher IQ than average, and is very willful and jealous of his independence (hence the libertarianism), as well as most likely being slightly autistic and therefore not easily enthralled by charisma or intimidated by power.

Contrast that to the normie, who is the definition of average: of average IQ, probably not willful or interested in independence, not particularly impressed by evidence, and powerless to resist charisma and cowering before power. Psychologically, the normie and I might as well be different species.

If we are more or less a different species, as is the case with the dog, then why do I hold the normie in disdain, whereas I have infinite patience with the dog? The reason is quite simple. In the West, we are inundated from childhood with the egalitarian ideology. Egalitarian ideology teaches that we’re all equal, especially in mental ability, or as my libertarian friend put it, if I can do it, why not they?

Now, as much as I may reject this way of thinking intellectually, I was born and raised in this egalitarian culture. I was taught that all men are created equal, and that everyone can achieve anything if they apply themselves. And then, having been told that, I crashed headfirst into reality, where men are decidedly unequal — so unequal, in fact, that some of them barely register as human upon closer examination, being more similar in temperament to sheep and cattle than men. If you’re taught that God’s gifts are distributed equally, and that man can do anything he sets his mind to, then you soon learn to consider those who cannot achieve as simply lazy, willfully stupid, and pig ignorant, and if they’re perfectly compliant an authority’s commands, then they’re just slaves and value comfort more than honor. Why not hold them in disdain?

However, once we internalize an alternative hypothesis with regard to the nature of man and the nature of society, the need for disdain evaporates. When we speak of an organic, or corporate (meaning body-like) society, we speak of a society of specialized human beings, with the human body serving as a metaphor. Just as the human body has specialized cells and tissues which form organs, organ systems, and in turn the body, thus society has specialized people forming specialized institutions. By specialized, we do not merely mean specially trained, but specially born, with a position in the great chain of being determined by biology, IQ, the capacity for decision-making through rationality or emotionality, a tendency towards fear and hedonism or a lack thereof, and by the degree of connection to the transcendent and one’s capacity for spiritual life. In such a conception of life, every man, no matter how humble, has a role to play, and will be judged on how well he performs his role. In the egalitarian society, we are all expected to be everything and we’re all judged against the best, against the highest, because we’re all deemed to have the capacity to be the highest. In the egalitarian society, we form not a body, but an amorphous mass whose goal is to expand, cancer-like, and a neuron is expected to perform the functions of a muscle cell.

With that in mind, it would seem my disdain for normies is irrational. Maybe it’ll be with me forever, as I developed it early enough in life that it forms a sizeable chunk of what is now my adult personality. I suspect it developed during the course of my state-mandated education, where I was surrounded by peers and teachers who were normies. Had I been given an opportunity to be educated alongside my own kind and hadn’t been forced to interact with normies on a daily basis, I probably would have developed the paternalistic attitude towards the normies’ outlook that characterized the historical aristocrats. But I suppose that part of the reason why we’re crammed together in schools regardless of temperament and cognitive ability is so that the disruption of the normal, healthy functioning of the societal body is a desired end for the egalitarians.

Regardless of this, I’ll do my utmost — and indeed, so should you — to shed this vestige of egalitarianism in your outlook. I’m not saying love the normie, I’m not saying agree with him, and God knows I’ll never try to speak to him about subjects way above his paygrade, but we need to stop hating the normie simply for being a normie. As for yourself, you’re reading this text on Counter-Currents because you’re different. You’re probably higher than average in IQ, possibly even gifted, but more importantly, you have a dissident temperament. You are a willful person, willing to question arguments from authority figures and somewhat immune to the effects of charisma. Accept that and act accordingly.

I’m not giving you license to strut arrogantly and remind everyone constantly of your superiority, but rather I’m giving you a mission to become a leader of your people and take your position in the great chain of being. Godspeed.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here: