Counter-Currents
Burning of the Templars, from the Grandes Chroniques de France (1314)
1,938 words
One of the harshest judgements we get as White Nationalists and identitarians is that of being hateful, and that we are motivated purely by hate for non-whites. This charge informs a great deal of the mainstream discourse about us and a good deal of our mainstream-facing discourse (meaning our addresses to the normies). White Nationalists and identitarians will often frantically defend themselves against this charge, about as frantically as conservatives rush to prove they are not racist. Indeed, a significant part of what is considered “good optics” is eschewing outright hatred of non-white groups or anything that might even look like it. We are committed to portraying ourselves as solely motivated by care for our own group and portraying our mistrust of outsiders as purely rational and reactive. While this is a good thing and undoubtedly part of good optics, I find that there are various reasons we are called “hateful.”
For starters, let’s think about the nature of the mainstream and its core presuppositions. It has two wings, a progressive Left and a libertarian Right one, but both rest on the same assumption, namely that All Men Are Created Equal. From this assumption flow all the ideas about universal values, meaning they apply to every person in the whole world, at any time, in any place, and in every culture. If they did not apply to all men in all places, then these values would not be universal — but that is not possible, because All Men Are Created Equal, and if values do not apply to some men, then it implies that all men aren’t created equal. This very notion is blasphemous and evil, or in modern parlance, racist and hateful.
Contrast that with the White Nationalist or identitarian view. We recognize that both the progressive (social democratic) and libertarian visions for society and their attendant values are not universal and not common to all men, but they’re rather very specific to the times and places in which they arose. Social democracy is a form of communal social organization very typical of Nordic (and Nordic-admixed) whites. Libertarianism is a very specific outgrowth of a very specific subset of English liberalism often called Manchester liberalism, which earned a good deal of purchase in the mercantile British Empire of the nineteenth century. Both systems were described by Oswald Spengler as singular expressions not merely of white, but specifically of Germanic and even more particularly of the Saxon mentality.
It has indeed been observed with some amusement by the broader Dissident Right that the demographics of libertarianism wouldn’t be out of place in a particularly white corner of the white ethnostate (complete with a sign saying “no gurlz allowd” in great big bold letters outside the treehouse). Progressivism, being the more accepted, more popular, and more powerful of the two wings of the universalist worldview, has broader demographics, but unlike practitioners of other races, it is only white progressives who practice it without applying double standards to get away with in-group preference, which is to say that only white people practice it properly.
One of the first thing a newly-minted White Nationalist does, hoping to win people over to his side, is point out these very things: Both social democratic and libertarian societies are only functional if they have the demographics of a white ethnostate. He will rightly point out that if libertarians truly wanted libertarianism and if progressives truly wanted progressivism, they’d instantly become White Nationalists, because these ideologies are specific to white people (and even more narrowly, Nordic and Germanic white people). The White Nationalist is then promptly chased out of polite society and charged with being “hateful.” He tries to defend himself, claiming that at no point did he say anything hateful and that he doesn’t hate anyone (which in all probability he honestly doesn’t), and that he merely pointed out that black people are a square peg in the round hole of liberalism. At that point, his liberal interlocutors begin wailing, gnashing their teeth, rending their garments, and asking security to remove the foul hater from their presence. Without knowing, our completely hate-free identitarian newbie has violated the most sacred taboo of liberalism: All Men Are Created Equal.
To the liberal, whether progressive or libertarian, the idea of a black, Asian, Subcontinental, Jew, or other form of non-white being a square peg which will never fit into the round hole of white liberal social systems is offensive because it is a falsification of the universalist thesis. Indeed, liberalism’s claim to legitimacy is that its values are universal because All Men Are Created Equal, and therefore these values are universal to all men. To show the liberal an unequal man, struggling to fit into the purportedly universal system, is to provide prima facie evidence that all men are not created equal. This is blasphemy, or in modern parlance, racism. Even something as obviously non-racial as pointing out that Southern and Eastern Europeans aren’t exactly cut out for Northwestern European systems (we aren’t) can be easily dismissed as hateful. Liberals of all stripes have no idea how Italy works. All their models indicate it will fall apart in the next five years — and have been saying the same thing since the Risorgimento. Italy, for its part, functions and will go on functioning for the foreseeable future.
But returning to our apprentice identitarian, what is the actual hatred in his heart? Let’s draw a parallel to a faith we all more or less understand.
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
Christianity is full of rhetoric about the brotherhood of man and about how God’s love touches all, as well as other universalist proclamations. Yet, the history of Christianity is in many ways the history of war against the infidel — those who have refused the Word of God. The fedora-wearing atheist thinks this is a gotcha, but it’s self-evident to the right-thinking man, even one of a different faith, that within that particular belief system, those who spurn God’s love (the infidels) are as deserving of crusades, inquisitions, and being shot dirty looks in the street as they are of eternal damnation and hellfire. Likewise, when I see liberals bellyaching about fascists and those who adhere to other illiberal ideologies, I understand the urge to destroy the infidel.
Suppose, however, we had someone who is a Christian and who noticed how curiously white the religion is, and furthermore, that the non-whites who convert to it usually retain their pre-Christian religious practices and behavior. He then proceeds to inform his fellow Christians of this and advance a cautious thesis: that their faith isn’t really universal but specific to their time and place, and indeed, God’s love would only touch them and not others, since others have no souls to save (an early belief of the Mormon Church with regard to blacks, as I was surprised to learn).
If you want an idea of what the reaction would be, just mention that race is somewhat important in spiritual matters to your favorite online traditionalist Catholic. Indeed, these days, whenever I want to annoy tradcaths, all I do is mention that the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches was not only political, but also ethnic/racial in nature: Greeks, Balkanites and other peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean split away from the Romantic/Germanic West (which later saw another split, this time between Romans and Germans in the Reformation). I’ll then add that I don’t mind these political splits between the churches, as they allow each subracial group to worship God according to their biological needs — and then let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence.
To say that either Christianity or liberalism are indeed what they truly are in essence — non-universal creeds particular to a specific people in a specific place at a specific time — we strike at its very heart of their source of legitimacy. Ironically, this is a very Western thing we’re striking at, as Faustian man’s drive to conquer infinite space recognizes no border, not even that of biology. His creed is universal, and it applies to all men at all times, and those who claim otherwise are worse than mere infidels because they deny that All Men Are Created Equal. They furthermore deny that this is a universal value; indeed, that there are such things as universal values. Thus, by denying these values which are universal to all men, they have proven that they are not men! They are enemies of humanity! Beasts! Monsters!
As usual, Carl Schmitt was there before us. From The Concept of the Political:
The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded of a somewhat modified expression of Proudhon’s: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.
That which stands opposed to universalism is particularism. I am not a dispassionate observer commenting on things. I am a specific man, from a specific time, from a specific country, of a specific culture, speaking in a specific language. My values aren’t universal to all men; they are particular to men like me. My habits and methods aren’t universal — indeed, the world would fall apart if all men tried to live like me — but they are specific to men like me. By saying these things and earnestly believing them, I am committing the cardinal sin against the universalist faiths by indicating a border, an insurmountable barrier.
Faustian man, in his decadent, liberal form, looks at me with nothing but contempt and disgust. He is tempted to resurrect his deep-held prejudices against Southeastern Europeans (most of which are true) when describing me. He considers me a demonic creature which brings nothing but evil barriers, barring the way into the garden that God or Nature (or Nature’s God) made for him. I wound the universalist’s ego by pointing out his finitude, which he interprets as smallness and parochialism. Innocently, because I value his ideas and because I value the finite and the local, I injure his idea. Faustian man in his decadent disposition is thus consumed by an inhuman hatred so severe that he denies me the quality of being human and declares me an outlaw of humanity. This inhuman hatred he then projects onto me. Hence, by pointing out that he also has a tradition, a place, and a limit, I am — in my giggling, sun-kissed naïveté — the hater, the monster, the inhuman beast calling for genocide and destruction.
I mentioned at the beginning that denying that one is a hater is an important part of good optics. However, I will also point out that it is as futile to deny it as is the conservative explaining that he’s not a racist in the face of non-whites claiming systemic racism. When we say “hate” we mean hostility, intent to injure and kill, and disdain out of all proportion. When they say “hate,” they mean denial of the faith — which is true in our case.
So let me give this prescription: When we deny being haters, keep in mind what the enemy means by hate and elucidate this definition to onlookers, but always bear in mind that the enemy’s definition of hate is also the legal definition of hate. This will become even more apparent in the years to come, as the struggle between particularists and universalists intensifies.
* * *
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:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
22 comments
Fisher Ames reply to “…all men are created equal..:” is “But differ in the sequel.”
I am not sure how Liberals managed to usurp the “…created equal” from their Declaration of Independence and ultimately falsified their legacy. And why everyone including the Conservatives went along? It only meant one thing and one thing only: “Royalty wasn’t a divine gift.”
The draft version said “all Englishmen are created equal.” If Jefferson had stayed with that, it would have cleared up a lot of things.
In Jefferson´s times everybody understood it just so.
Prof. Revilo Oliver writes:
“For Jeffersonian democracy, an independent and racially homogenous population of Nordics is but the first requisite, for there is great inequality within our race. It is true that Jefferson put into his Declaration of Independence a wild rhetorical flourish, as dramatic as a war-cry, claiming that “all men are created equal.” He was not a moron, and cannot have meant anything so absurd as is sometimes supposed. What he meant was that all Englishmen should be equal before the law. He was reacting against the class structure of English society and an aristocracy, of which the greater part had been created by kings and ennobled parvenus, often for the most discreditable services, so that socially and morally worthless individuals were given special privileges because they were descended from men who had, rightly or wrongly, been elevated to the peerage. Jefferson recognized, of course, the biologically inequality of all men: “There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds for this are virtue and talents…There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these, it would belong in the first class.””
What’s the citation for that?
Whenever I want to annoy tradcaths, all I do is mention that the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches was not only political, but also ethnic/racial in nature: Greeks, Balkanites and other peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean split away from the Romantic/Germanic West (which later saw another split, this time between Romans and Germans in the Reformation).
This might appear to be true in broad outline, but doesn’t pass inspection. How much Slavic admixture did Greek-Byzantine elites carry at the time? They were probably racially closer to Southern Italians.
As for Protestant/Catholic schisms, need I mention that Calvinistic Scots were the ethnic kin of the Irish, or that high church Englishmen were basically Catholic? Germany itself was divided between Catholics in the south and Lutherans in the north, to which you will undoubtedly reply that the north was more Nordic, and I then counter with the example of Catholic Poland & Lithuania. And in more recent times, the second leading Catholic state after Roman France was the Germano-Slav complex Austria-Hungary-Croatia. The genetic differences between Croats and Serbs are negligible.
In sum, the religious map of Europe is a reflection of elite preferences (excepting the intra-Protestant divisions), not ethnic predisposition.
I’m painting in broad strokes. When we zoom in the graphs, we find that local rivalries take precedence over big picture narratives. Of course that Poland, sandwiched between Protestant Prussia and Orthodox Russia will find a faith to differentiate itself. Of course Scotland will find ways to separate itself out from Catholic Ireland and Anglican England. But the broad strokes picture holds up and it holds up across religions (check out Islam’s sectarian map and overlay it with an ethnic/racial map sometimes).
Here in the U.S. where many Russian refugees have been arriving since 1917 onwards, even the vaulted Russian Orthodox Church of Russia split into ‘squabbling sects’ and I could go on for hours about their ever-splintering theological interpretational battles. I met a Russian friend in college, who invited me to come with her to church, and being an Art History student, as was she, I was overwhelmed with the Icons, the exquisite choir, the incense, and the wonderful fact that the sermon was in Church Slavonic so I didn’t have to hear once again about what a terrible sinner I was. I eventually, met a young American man there one time who invited me to come to ‘The English Version” in one of the classrooms. It turned out they were all enthralled with Orthodoxy, but only because — it turned out — that it was stricter and more fanatic than the previous churches they had just walked out on. Gone was the choir, the extensive Icons throughout the whole church, and all the other magic of the ethereal Russian service. We sang in our feeble voices and listened to sermons in English on — you guessed it — what terrible sinners we were. And we were lectured on how this Church was ‘the only TRUE Russian Orthodox Church” and we were not to believe any of the writings of the other Orthodox churches in the U.S. and from most of Orthodox Europe. So, you can see, this hair-splitting among all church extends its tendrils wherever there are sad fanatic-oriented types.
I still love visiting Orthodox churches occasionally, here and in Europe — as long as their sermons are not in English!
These types confuse “hate” with apathy, or mix them, whenever you deny their religious fever that All Men Are Created Equal. Whatever make-believe evil they are rallying against, you become the perpetrator of said evil if you shrug at it. Same thing happens if you aren’t down with their cause.
WNs simply don’t have the time or capacity at the moment to really care what happens to every other race on the planet, we’re currently trying to secure our own future existence. Whites are stuck in a defensive, survival position. White ingenuity for world growth, which historically has benefited all races, has to be put on the back burner for the time being.
Some Lives Matter. Some more than others. They want to live in a world where a gang bangin’ “youth” and an illegal alien siphoning your country’s prosperity have equal importance to a white college undergrad who spends his free time doing community projects. Hell no, not buying it.
Great breakdowns in your article, Mr. Jeelvy.
This article was definitely enlightening on the subject of what the Mainstream calls, “hate”. I must say, I always thought that it was a denial of Marxism or adjacent theory; but it looks like these corrupted abominations actually are the inheritors of the Founding Fathers’ legacy. Scary to say the least, that all this time, we were the villains and spreading our cancerous ideas and ideologies throughout the world.
We need to work harder to remove any ideal of the “All Men Are Created Equal” mantra and replace it with: “Some men are more equal than others”.
I wouldn’t be too gung-ho for inegalitarian politics. The hostile elites who rule us now certainly don’t view us as equals. I think Jefferson as quoted by Beau Albrecht had the right idea, “All Englishmen are created equal.” Or better yet, Aristotle had the right idea, a mixed regime bounded by shared racial ties. The trick is for the populace to recognize men of superior rank from among their racial kin, and for the superior men not to forget that kinship.
The only thing I’d add to that is that our present-day “elites” are not necessarily the greatest men of the country. They simply have very large amounts of money and power.
Corrupt systems privilege evolved traits different from those which are advantageous in more just regimes. Of course, this presupposes objective ethics (which I do accept, though I recognize that is a contested position). The phrase “All men are created equal” was intended as a salvo against European feudalism (or its aristocratic vestiges). It meant that the accident of birth station should not entitle a man to greater legal privilege than one of lesser station. It might also have been meant to have been understood by its intended audience as a reflection of their modal Christian metaphysics – that all men are equal in their salvific potential before God (put another way, even the wellborn and mighty will be judged by God, and as strictly as their social inferiors). The phrase of course did not mean that all men are literally equal in physical traits (height, weight, strength, IQ, etc) or personality or character. Neither is there any evidence that suggests it was intended to mean that all groups or classes of men are equal in outlook or ability.
“Racist” means White. Nothing else. The sooner Whites accept this, the sooner we can come together and defeat the cancers within our societies. “Hate” is next, anyone in favor of White interests will be labeled a “hater” until we just laugh it off. Unfortunately, it’s probably going to take a serious economic downturn and a large number of Whites suffering poverty before we have a chance of taking back our countries.
A wonderful essay which takes on the subject of ‘Equality” — and it’s about time we start telling the truth about this monstrous lie.
I pretty much decided that all people were not born equal when I flunked Geometry in the 10th grade and realized I was certainly not equal to Einstein.
However, that same year (1958, I think), we were given the “Iowa Tests” — three days of testing to determine what we had ‘accomplished’ in school thus far — though they were really hooded IQ tests — and I scored 93 overall out of 99, with two scores of 99 and one 97 on 3 subjects measuring verbal competence and science, but my math, of course, was 54.
Then, when I arrived home, my older half-Hispanic step-sister met me at the door and begged me not to tell our parents what we got on the tests, for it seems she scored 48 overall. And so, being a well-mannered, charitable White girl, I never did tell.
For the rest of my school career, I was placed in ‘Honors’ classes, what are known as Advanced Placement today. And I thought nothing of it, because those were the classes I liked, and was good at. Obviously, they were ‘college track’.
Today, the Woke crowd is trying to eliminate AP classes, since ‘everyone is equal’, and no one should be taking classes that others might have trouble with — it might make them feel bad about themselves — and now we are entering the era of ‘dumbing down’, when indeed, it might be true that everyone will be equal — equally dumb. But no one will know, because ‘tests’ and ‘grades’ are being eliminated as well.
Get your kids the hell out of public schools!
All of this standardized test elimination is for the benefit of two groups: 1) blacks, because a) they cannot compete cognitively, and b) being also the most race-conscious and racist group, this repeatedly demonstrated mental inferiority enrages them no end (plus, if sufficiently widely known, could and perhaps would collapse the whole race hustling narrative from which they benefit enormously financially and professionally); and 2) liberal whites, the world’s evolutionary outliers, who literally tear up and get triggered when confronted with the facts of human inter-group inequality.
“Hatred” is a good English word with a long and secure history, but “hate” (as a noun, not a verb) is a recently invented, recently promoted term of art.
“Hate” seems to relate to “hatred” as “gender” relates to “sex.” That is, the new word replaces the old word in contexts where anti-Whites or Cultural Marxists want a new denotation and a new set of connotations to force our discussions and our thoughts into paths that serve the anti-White agenda.
Unlike “hatred,” I don’t think “hate” is going to be easy to get hold of. We may need to see more of the anti-White agenda unfold to understand where this is heading. The connotations of “hate” may be altered again, top-down, and then we may see “hate” as a we know it now to be larval form rather than as a mature specimen.
Even with only the information we now have, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that who is accused of “hate” is likely less straightforward than who could be accused of “hatred.”
That new word, “hate,” that has been pressed on us is intended to do new work. Until we understand this new work, our analysis may be useful but it has to be incomplete.
An excellent observation. Hatred is something we can ascribe meaning to. “Hate” is a nebulous term which translates to “evil” in normal people speech.
“Hatred is something we can ascribe meaning to. “Hate” is a nebulous term which translates to “evil” in normal people speech.”
You see what I see.
Jeelvy is correct to develop an analysis of the relationship between particularism and universalism. Conservatism, properly understood, seeks to defend the particular against the encroachments and subversions of the universal. But there can also be universal particularity. While my own (or any) political philosophy involves much more than just white preservation, I do consider myself to be a universal ethnonationalist: ie, I believe all historically distinct peoples should be the sovereign holders of some territory over which they exercise exclusive political control. As Greg Johnson understands, it would be hypocritical for whites to demand ethnostates on moral grounds without reciprocally granting the possibility of nonwhite ethnostates. I also happen to believe, at the risk of being labeled “Faustian”, that there are better and worse forms of political organization, and this both ethically and functionally. That is, some politico-juridico-economic arrangements are inherently (deontologically) more ethical than others (regardless of what “works” for any given tribe: mass propitiary human sacrifices may have “worked” as a social cement and source of public meaning for the Aztecs, but the practice was still objectively evil, and thus deserved to be destroyed, not respected, by stronger powers), and some are demonstrably more in accord with the universal elements of human nature, and thus conduce to greater national happiness.
Rejecting globalism and cosmopolitanism, and recognizing distinct ethnopsychologies, does not necessarily entail denying those aspects of human nature that all men share. Humans are comprised of different races, as well as ethnocultures, but we remain one species (which is why human races can interbreed). All races are biologically far more similar than dissimilar (head, brain, two eyes/ears/hand/feet, upright stance, respiration, excretion, love, hate, fear, hunger, sexuality, reproduction, etc). We therefore share much in common psychologically, as much of our mental life revolves around meeting our common biological challenges. OTOH, tiny genetic differences can lead to large behavioral ones, as any primatologist lecturing about how we humans share 98%+ of our DNA with chimps can attest. The genetic differences between the races are probably less than 0.1%, but from the view of the human mind, attuned as it is to discerning trait gradations primarily among humans not other animals, that relatively small percentage yields very noticeable differences in mentality and sociality.
The biggest misconception about right-wing racially conscious people by hostile opposition rather than indifferentists is that we are purely adversarial and only exist to be against things: race-mixing, homosexuals, the jews, muslims, and rainbows, but never a creative force onwards and starwards. We just can’t resist that addictive uncontrollable HATE like Roger Rabbit to Shave and a Haircut. iAmerika’s struggling on less than 10% distressing red and draining fast; our values/policies of future vanguards will regenerate from ruin to 100% green, safe and fresh and warm, if only the wheyfaces see the White light. I’ll skip the hypocrisy of a white-hating racism-fetishizer chaz, chop, or clat bum from portland (Lake No-negro as I recall Jim saying) mouthing off about hate. Our people in power, or the adults back in the room as milquetoast republican scabs yapping away, would induce Le Fin Absolue Du Monde-like effects in the most rabid hate-faithful (see antifa’s mugshots). The leftist pendulum may not wrecking-ball swing to the other side, but Mother Nature is a bitch and always gets her way in the end, like Brady won’t beat Father Time in his thousandth Super Bowl, no amount of new schoolers-in-exile, neo-communist threats & zohar tripe can break the cosmic order, the idealists’ vision and way. I and everyone else but portia can’t stand her but just keep swimming, just keep swimming.
The correct answer IMO is to state(with some passion) that there is nothing wrong with hating those that want to destroy you. Then explain how it is the same institutions that are committing the hate worthy, anti-white actions that have convinced us we should not hate in the first place.
Anyone who denies whites the right to hate Anti-Whites are themselves Anti-White.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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
Edit your comment