Counter-Currents
Karl Marx, Chief Adolescent who never worked a day in his life.
1,543 words
If I ruled the world,
Every day would be the first day of Spring
–Tony Bennett, “If I Ruled the World”
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.–1st Corinthians, 13:11
One at times has to marvel at the hordes on the Left. They cling tenaciously to adolescence; never do they grow up and come to terms with reality. To remain on the Left is to lock one’s self into a permanent state of arrested development.
The upset election of the Orange Man five years ago unleashed Leftist adolescence in a peak of pathological frenzy manifested as Trump Derangement Syndrome. It demonstrated how an ideology marinated in the juices of an alternative reality can turn adults, young and old, into disagreeable, unmanageable children fixated on a long-dead Austrian with a Charlie Chaplin mustache. Post-election 2016 was a unique period in American history, a four-year collective temper tantrum that led to the extraction of Joe “You know? The thing” Biden and Wille Brown’s concubine, Kamala Harris, from the lowest dregs of the ruling class and put them in the country’s highest offices.
One of the most distinctive marks of adolescence is a relentless, self-centered view of one’s place in the world. Work — because it is not always easy, fun, and instantly rewarding — is not readily embraced by highly self-centered creatures like adolescents. Full-time, hard work is something that Leftists devoutly believe other people should do since they themselves have higher callings — like dismantling the old corrupt order and installing a regime of virtue in its place –, grandiosity being another stage of late childhood.
Karl Marx, worshipped by adolescents worldwide, spent his adult life dodging gainful, full-time employment. His wife, Jenny, and the Marx children languished in squalor while Karl scribbled away and sponged off his pal, Friedrich Engels. Stalin as a young, ambitious Bolshevik robbed banks. Mao wrote poetry. Jean-Paul Sartre lounged about in Paris cafés affecting a distinctively French anti-bourgeois style while producing reams of unreadable bilge that aspiring sophisticates in college dorms and faculty lounges would later flaunt as deep existentialist thought. Bill Ayers tried to blow up the Pentagon before he settled into his sinecure as an “education” professor and aging celebrity-radical. Now at a ripe old age of 77, retired on a state pension, it’s unlikely that he has put in a day of hard work in his entire life. Leftist, professional radicals, for all of their professed dedication to the betterment of the oppressed working masses, would never be found in a factory, near a coal mine, on a tractor, or emptying a bedpan.
The “Occupy Wall Street” adolescents a few years back, with the encouragement of their Hope and Change President, who himself has never had a real job, squatted in public places and railed and fumed at “rich, greedy bankers” while ignoring a couple of obvious questions: Why would anyone want to be a banker if he couldn’t be rich? Presumably, they didn’t object to poor bankers, but why would any sane person trust their savings to one?
You see, “greedy” is “adolescent-speak” that describes someone who makes more money or has more than you think he should. I believe that it is safe to conjecture that in the history of the world, it would be exceedingly difficult to discover many examples of individuals confessing themselves to being greedy. Certainly no one on the Left would ever make such a confession. Greed is the cardinal sin for the Leftist, and its application is most flexible — sort of like undeserved “privilege” — and only white people have it. George Clooney, Michael Moore. Hillary Clinton, and Mark Zuckerberg have more money than most of us could dream of, yet I have never heard of anyone calling them greedy.
Adolescents also tend to be know-it-alls. They gaze around at the world, observing and deeply resenting all of its injustices and pettiness. They know exactly what is wrong and how to fix it. If only they were allowed to, every day would be the first day of Spring. Some pass through what their elders patronizingly and euphemistically call the “idealistic” stage, come to terms with the imperfections, and live out their imperfect lives in this most imperfect world without being in perpetual high dudgeon and projecting their malignancies onto normal people.
However, we have the amply sad history of permanent adolescent know-it-alls, professional Leftists, in charge of fixing things. One word is sufficient to summarize the state of the paradise that two adolescents with homicidal instincts promised would unfold if they were put in charge: “starvation.” Two of the world’s largest countries, Russia and China, were run for decades by a couple of “boys” widely proclaimed to be “geniuses” and paragons of virtue. No field of study or body of wisdom was beyond their mastery. No aspect of the character or personality of either leader was sullied by self-interest. Both Stalin and Mao went on to engineer famines that killed tens of millions of their own countrymen. Mao, whose real forte was poetry, untrained and wholly ignorant of agronomy and basic science, nevertheless overturned centuries of traditional Chinese agricultural practice and inserted his whims and fantasies as law. The Great Leap Forward is the ultimate demographer’s challenge to this day as researchers try to determine how many millions of Chinese people perished as the result of Mao’s fantasies.
You can buy Stephen Paul Foster’s new novel When Harry Met Sally here.
In addition to starving to death millions of Ukrainian farmers in the 1930s, Stalin put the ignoramus, Trofim Lysenko, in charge of Soviet agronomy. He proceeded to persecute and drive out real scientists and agronomists. Our own Trofim Lysenko, Tony Fauci, is following a similar modus operandi. One single statistic that forcefully expresses the staggering ignorance and incompetence of the know-it-alls that governed the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991 is the following: “In 1917 Russia had been the world’s largest exporter of grain; by 1989 it was the world’s largest importer.”[1]
In speaking of the connection between Communist miracle workers and starvation, I would be remiss here if I did not also mention that when Fidel Castro’s Sugar Daddy, known as the Soviet Union, collapsed in 1991, the following decade was a very hungry time in El Maximo Lider’s Socialist Workers’ Paradise. No opportunities for Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers in that corner of the Caribbean.
When adolescents do not get their way, those who disappoint them are made to feel the extreme effects of their resentment. At the hard rock bottom of all Leftist ideology is the premise that all inequitable social outcomes are caused by groups of bad, morally inferior people who oppress and exploit nice, superior ones. For them, history à la Karl Marx in its truest form is grievance-mining — and Leftists are perennial grievance-mongers. The social world is always and inevitably about one group exploiting and dominating another. All that is wrong with the world becomes the doing of the unfairly advantaged Exploiter-Dominators (EDs) who pummel the lowly Exploited-Victims (EVs). Being an EV means that there is always an ED to resent and to blame. An EV in good standing must have a grievance to polish and villains to excoriate. EVs are heroes. They used to be Communist intellectuals and revolutionaries (Marx, Che, and one of Obama’s favorites, Frantz Fanon). Now, in the spirit of defining deviancy down, they are black, career criminals like George Floyd, cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook), and Black Life Matters rioters.
EDs are villains. They used to be fat cat capitalists, corporate executives, and rich people. Now, they are middle class, blue collar, and church-going white people, all lumped together as “white supremacists.” “Workers of the world unite!” has given way to “Black Lives Matter.” The designees have changed; the formula still holds. EVs are virtuous — compassionate, selfless, and wise. EDs are greedy, selfish, and mean-spirited; their intended destination, extinction. Lenin, Mao, and Stalin liquidated the capitalists. Liquidation in the form of replacement and disenfranchisement of white people by champions of the EVs is going on before our very eyes.
This stark, Manichean, hero-villain picture of the world is perfect for the adolescent theorist-moralist. With it, he can feel downtrodden, virtuous, and special all at the same time. The source of his discomfort always redounds to those self-centered adults (projection) who lack the unique insight and knowledge he has (more projection). From this picture flows what Bertrand Russell called “The Doctrine of the Superior Virtue of the Oppressed,” which means that whatever the EVs do to the EDs is morally justified. Lies, character assassination, rioting, looting, and arson — all can be justified because the EDs are all the moral equivalent of Adolf Hitler, even though they pretend not to be. When everyone who opposes you is some variety of Nazi, Fascist, or Klansman, your toolbox of weapons is quite expansive.
On May 5 we will celebrate the 204th birthday of the original adolescent, grievance-mining philosopher. Happy Birthday in advance, Karl. You would be pleased to see that so many of your “children” rule.
* * *
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.
Note
[1] John Mosier, Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 11.
26 comments
This essay is an extended act of self-comforting. The assumption is that the Right is ‘the Adult in the room’. It’s not. The upper echelons of ‘the Left’ run this country and have been doing so for almost a hundred years. As a consequence, even if their policies are terrible, they’re the only political faction with the depth of experience and talent to run things. The Left are, in fact, in charge and any cogent conflict doctrine needs to start with an analysis of reality, not the psychological equivalent of a spa day.
Marxism is a metaphysical moral doctrine. Whatever insights Marx had into capitalism are little understood by the millions of Whites influenced by Marxism in it’s contemporary variants, the most potent sect right now being Wokeism which combines anti-Whiteism with the sacralizing of deviant and non-White flesh. What matters is that moral righteousness sufficient to justify violence is built into Marxism and White individualist liberalism in all its forms is simply not prepared to defend itself and the ideas and policies associated with much of the Right are largely rejected by most Whites.
Whites are global minority. This minority status is exacerbated by the fact that a certain percentage of Whites despise themselves and want to be erased as a people and are willing to help anyone who wants to do that erasing. Unless Whites can get a grip on the actual energies being released in Anti-White Manichean Marxism in all it’s forms, we’re going to back to annihilating each other in the same ways we did back in the sectarian wars of Europe. We really cannot afford that.
Whites who want to survive as Whites and not just some pale-skinned pre-mulatto are going to have to drop the Left vs Right and any other lower-level kinds of analysis and find the language and politics to push back Manichean Marxism without entirely becoming Manichean (which the Right is inclined to do) or apologists for Capital.
The way to beat this beast is to open up a different (if not exactly new) utopianism of the particular. I propose starting with Calhoun and building up a utopian civic-ethnonationalist rhetoric that is both moral and community-affirming.
Whites are not likely to get what they want as Whites alone, but as moral exemplars of a new, benign – and above all loving – political-economic order sufficiently robust and of such ideological simplicity as to be able to harvest the benefits of the emerging multi-polar world order.
“This essay is an extended act of self-comforting.”
Really?
“Liquidation in the form of replacement and disenfranchisement of white people by champions of the EVs is going on before our very eyes.”
I don’t find this comforting. It’s horrifying.
Agreed. The article outlines the effects and outcomes of power devoid of responsibility. I find no comfort there. Furthermore, due to decades of intentional and purposeful dumbing down (and now illegality)of the general electorate, those on the Right are the adults in the room. Just because we are outnumbered and outvoted by the ill-informed doesn’t make us the children.
‘The Right’ would not be outvoted and outnumbered if its positions were popular. Blaming the audience for your failure to persuade is actually pretty immature. Adults try to figure out why they’re failing and innovate. I don’t that’s happened in the Racial Right. Not now. Not ever.
I don’t think my inability to make someone believe broccoli taste better than candy makes me immature, (but way to go on the name calling, very mature), I think we are outnumbered by people who want to take the path of least resistance. I think it is an easy life to be a victim and get paid for it.
I explained why I think it was an extended act of self-comforting. But, I’ll elaborate by taking a different tack: The Racial Right finds pessimism comforting. The more pessimistic, the more the Racial Right enjoys it. The Racial Right is almost (?) masochistic in its enthusiasm for bad news.
Offering any kind of realism or optimism, however, now that’s disturbing and anyone addressing the Racial Right as if they were responsible adults with a job to do will find themselves receiving all kinds of push-back. Your response is a case in point.
The Racial Right are not the adults in the room no matter how juvenile the Left behaves.
The Racial Right is – and has been for almost two generations – political lepers.
The Racial Right is the eternal wall-flower at the big dance that is American politics.
And if you don’t think the Racial Right has had a hand in its own marginalization, you’re not paying attention.
Pro-White politics does not have to be fringe politics. But being saddled with the baggage of the Racial Right is going to see to it that pro-White politics can never get anywhere close to mainstream.
I look at a book like Dr. Johnson’s White Nationalist Manifesto and I think, ‘Good, great. Now what?’.
I look at Dr. Johnson’s essay on ‘Ninety-percent White Nationalism’ and I think, ‘There’s a kernel of a political doctrine there that could move the needle for Whites.’
I don’t know how it will happen, or if it will happen, but somehow we have to shift gears just a little bit way from metapolitics and theory toward a little bit of concrete politics.
I don’t know how it will happen, or if it will happen, but somehow we have to shift gears just a little bit way from metapolitics and theory toward a little bit of concrete politics.
I’m interested in this statement. Would you be able to expand on this a little ?
I like H. Today, sometimes his comments are insightful. However he offers plenty of criticism without solutions. I don’t claim to have the answers, and until I do, I’ll personally refrain from criticizing those who contribute to the cause without actively harming it.
Just get involved in practical politics for things White people want. White folks don’t like being killed, robbed and raped? Support crack-downs on crime. DA is letting criminals out who turn around and hurt White people? Support a recall of the DA. The movement has confused being pro-White with some kind of catechism all pro-White politics must be overtly pro-White. It just doesn’t work that way. Be a White person who is politically involved in getting things White people want or need and not worry about the labels or whether non-Whites benefit. One truth of politics is that most of what White people want other races like as well because it benefits them. People in the movement need to gain skills and knowledge about ordinary politics and how to get things done via the existing institutions. Local politics is still wide open to White activists who play their cards right and wait for our racial enemies to racialize and issue. Then it becomes an issue of ‘fairness’ and ‘racism’ that can be used against our enemies.
Despite how it’s going to be received, I think every one who is serious about pro-White politics should (a) read (((David Cole))) and (b) get a copy of the Midwest Academy’s community organizing manual (Organizing for Social Change) and start thinking about how we can help White people by working at the local level both inside and outside the system.
Our people need our help. There are thousands of people in the pro-White movement that could, with effort and discipline become the leaders White people need within the existing system. We don’t have to wait for everything to collapse. In fact, doing so is kind of anti-White.
Thank you for your reply.
Local politics is still wide open to White activists who play their cards right …
I think this is a winning strategy. We are surely not going to affect change from the top down, so a bottom up approach make more sense. I also agree with your point of using allies when we can, (for example, many Mexicans in Texas are law-abiding citizens who for the most part share ideals with us such as wanting low crime rates, a decent standard of living etc.) I’m not saying I don’t eventually want then to return to Mexico, but in the meantime we can come together to address issues we share, which in the long term will benefit Whites.
Even if the Racial Right were the adults in the room, they certainly aren’t anywhere near the control box and aren’t making any efforts to go over to it.
I agree with Hamburger Today on a number of fronts. The embrace of pessimism and bad news by our side only serves as a barrier to entry with becoming active in our own individual spheres of influence. We all need to start getting involved locally. Even if you’re the only White advocate in the room, for each local issue you STILL have the opportunity to formulate and express an argument that benefits all of White people (whether you are stealthy with it or open about your white advocacy).
Whites have to sell a utopia with themselves as the leaders and, as Weave was highlighting, dissuade those that want to take the path of least resistance via laziness, victimhood, and free GibsMeDats. That vision might start out as you stealthily advocating for Whites at your local neighborhood meetup, church, community center, or on the board(s) for whatever interests that you hold.
History is inert, not made of endless sequences of creative acts ex nihilo. Rightist politics as they are necessarily come about as a reaction to the cataclysm of Leftist policies. The only kind of ‘positive’ politics is culture, and the only kind of culture that people without power can maintain is a counter-culture, which is not the same thing as a real culture, that is to say, the matrix of the society.
I can’t adequately respond until later tonight (I’m working), but consider this comment of mine, posted to a recent essay by Jeelvy, which is somewhat relevant to what I think you’re reaching after:
[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” {this was specifically in relation to something Jeelvy had written}, 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.]
Two further points, addressed to you (maybe elaboration this evening). First, ethnonationalism is, in contrast to Marxism, a genuinely moral cause, and can easily be presented as such. If it’s ‘moral’ to work to prevent animal extinction, surely it’s moral to work to stop racial extinction (ie, extinction of a sub-species {note: or “race”} of the mammalian species homo sapiens) – and moreover, that of the greatest (most accomplished) of all the races? Marxism is only “moral” to the mentally and morally disordered. (Of course, Drs. Johnson, Cleary, Gullick, Devlin, Foster, and other philosophers here can then instruct us on just how little agreement there is among thinkers as to the precise nature and content of “morality”, although I have further comments myself on that point which might be useful.) What you seem to want is for white preservationism (WP) to absorb into itself the moral idealism that (totally mistakenly) attaches itself to the projects of the Left and animates leftist “energies”. This, however, immediately opens up the (moral? psychological? sociological? anthropological? political?) question of why it hasn’t so far. I have no answer – I’ve wondered it myself thousands of times, given that I’ve been a passionately idealistic WP (as opposed to the mere emotional or cynical racists who often make up the prowhite movement), as well as idealistic conservative, for my whole life [in Diversityland, I’m an idealistic WP; if I ever get to the Ethnostate and WP becomes the universal, background assumption of all politics, I will go back to being an idealistic conservative]. I do have some tentative ideas on our failure in this regard, however, though it’s a very complicated subject, and, in a Lovecraftian spirit, I fear the true answer will be horrifying to most WPs, saying something about whites as a race that many white defenders don’t want to hear.
Second, I do, however, think you are somewhat naively hopeful to think that other races will treat whites with the same deference and concern and sense of reciprocal fairmindedness with which we treat them, as though we will ever be able to persuade them to free us from their presence. This implies a fundamental moral (and psychic) equality between the races for which I have seen no evidence in the past 40+ years of my adulthood. There are good and bad people in all races; this I have seen. But whites as a whole are far more virtuous (ie, exhibit all the classic virtues, from charity to justice to truthfulness to compassion to respect to tolerance, etc) than other races taken as a whole. That is why we’re in this mess: our innate goodness has been, first, philosophically warped, and then, second, this warped intergroup morality has been weaponized against us so as to weaken our natural defenses against racial aggression, and natural instincts for WP. Some white liberals are truly evil (eg, the types who enlist in antifa terrorism), but the vast bulk are merely deeply misguided – and this not just as to the facts (or the real extent) of racial differentiation, but especially regarding the morality of WP. But the ease with which whites have been duped suggests, as I have intimated many times in CC comments, an underlying evolutionary defect in whites collectively. To what extent can this defect be overcome ratiocinatively and argumentatively? For some liberals, yes; for the bulk, probably not. They would be going against their own psyches.
Our race is going to survive, I suspect, only via the actions of small, determined groups of awakened race patriots, those which develop mechanisms to rigorously segregate themselves, territorially and politically, not only from other races, but also from those whites genetically inclined or determined to be racially self-abnegational. Violence can be minimized, but completely peaceful, ‘persuasionist’ separation is doubtful, both because of our people’s warped sense of racial morality, and because of nonwhites’ lesser morality combined with the many benefits they derive from the politically impotent presence of whites.
Lord Shang, you seem to have had an interesting and long-lasting association with dissident right circles. A memoir piece about your personal experiences and the history of these movements would be wonderful to read.
The evolutionary flaw you hypothesize about whites is hard to face, for its potential truth that we have become a fundamentally “eunuch race” is grim, grim. I’d like to think that as is the case in many abusive relationships it’s simply hard for battered people to leave them — but when they do, they hardly ever regret getting out.
Thank you for thinking so, Kathryn S. (“Kathryn” – the Irish spelling). I appreciate your encouragement. Alas, I fear I somehow may have unintentionally misled you (and, as you are a careful reader, surely others, too!). I cannot claim a close association with the Racial Right or Dissident Right, merely a long if distant one. I’m simply a man getting on in years (though I hope with at least 15-20 more!) who was concerned about the fate of our race, and took an intellectual interest in the problem, from a very young age. I was militantly anti-immigration (and for racial and cultural reasons; only later did I learn about ecological destruction, immigrant welfare overuse, the economic effects upon blue collar workers, etc) from the start of high school in the mid-70s. I discovered The Mankind Quarterly in the stacks of my university library in the early 80s, and so started learning about race and IQ, theories of differential evolution, the evolutionary function of prejudice, and similar topics never broached in any of my classes.
Strangely, I was well into grad school (mid-80s) when, visiting a college friend who had decided to get into the gun store business in the mid-Atlantic states (an unusual career path for an Ivy Leaguer, but he came from ‘rurality’), we went to a local gun show, at which there was I believe a National Alliance exhibit booth from which I purchased copies of a couple of Instauration issues. From that came my introduction to The Dispossessed Majority; later American Renaissance; and soon a Chronicles subscription (which meant a monthly Sam Francis essay), followed by attendance at various meetings of the John Randolph Club, as well as AR, a couple of David Irving lectures … and just continuing, lifelong interest in paleoconservatism as well as the intellectual side of white nationalism. Rather than saying I was ever associated with the Racial Right, perhaps it could be said that I’ve been reading their materials (often as they came out originally) for a long time.
I actually had a closer association with the GOP throughout my life, having once worked formally for a state GOP, and as a paid member of a number of (local, state and Federal) GOP campaigns. I’ve also done political consulting work for various business interests seeking to defeat inimical state and local ballot props. For a while, I was a staff member for one of the immigration restriction organizations. A firm which employed me did a lot of work for Pat Buchanan’s campaign in ’96, and my boss got to know him well (and really liked him), but I only interacted with him a few times myself (although I did behind the scenes work for him). I also knew a lot of the libertarian bigwigs at one point, including Ron Paul (not that he would recall me, though various of his acolytes would).
Perhaps the one thing I could bring to an essay would be a bit of perspective, of how ‘our’ people were thinking at different times over the past four decades. It is somewhat depressing, however, to contemplate just how long serious persons have been mulling the exact same questions (where will all this diversity lead? how do we wake our people up? are we innately prone to pathological altruism, or has Jewish media and academic control warped our natural instincts – or might both positions be true simultaneously? should we seek to infiltrate and redirect the system, or should we challenge it from far outside of it? and so on).
I have a hospital surgery next month. I will be laid up in the hospital for 2 days at least. I will give your suggestion some further thought then. (And, as always, thank you for your own carefully crafted work here at CC.)
“Perhaps the one thing I could bring to an essay would be a bit of perspective, of how ‘our’ people were thinking at different times over the past four decades. It is somewhat depressing, however, to contemplate just how long serious persons have been mulling the exact same questions (where will all this diversity lead? how do we wake our people up? are we innately prone to pathological altruism, or has Jewish media and academic control warped our natural instincts – or might both positions be true simultaneously? should we seek to infiltrate and redirect the system, or should we challenge it from far outside of it? and so on)”.
I would like to read some of your experiences over the last few decades also. Just thinking out aloud, but do you think it is because race realism is a bit of steep learning curve initially for most folks that it does feel like constantly reinventing the wheel for those like yourself who have been thinking about these issues for so long ? I get the frustration, but is there some truth in the idea that ‘our ideas’ are spreading ever more quickly and that is a reason for optimism in the long term ?
‘I actually had a closer association with the GOP …’
I thought Greg’s conversation yesterday with Gregory Hood was interesting. Asked about local and state politics, Hood largely advocated running as a Republican. As someone familiar with those circles, do you agree that’s a good strategy ? (Apologies for all the questions, I’m just interested in the opinions of those who have been around the block a few times in these circles).
Good luck on your surgery and rest well.
The focus of pro-white advocacy should be making the moral and practical case for the survival of the remaining white-majority nations in Europe, Oceania and North America. In so far as I favour this now taboo cause, I am ‘right-wing’. Otherwise on many issues such as employment legislation, socialised medicine and the environment, I am liberal, if not of the left. There is an untapped constituency of persons who are similarly liberal in economic matters but who got tarred with the brush of ‘rightwing’ (pejoratively always one word, never two) owing to recusancy or merely caution on social policy, including demographics. The acceleration of the left into the madhouse of ranking the intersectional ‘progressive stack’ is growing this constituency, and I believe pro-white advocates should refrain from alienating it.
There is an untapped constituency of persons who are similarly liberal in economic matters but who got tarred with the brush of ‘rightwing’ (pejoratively always one word, never two) owing to recusancy or merely caution on social policy, including demographics.
I think that’s an excellent point, and perhaps if the argument(s) were put forward honestly, pro-White concerns would reach a larger audience resulting in stronger support both morally and financially. For example, who honestly can argue against socialized medicine in favor of the current US example ? or argue against government subsidized higher education in support of the US predatory model ?
I honestly believe we have more potential allies than we realize. We just need to reach them.
I find the Exploited-Victims (EVs) catagory you write about to be overly simplified. Does one really think Marx was an exploited-victim? Sure, the peasants who worked very hard to maintain their livlihood with what little they had detested the Tsars empire building and wanted change for the better, many Jews wanted the same but radical communists, many being foreign agents, wanted revenge. Peasants were given a voice by the communists but once the Judeo-Bolsheviks took power they waged an outright war on them.
Marx, a man related to the Rothschilds (Rabbinte inbred banking family who wrote and expressed their hatred for socialism in the US, specifically when southern populist anti-bank ruralists refused to pay back their loans to the state), renounced his Talmudic family, so he claims, to write a manifesto that Judeo-Bolsheviks and useful idiots could follow? The same crony-capitalists and German imperialists, after all, were funding these Bolsheviks in Russia. Maurice Zinkin mentions that republicans in the US were funding the Bolsheviks in Russia as well.
Exploited-victims? No, the only exploited-victims were the peasants in Russia and those killed by the Bolsheviks for simply trying to maintain their livlihood.
If a folk gets disabled by a pfizer injection because he himself believed the propaganda on the TV, is he an exploited-victim like the communist claism he is? I ask because I have a cousin, 45 years of age, who has not worked in almost 20 years due to “vaccine” injury. She is a great help to others and is loved. But nobody did anything for the crime that was commited! That crime being Zionist Jews of the ALDF getting together to falsify diagnostics and Borreliosis case def., to pass off a fake endotoxic vaccine that crippled her. These scumbags are retired on taxpayer money and are millionaires. She is broke due to her misdiagnosis and the medical cost, the state gave her SSI (2 dollars an hr) as she was injured when she turned 20.
It would be BEST to not generalize and put people into simplified categories.
“I find the Exploited-Victims (EVs) catagory you write about to be overly simplified. Does one really think Marx was an exploited-victim?”
Yes, I deliberately simplified the categories. Given the relatively short, polemical nature of the piece, whether it was “overly” is a matter of debate. And, no Marx, of course, was not an EV. To the historical oppression narrative he launched that ignited the simpletons, Marx added the fireworks of sophisticated theory that grabbed the disenchanted, alienated intellectual class. You might say that Marx and his theorists progeny stand, outside the theory he created since, somehow, they were able to evade the determinism of class consciousness. I did mention the “champions of the EV’s” in the piece to allude to that distinction. These “champions”, ironically, are practically-morally speaking more in the ED than the EV categories.
“For them, history a la Karl Marx in its truest form is grievance-mining — and Leftists are perennial grievance-mongers.”
That sure is the truth! Howard Zinn’s so-called “history” was an example of this grievance-mining. It ignored huge swathes of positive, very significant elements of American history, and relied heavily on dubious, disproved grievances, along with actual ones. And it became an actual textbook in many schools, and a staple of chain bookstores. It has had horrendous effects.
Zinn was a red diaper baby who became a pinko professor. That’s why he wrote all that demoralization propaganda and passed it off as history.
Liberal millenials never grew up. Some of the ones I knew actually seem to have regressed from a peak of maturity that they hit around 20-22.
The fact that these ideologues never worked real jobs in their life is very telling of the types of character they exhibit in real life. I would never respect a man in authority if he did not first work up to that position or earn that power to do so.
Authority must be earned, not given without sweat or toil.
>Bill Ayers tried to blow up the Pentagon
wow, based
It is worth to note here that both regimes, of Lenin/Stalin and of Mao Zedong, have risen to the power with the big help and support from the West, or that the USA has recognised the SU in 1933, on the height of the collectivisation and hunger-murder of Qazaqs and Ukrainians. Or that the industrialization of the SU was not only supported, but practically done by the Western capitalists.
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