Counter-Currents
2,105 words
Every white identitarian nationalist thinker, writer, vlogger, and other type of content creator is familiar with the phenomenon of the Internet Man of Action,™ a comment-section alpha male who looks down on those who do “nothing but complain” on the Internet instead of “taking action” in the streets, in the political arena, or associated areas of Real Life.
Indeed, while these Internet Men of Action™ do not boast any achievements of their own, whether in the much-vaunted arena of Real Life or not, they’re the first to criticize and appeal to Rightists to “do something.” More often than not, something is better than nothing for these people. I must say, dripping with arrogance and condescension as what I have just written about them is, this is a valid criticism. We will not write or podcast our way to victory (or at least not all of the time), so I feel compelled to defend my position as a writer and showrunner in the ecosystem of white identitarian thought.
My objection to the Internet Men of Action™ isn’t that they want to take action; I’d like to take action myself. My objection is to the actions they propose. If there were actions open to us, I would have gladly taken them years ago. Indeed, all effective action that can be taken has already been taken. But more often than not, the Internet Men of Action™ are not satisfied with what action has been taken and are looking for something more spectacular, though woefully ineffective. Thus, the three categories of action that Internet Men of Action™ will most often call for are protesting, political action, and crime.
Let’s deal with crime first, because it’s the easiest charge to defeat. Calling on white identitarians to commit crimes in furtherance of the cause is all sorts of wrong. On the most basic level, it exposes our very limited pool of manpower to arrest or death. Taken one step further, any crime by a white identitarian or White Nationalist, even if unrelated to his ideology, exposes the entire ideological network to state and corporate repression, persecution, censorship, deplatforming, and ultimately, the arrest of our leaders and shuttering of our existing institutions.
At the crucial moral level, white identitarian crime alienates white people, the very people whose racial awareness we’re trying to arouse. White people are not blacks and will not always side with whites regardless of their behavior. We organize our societies on the basis of moral belonging and exclude the immoral and criminal. White criminals are punished by white communities, and this will be so even if we establish a white ethnostate. A white identitarian who commits a crime thus damages the movement by, first, removing himself from the movement’s available pool of resources; second, by bringing the state and its cronies down on the movement; and third, undermining the movement’s moral legitimacy in the eyes of other white people, or sometimes even white identitarian nationalists themselves.
The only exception to this rule would come from violating laws which are egregiously immoral, such as for example hate speech laws, and only then insofar as the violation does not consist of a crude use of slurs but rather the pointing out of the realities of human racial differences and incompatibility. Forcing the state to enforce an immoral law upon an individual who isn’t easy to demonize or morally impeach makes white people uncomfortable, even white liberals. White people fundamentally believe in honesty and freedom of expression, and forcing states to act contrary to this value is a sort of judo move which serves to shake these regimes’ legitimacy.
The second option which Internet Men of Action™ propose is protesting. Protest marching is always popular for a very simple reason: It feels good. Protest marching is in a sense ersatz military service, and young men in particular feel great when they’re marching as part of a large crowd. At the primitive level of analysis, it tells the man that he is part of a large tribe which shares a unity of purpose and confidence in the cause — i.e., that he is part of an army that is about to claim victory. Also, because the act itself floods the participants’ bloodstreams with feel-good hormones, it’s very easy to claim it as successful even if it achieves nothing whatsoever, least of all in the desired direction.
Above all, because the protest organizer has granted the participants this tiny slice of ersatz military glory, he has in a sense earned their loyalty in the same way that a victorious general earns the loyalty of his troops. But protests rest on the assumption that the powers-that-be can be influenced or intimidated by men marching on the streets. This is a false assumption in the former case, and a dangerous act in the latter. Elites intimidated by protest marching react like they did after January 6, 2021: by arresting people and throwing them in deep, dark dungeons.
Aside from the danger of direct regime repression of protests, our age also provides the danger of the regime’s hired thugs: antifa and other allied organizations attacking the marchers. Whether antifa prevails and manages to kill or injure the marchers or gets their asses handed to them, it opens the marchers to prosecution by the crooked courts. Thus, such an engagement can only realistically go one way: a defeat for the Right-wing protesters, the squandering of valuable resources, and the arrest, injury, or death of the young men involved. Large-scale disasters like Charlottesville can send massive shockwaves throughout the political space and make our task even harder. Even so-called successes, which is to say marches which have not ended in disaster, can be counterproductive by galvanizing the enemy.
You can buy Fenek Solère’s Resistance here.
Because protest marching solidifies loyalty to the organizer, it’s not likely to go away, as much as I caution against them. Organizations, whether White Nationalist or otherwise, will seek to organize marches to increase their own power within the movement, even if it weakens the broader movement and the cause it fights for. Any opposition to marching will be met by calls for unity, which are in fact calls for submission to the event organizer, accusations of infighting, and disloyalty to the cause.
This leaves political action as the means by which the White Nationalist cause can purportedly be advanced. Now, here I am going to agree that it would be nice if we had a pro-white political party in any Western country, but more often than not, these parties cannot even get past the registration stage. Patriotic Alternative in the United Kingdom has been kept in registration limbo for the better part of two years. Its American equivalent, the National Justice Party, isn’t registered as a political party but only as an LLC (limited liability corporation), and as such cannot field candidates in elections.
Attempts at taking over established parties have similarly floundered. Takeovers of center-Right parties are nigh impossible, seeing as the primary function of the center-Right is to gatekeep against white identity politics. Indeed, the closest we’ll get to a White Nationalist takeover of an established party is the Mises Caucus’ takeover of the Libertarian Party in the United States. This will in all likelihood accomplish little except to scatter the Libertarian Party’s “low tax liberal” donor and party officer base to the four winds.
Thus, I agree we should have a pro-white political party. We should field candidates, contest elections, and have a coherent political organization through which our ambitious young men could pursue position and power, but alas, it’s not in the cards — at least for now. Direct political action is not a course we can take, especially not under conditions of scarce resources, as we are in right now.
What, then, is to be done? The Internet Men of Action™ are silent on this point, because they don’t know how to proceed. They do not know how to proceed, because by suggesting the three activities above, they’ve exhausted their arsenal of action that can be taken because it is based on a wrong interpretative, organizational, and operational framework — specifically, one that is part and parcel of liberal democracy.
When I use the word framework, I’m referring to a complete system of ideology which can then be adopted by anyone. This system of ideology will orient an individual towards the good and away from the bad, good and bad here corresponding to the ideology’s ultimate realization and non-realization.
The ideological framework should first and foremost have interpretative power: It should explain to everyone, of any character, anywhere on the IQ distribution platform what is more or less happening in the world, where the world’s center (Axis Mundi) is, where the darkness is, and where there be dragons. It should thus help its adherent to make the distinction between sacred and profane — especially sacred and profane space and time — and provide meaning for his existence and a place in the world, particularly his position in the hierarchy of the ideology’s believers. It must provide a sociodicy for ill and a theory of good and evil which doesn’t contradict the ideology’s ultimate ends, nor can it contradict the human animal’s instinctive reactions.
The ideological framework should also have organizational power, which is to say that it needs to describe the proper way in which a movement for its advancement should be organized, and by proper we mean in such a way which is both effective and not in opposition to its ultimate goal. This organizational form should flow naturally from the ideology’s interpretational axioms. This form should allow the practitioner to instantly distinguish between friend and enemy without much deliberation or pondering, as well as to recognize his own proper place within the organizational structure and the necessity of his own membership therein, which will inevitably include the subsumption of his personal will to the organizational will. In describing the Axis Mundi, as well as the outer darkness and the abode of dragons, the interpretational framework will give birth to the organizational framework in describing both the good (us) and the bad (them), thus serving the important role of defining the friend/enemy distinction.
The final power that an ideological framework ought to provide is the power to institute an operational framework. Having codified the good and the bad, the inner and the outer, the friend and the enemy in the interpretative framework, and having transformed these truths into concrete organizational form in the organizational framework, we will then allow the organization to commence operations which are informed by its structure and personnel, who are themselves informed at the interpretational/ontological level. From what the world is, we have derived what we are, and from there, we have arrived at what we do. This is why it’s impossible to have a political movement built entirely on enmity: without knowing what we are, we don’t know what form to take, and being formless, we cannot take any action.
Here we come to the much-vaunted field of action, where the Internet Men of Action™ would love to operate. The problem is that we’ve yet to construct the interpretative framework, but they’d like to charge into action nevertheless. We do not know yet what is going on in the world (fully, or even adequately), let alone what form we should take or what we should do. Part of this is due to the West’s very recent awakening to the fact that the promises of the heretofore dominant ideological framework of liberal democracy are false. Another reason is that such enemy actively causes infiltrators and agents to be sent to disrupt an alternative ideological framework’s construction.
A third reason is the incumbency of liberal democratic ideology and the only partial awakening of a number of people claiming to be on our side, who nevertheless still have all the old biases and assumptions, including those Internet Men of Action™ who seem to believe, even after January 6 and the subversion of the Trump presidency, that a mass popular movement is the way forward for white identitarians.
The task of constructing the new ideological framework falls to the talkers, the writers, and the vloggers. Through learned discourse, research, and dreamweaving, we shall forge this idea-machine. Once armed with it, the Man of Action will be able to set forth and realize the goals of white identity politics. The forging of this framework will be difficult, and its codification into something prosaic that the common man can accept, recite, and integrate into his being will be even more difficult. Its completion, however, will be a thing of beauty and the surest sign that true and lasting victory is on the way.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
20 comments
The marching argument is often met with a counter-point referring to the Independence March in Poland. Indeed, many Polish nationalists fell prey to that illusion, drunk with the initial success. Today they mostly get into fights with leftist marchers and stake out churches on their way.
We call them “the Marching Right”- aimless beyond reactionary actions. At this rate they will be co-opted by the ruling party.
Sorry, but marching isn’t the solution. If used properly it can galvanize short term support, but it’s extremely vulnerable to attacks. There is a reason why Independence March has it’s own Guard to keep order.
Public displays like marching are an affirmation of political power. They don’t create power.
Of course, once you have enough power, a public display or affirmation of power will lead to more power, as people are attracted to power and wish to put their own power (however little) in the service of great power.
Ha the blogger Aesop sprang immediately to mind. His shrieking screeds are a miasma of righteous rage, sarcasm, threats, and butt-hurt defensiveness.
He is seemingly always ready to start civil war 2, on the verge of taking the fight to the enemy, he’s sick of voting and talking and complaining because the time for talking is over and the time for identifying and assaulting Commies is here…..ALMOST. He’s serious, he’s sick of the “fucktards” who bitch but never actually fight back, he’s had it up to here with ppl on the right who aren’t rising up in fury, and he is almost to the point of physical resistance himself…but not today. Probably not tomorrow either. But if he is pushed even one inch more, watch out. Or maybe two inches. Two feet? Two miles? But at some point at some point in the future, watch out world. This valiant keyboard warrior is going to close his laptop, go outside, and really really do…something!! And then there will be hell to pay and he will not be dishing out any mercy either. But again, not today. Soon. But not today.
Btw if you venture into his comment section and ask how will he know when it’s time to start throwing punches, or what he will do, where will he do it, how he will differentiate between enemy, ally, and non-combatant, etc, he will delete your comment and block you from commenting further.
Who?
Raconteur Report http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/. The blogger has some good stuff from time to time. But Tony’s description is apt.
Indeed, the closest we’ll get to a White Nationalist takeover of an established party is the Mises Caucus’ takeover of the Libertarian Party in the United States. This will in all likelihood accomplish little except to scatter the Libertarian Party’s “low tax liberal” donor and party officer base to the four winds.
Maybe, maybe not. These things don’t happen overnight and are never nice ‘n’ easy just the way you want. I see the above as at least a good sign that maybe some kind of overall shift is happening. As far as I can tell, the Libertarian Party in the US was dominated by neocons for quite some time.
Great analysis. One black pill I keep returning to in my mind… if European identitarians – who are in their historical homelands and have a straightforward moral case – can’t garner adequate political support, what hope for us Americans and other colonials?
The moral case for European-Americans – yeah we’re colonizers but we built this nation and only we can maintain it so gtfo – is just a non starter given the demographics and civic ideology in place since the 1960s, never mind the 2020s. You’d have to first make the case that blacks aren’t really Americans but rather a nation within a nation, i.e. go back to separate but equal. And then apply that Hispanics and Asians. It all seems so far fetched given the cultural and literal miscegenation. I just can’t imagine an ethnostate forming unless it was de facto rather than de jure.
All this is a roundabout way of saying that the author is right – the ideas have to be crafted first and then simplified for mass consumption that turns into political action. Horse before cart.
Technically, the British were ‘colonizers’. The ‘Americans’ were ‘settlers’.
Our enemies presume the divine right to dispossess us by virtue of being ‘chosen’, members of a sacred and magical collectivity.
What’s the ‘moral case’ in that?
And yet, they don’t feel the need to explain themselves. All they have to do is have long memories and a gift for deception.
We need the right diagnosis in order to have the right remedy.
I’m a big fan of doing the top-down and the bottom-up stuff in parallel. The creation of ideological and operational frameworks are valid top-down goals. But such work will take time, will never be perfected, is hard to do without real-world feedback, and isn’t suitable for most people.
Of the bottom-up actions, you correctly point out the problems with the most commonly suggested ones. But there are few other bottom-up actions that are accessible to all, and by doing them, you increase morale, strengthen the organizations of the right, and provide feedback to the ideological work.
Primarily, this is done by maximizing one’s participation in the parallel society. This might be as simple as donating to webzines. The next step might be actively searching for companies and institutions that explicitly reject leftism, and buying from them. A further step might be to move to an area that is more right-wing. Finally, if one has the talent and time, to help create the parallel society, via new content or a new business.
In all things, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You won’t find many explicitly nationalist entities out there at this time, so for now settle for anti-woke ones, and re-evaluate every so often. And voting costs little, and might give time and space to other actions; just don’t pretend it does all that much by itself.
Quite so. I mentioned that PA has been stymied in its efforts to register as a party in the UK, and so they’ve successfully pivoted to becoming a social club and activist group for British identitarians.
We need the right diagnosis in order to have the right remedy.
As I have said before, I think the best way to achieve our goals is to come at them within the American Character, not outside it. Right now, the ‘American Character’ includes a hefty (nearly toxic) dose of ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ but it also has an immune system composed of ‘freedom’ and ‘don’t tread on me’.
That’s where I think we should start.
If you start with ‘deracination’ as the problem, then the obvious solution is ‘reracination’.
However, if you start with ‘community disempowerment’ as the problem, then you get a different obvious solution: community empowerment.
What we need are different ‘discourses’ for different ‘situated communities’ where the discourses don’t conflict with the primary goal: White controlling White communities to the benefit of Whites.
How many different ways can that be achieved without the fundamental ‘right’ to decide who gets to be part of the community?
In the same way that ‘inclusivity’ has been used in a way to exclude White, perhaps we can use ‘exclusivity’ as a way to secure the interests of all Whites in all classes while at the same time presenting as being all about ‘equality’ of ‘opportunity’ for all races to live as they please.
I’m not saying the solution is this series of ideas, but it’s something like this series of ideas.
Before we can win, we need to stop the hemorrhaging.
In deeply White Arkansas, Neil Kumar got 22% of the vote on an open anti-immigration and pro-exclusionary set of positions. He was also openly pro-White. The candidate that is going to to better than that is going to have the same exclusionary positions, but is less overtly pro-White while being unwilling to yield on the interests of White people as they are about every other race’s interests.
You can be ‘the someone for everyone’ who says that everyone needs their own space, their own territory and encourage separation as a solution by flattering every race that they can do it on their own.
For starters, don’t phrase it in the negative (separation) but in the positive (freedom of association).
You think ‘separation’ sounds more positive than ‘freedom’ at this point? I sure don’t.
The only ‘freedom’ that matters in ‘America’ is the ‘freedom’ to have anal sex in front of children whenever you want.
Or, better yet, the ‘freedom’ to have anal sex with children.
‘Freedom’ is way more sullied a term than ‘separation.
Our enemies have already co-opted ‘freedom’ so I’d say avoid it.
Exclusion is the silver cross and garlic of your enemies. They cannot utter the words ‘separation’ in a political context without significantly undermining their ‘everything is equal and we’re all the same and everyone is happy except the racists’ narrative.
What our people want is separation and the right to exclude those who don’t belong.
That’s real freedom that doesn’t include worship of the Most Holy Gaping Anus of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity.
In 1977, Martin Webster of the National Front organized a demo in Hyde town (UK). On the day, the police told him his march was cancelled owing to the likelihood of violence, thanks to the large number of counter-demonstrators. Webster then insisted on being allowed to walk the route by himself. One man does not a march make!
He was surrounded by 2,500 (!) police officers as he walked down the main street (through a baying crowd) while carrying a Union Flag and a sign reading “Defend British Free Speech from Red Terrorism.”
A brilliant propaganda stunt.
And the big policy win with from this ‘stunt’ was?
Let me guess: Giving our adversaries the ammunition they needed to clean up some legal loopholes so that it would never happen again.
The idea that politics can be furthered by ‘stunts’ and synchronized strolling needs to be purged from everyone’s mind.
Such spectacles just play into the existing power structure of the Spectacle, reinforce it, energize it.
Every time there’s a ‘stunt’ our enemies use it to further their goals and ours are undermined.
The only time ‘protests’ ever worked for ‘the Left’ was when the Ruling Class had already decided that it wanted what the protesters were supporting. Otherwise they’re ignored or, worse yet, used to alienate the movement from ordinary people.
Think about it: Who want’s to be part of a movement so on the fringe that their public demonstrations routinely draw a hundred protesters for every one participant?
The point is that Wwhites have NO power, do not have the protection of the law and are entirely at the mercy of Jews and other non-Whites. Until and unless substantial numbers of whites turn off the TV and start to care and act and vote for White interests, nothing significant will change. Opinion polls suggest things are moving our way, but it’s a race against time, a race Whites have been losing for a long time.
Building social communities based around stereotypically white interests and activities is the one course of “action” we can pursue. Anything that brings whites (especially non-woke ones) together in the real (offline) world is a good thing. Our enemies keep us less powerful than we could be simply by rendering too many of us (myself included, though I’m obviously already awakened) isolated and atomized. There is a huge demand for both prowhite and simply white-majority activities. They don’t have to be advertised as “prowhite”. They just have to be designed in ways that we recognize will disproportionately attract whites to them.
While prowhite intellectual and policy work is vital, the leap to the physical world must be made at some point — and frankly, by the mid/late 90s, when the WN internet began to explode, I really thought that by 2020 there would be a dynamic real world prowhite political and societal presence. For well over a decade I’ve been thinking that WNs seem to be stuck at the internet level.
Book clubs and philosophical debating societies – no finer White filters than those.
Should I make a list of the countries where anti-immigration parties are in parlament, or even in power? Should I make a list of successful mass rallies of the Right?
There’s more fighting spirit in my grandmother’s old cat than in this website.
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