When we think of Jewish subversion of white cultures, or when we think of the proverbial culture of critique, we always imagine the Jew in the form of Grima Wormtongue, whispering evil and poison into the ear of white men to make them hate and doubt themselves, believing dangerous nonsense. We think of the Jew entering the halls of power and whispering in the King’s ear. We think of the Jew bypassing the guards and parapets of our civilization’s defenses where the Mongol and Arab failed. Somehow he must have fooled them. Somehow he must have fooled the King.
We get the idea of crypsis from the notion that the Jew will pretend to be white. “My fellow white people” is a popular meme that riffs on this notion.
The idea of the Jew pretending to be white with any degree of success, however, simply fails to pass the sniff test. Jews are very visibly racial outsiders and their outward appearance marks them out as such. So, the initial reading of crypsis as mimicry is wrong and we need a more sophisticated conception of it. From my own observations, I find that crypsis is an adaptation to an already weakened European conception of the outsider as acategory, which is itself contingent on the European propensity for forming moral rather than kin-based communities. The “my fellow whites” shtick cannot and will not work on people who have a functioning concept of the outsider, and the very notion of a Jew attempting it on such people is laughable. But a people who’ve lost their instinctive sense of friend-enemy, or outsider-insider, distinction and replaced it with a roundabout, morals-based means of determining it — insider is he who believes, outsider is he who denies — can more readily be deceived with words.
When we think of Jewish subversion of white cultures, we need to think of Franz Boas coming in with his little clique of gargoyles and spreading junk science in the field of physical anthropology. How did he do it? Why was he allowed to enter academia and then attain a position of great authority? Why did Western scientists believe him, even though his supposed findings were obvious fabrications? It’s obvious in retrospect what he was doing, but somehow I imagine that it was obvious even at the time that Boas was not arguing in good faith but rather promulgating an evil, anti-white, anti-scientific agenda for the benefit of his own ethnic group. The reason he was able to infiltrate the white institution of physical anthropology and then work from within to turn it into a junk science was because white people had already lost their ability to recognize outsiders.
In light of this and countless other subversions, we need to develop a procedure for defending white society’s institutions from these types of infiltration and attack. We won’t be able to impose this procedure on broader society until such a time that we attain political power, but for the time being we can use it to protect our own movement from.
Let’s propose a simple scenario: Someone asks you a question, a simple question, or poses a critique of a certain part of the white identitarian worldview. Being on average well-meaning, earnest, and fair-minded white people who slant toward idealism, our first instinct is to earnestly answer the question. This is noble and the right thing to do among friends, but we must remember that it’s a big world out there, full of people who are not friends. So, unless we know the person who asks the question is asking in good faith and is motivated by a desire to learn about or improve the cause, our first response should itself be a question: “Why are you asking me this?”
Let’s expand our scenario. Instead of a question, someone utters a critical comment of a part of White Nationalist ideology. Do we immediately engage in discourse with this person, or do we probe his motives for critique? I understand that the instinct of fair-minded white people, especially Northwest Europeans, is to immediately engage in discourse and let the argument stand on its own legs, but this is painfully wrong. The presumption is always that the person critiquing is doing so in good faith: out of genuine doubt in the tenet, out of concern for the integrity of the ideology or argumentation, or out of genuine lack of understanding, but more often than not, enemies and outsiders problematize aspects of White Nationalism for a very simple reason: They oppose the ideology and aim to deconstruct it as part of their own agenda.
By now we are familiar with the ostensibly “based” brown, black, Jewish, or Asian person sidling up to White Nationalists and rattling off a list of reasons why it is “ekshully” bad, Leftist, untenable, immoral, low-status, et cetera, et cetera, and we should therefore adopt this other “based” ideology, whether it’s Catholic Integralism, Neo-Bolshevik Nietzscheanism, Jewish-dominated multiracial authoritarian hypercapitalism, good old neoconservatism (but BASED!), or worse yet, no ideology at all,to “the ruling regime” or “the Satanic pedophile elites.” I myself have been very vigorous in deconstructing these various narratives and ideologies meant to divert energy away from white identitarianism and into dead-end, multiracial fantasies, but I find that there is a much simpler and easier way to brush off these distractions: Just ask their overwhelmingly non-white proponents why are they trying to sell these ideologies to white people.
It’s very clear to me why Curtis Yarvin (Jew), Ben Shapiro (Jew), Neema Parvini (Iranian), Gonzalo Lira (mestizo), Laura Loomer (Jew), Maajid Nawaz (Pakistani), and Darren Beattie (Jew) oppose White Nationalism. If the White Nationalist program were implemented in the countries where they currently live, they’d be deported to their lands of origin, at the very least. I don’t begrudge them this position, as I understand that even “based” non-whites consider access to white people to be a human right and are trying their darnedest to retain their positions in white countries, even as they may oppose some of the latest excesses of the West’s ruling class. Whatever objections they may have to the White Nationalist project must be scrutinized in light of their obviously alien nature.
We are ethnic nationalists, which means we believe that the basis of the friend-enemy, and more precisely, the insider-outsider distinction should be based on kinship and on blood relations between people, and as such we necessarily deem as outsiders all those who are not white. It’s important to note that this is a line drawn regardless of moral rectitude or fault. When I exclude a Jewish or Japanese man from my racial in-group, I do not do it because of anything he did, but because of what he is. In this sense, I can no more admit him into our political organization than I could enter the gigantic turtles of the Galapagos in a horse race.
Since our movement will, for better or worse, form the nascent political structure of the future white world order, the decisions we make now with regard to our organizational structure and methods of governance will in the future become the governing traditions and (small c) constitution of the regime to come. We must therefore think to the future and develop a procedural means of excluding non-white subverters from the tribal discourse. The tribal discourse here refers to the internal debates that a tribe, nation, or race (in the highest degree) holds about itself, the surrounding world, its place in the world, its past, its future, and its direction. Imagine the tribe gathering around the great campfire at night, or the tribal elders and headmen holding learned discussions in the grand council hall. Imagine the priests, shamans, and professors having their philosophers’ quarrels and the poets and dramatists delivering their verse to the gathered folk while the crafters, sculptors, painters, and filmmakers amaze the quivering crowd with their miraculous visions. The sum of all that and more is the tribal discourse in toto. And it is from that discourse that the outsider must be excluded, for the good of the tribe, lest the means by which signals travel from tribe to man are subverted and then become twisted into something evil and foreign.
Thus, when a racial outsider rudely barges into this discourse, the first thing that he must face is stern questioning as to what exactly he is hoping to accomplish by entering a conceptual space which is for white people only. “Why are you asking this?” “What are you trying to achieve?” Even if such discourse is on the Internet, among anonymous people who have no way of verifying each others’ racial identity, the notion itself must be brought forward whenever someone attacks White Nationalism or advances ideologies inimical to it: Why are you asking this? Are you white? What’s your definition of white? The last one is a good way to trip up Jews and mestizos online who’ll often claim to be as white as driven snow, according to a given (invalid) definition of white. We proceed, then, by excluding said non-white person from the discourse on procedural grounds. He has no place inserting himself into white people’s tribal discourse even if his stated concerns, if voiced by a white man, would be valid. We accept this because we are racial nationalists and we believe that rights and privileges are bound to the immutable facts of biology.
We can, of course, make provisions for those non-whites who’ve proven their utility and earnest intentions towards the white identitarian cause. They are usually the ones who will remain in their homelands, or if thrown into white lands by events outside of their control, recognize that their presence in white lands is an unnatural, extraordinary occurrence and thus make plans, or at least voice intentions, to return to their ancestral lands of origin. White Nationalists’ non-white allies will more often than not themselves be identitarian nationalists who recognize that their own race and nation suffers from the commixing of the Earth’s various human phenotypes into a single, featureless, and homogeneous brown goop. We do not oppose syncreticism here; indeed, we rather enjoy it. As an added precaution, the non-white allies we accept should primarily be from races and nations that have no historic animosity towards white people, or who’ve had their animosity.
In short, whenever we hear someone non-white objecting to White Nationalism, question his right to do so. White Nationalism is a white matter, to be discussed by white people. What could non-whites who stand to be ejected from white countries if the policies of White Nationalism are implemented possibly add to the discourse but subversion and lies? We must stop pretending that we live in a world of earnest men engaging in honest discourse and recognize that the swarthy hordes have no such conception of academic honesty as we do, and will shamelessly argue in bad faith in order to derail discourse and dampen our spirits. Instead of allowing their poison to drip in our ears, we should instead vigorously and unequivocally exclude them from the tribal discourse on the grounds that as non-whites, they have no right to participate in it. Just think how much time and effort could be saved if we simply dismiss their various lies and rhetorical tricks out of hand by pointing to their very obviously base motives and desire to continuing acting as parasites on white host nations.
Or, to put it as succinctly as possible, White Nationalists need to be more racist.
* * *
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.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
- Fifth, Paywall members will have access to the Counter-Currents Telegram group.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
- 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.
Nicholas R. Jeelvy’s Reading List to Stimulate the Imagination
Laibach’s Predictions of Fire
The Political Enemy of Europe
Herman Husband, Eighteenth Century White Nationalist Pioneer
Remembering Savitri Devi (September 30, 1905–October 22, 1982)
Readings on American History
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 490 The Writers’ Bloc: Marko Marjanović on Russian Mobilization