The Most Important Idea for Us to Get AcrossF. Roger Devlin
We are a small group of highly committed people with ambitious aims whose achievement will require the mobilization of great masses of our people. For this reason, the first thing to say about our battle of ideas is that it will have to be fought on more than one level. We have distinct audiences to reach. I have no doubt that there is still plenty of interesting work to be done at the highest theoretical level, but that is not our most pressing task.
To find out what is, we must ask what is preventing the great mass of white Trump voters from getting behind us — what is motivating them to go on supporting the Republican Party in preference to people who could actually get them out of the dangerous situation they are in. In part, it is a matter of sheer ignorance. Many, perhaps most, of our potential constituents have simply never heard of Counter-Currents or American Renaissance or The Occidental Observer even after all the years of work we have put in. Of course, it is hard for us to be heard above the din made by the dominant ideology, or even by its officially permitted so-called conservative opposition. But this is not the whole problem, either.
The disproportion of resources between ourselves and the other side is so great that our potential supporters are likely to hear of us at first not directly, but via our enemies’ attacks upon us. They will hear what the other side’s patented “extremism” experts say we say — long before they actually hear what we have to say.
Here’s a recent example: Andrew Torba, founder of the free-speech Twitter alternative Gab, discovered that the top two results of a Google search on his name were both an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) attack upon him. In the top spot was an ad for which the ADL had paid Google; in the second was the exact same page supposedly dished up independently by Google’s own algorithm. This is what wealthy organizations can do when they go up against a guy struggling to run a website out of his home.
First impressions are often decisive, simply because the ordinary man does not have the time or sufficient motive to check their correctness. The other side is well aware of the enormous advantage they enjoy in being able to reach most people first, and if we want to understand the real battle of ideas in which we are engaged, we had better start by taking a close look at what they get to people first with.
Obviously, it is not statistics showing that the races of mankind all have identical crime rates or IQ scores, after all. It’s not careful sociological studies demonstrating that Jews exercise little influence over American society. No such information exists to counter the information we are presenting. In other words, they know they cannot beat us by doing what we do better than we do it.
Instead, what they hit people with is emotional and moral manipulation, bristling with suggestive but content-free words like “hate” and “extremism” — crude stuff, but well-adapted for the modest ends in view, namely biasing the minds of ordinary but poorly-informed people with little obvious incentive to invest time and effort in inquiring farther. Clearly, no rational argument is airtight enough, and no empirical study thorough enough, to counter such strategically-placed manipulation.
Nor would it be very effective for us to do precisely what they do, such as for example by trying to argue that the other side are the real haters, even if that happens to be true. (I absolutely believe it is; there is a good deal of psychological projection involved in anti-white rhetoric.)
If we study the ordinary white Trump voter to see what is preventing him from supporting those who would actually do something for him, we find that where it is not merely a lack of information; it is likely to be a matter of moral misgivings. Pro-white organizations sound to the average white person as if they would involve unfairness to other groups, which certainly do have their own legitimate interests to defend as well.
The first thing I would point out to such a prospective supporter is that whites seem to be the only race which faces a hurdle of this kind. Other groups organize to advance their own interests without a second thought, as if it were the only natural thing to do. If you convince most non-whites that something is in their group’s interests, they are likely to support it without asking too many questions about its effects on others.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that a leading source of moral evil in the world was man’s tendency to make exceptions in his own favor. For example, the common thief is not a principled Communist opposed to all property rights. He, no less than the person he robs, wants his own property to remain secure. He merely wants to exempt himself from the general duty to respect property. The promise-breaker does not want to abolish the custom of making promises; otherwise, he could gain no advantage from the trust of others. He just wants the freedom to break his own promises.
In our own time, the Jewish academic philosopher Michael Levin, in his book Why Race Matters, has suggested that Europeans are uniquely high in a trait he calls, for the sake of brevity, Kantianism. He is referring to this conscientiousness about not making exceptions in one’s own favor. He even cites some empirical evidence to show that Europeans are the most Kantian race: more disposed this way than other peoples. And if that is true, as I suspect it is, it seems to me the likeliest explanation of why so many whites hesitate to take their own side in a dispute. All the propaganda about white advocacy being equivalent to “hate” could probably not even gain a purchase on the minds of our people if it were not for this unusual moral sensitivity.
The average white man has scruples about taking his own side in a sense very close to the technical meaning of “scruples” in Christian moral theology, namely believing something is a sin when it isn’t. He thinks expressing racial solidarity would necessarily involve an injustice toward other races when in fact it does not. We have never advocated for anything we have not been willing to grant reciprocally to others.
Once our potential supporter has overcome such scruples, it will not be hard to show him what is the likely outcome of a competition in which every group seeks its own advantage — except one, which tries to benefit everyone equally. Obviously, the universal-minded group will be taken advantage of by all the others. At that point, America’s current racial situation suddenly becomes easy to understand — and I suspect that ears will also open quickly to hear our already strong empirical arguments concerning race and the Jewish question.
* * *
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.
Anti-Racism Comes for the Church: The Case of Thomas Achord
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 4
Sexual Utopia in Stockholm
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 3: Nové státní náboženství
Football’s Race War
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 2: „Věčný nacista“
Clash of the Billionaire Comic-Book Supervillains
Clash of the Billionaire Comic-Book Supervillains
Britain now has accepted the first prime minister that is not British.
Stupid Europeans aka White People are so stupid they can’t see that by accepting the propaganda phrase (first prime minister of color) they are accepting Britain being Britain if (unless they wake-up) it becomes majority non-British like majority Asian, or Indian, or Arab, or African. In other words, the stupid Europeans aka Whites are accepting & believing that races are the same, that they are interchangeable. Nobody can be this dumb.
We are the “Baizuo” people, as the Chinese deservingly call us.
I have been saying here for years (in fact, for decades in real life) that whites are substantially evolutionarily maladapted. This has now been proven empirically (though more work needs to be done to establish this as a new, social scientific consensus). Whites produce by far the largest number of extreme evolutionary outliers when it comes to “openness to other cultures”. No other race is close. This is the ultimate, genetic, source of the phenotype called “liberalism”. I have encountered many literally racially uneducable whites. They cannot handle the way the world really is; that it so terribly conflicts with their bizarre, hyperventilating egalitarian delusions. They desperately want to believe that race doesn’t matter; that the races are substantially equal in the ability to sustain civilization; and that there are no interracial variances that lead to statistically valid predictions about individuals’ behavior in light of their race. Maintaining their delusional ‘idealism’, even in the face of endless contradictory evidence, outweighs the costs of impairing racial perpetuity and even any long term sanity wrt the fundaments of societal survival. Nothing is more important to them than coddling their own psyches.
OTOH, non-liberal whites are basically psychologically like other races at least when it comes to genetic interests issues (though even we still tend to be much more modally ethical, especially wrt racial fairness, than nonwhites).
Is there a solution? Only what I keep advocating: prowhites must territorially and politically separate not only from nonwhites, but from liberal whites, too (perhaps even more so than the former).
My experience with trying to educate people about our ideas is that they are scared. They are fearful that any association with ideas of this sort will bring harm upon them in some way. I suppose they fear that their perusing of some website may somehow come to light. I have given links and recommendations of websites to many, and usually I start with comparatively mild fare such as Steve sailor or vdare or radio derb, and my experience is that people will shy away from it and often describe it as neo Nazi. Whether they are afraid of the ideas per say, or simply that negative repercussions may come upon them, I cannot say for certain.
I must say I am somewhat sympathetic to this and if I had a family to support, as I do not, I might be much more diffident at least about commenting on any of these websites. I think I would still read them. How could I not? It’s who I am!
I had one friend, this is an anecdote, that I walked through my sleepy, all white suburban neighborhood with, trying to explain the race/IQ concept to him. He looked from side to side violently, with a look of utter terror on his face, to make sure no one could possibly be hearing us. A primal terror. It was truly comical and pathetic to see. I wish I could act it out for you. There was no person in sight for some time. It was how I might have behaved if I were being stalked by grizzly bears in rural Montana, lol!
I’ve gotten the same terrified response too. It was hilarious to watch. When I burst out laughing my friend had to laugh too. My biggest problem is that most people agree with me 100%, but they’re too lazy to read. I’ll share articles with them and I’ll just know that all the attention they receive is a quick scan.
This Kantianism led to a very strange psychological hack. All our enemies have to do is accuse us of being unfair, thereby weaponizing our values against us, and then pouting indignantly. I intend to go into depth on that matter at some point later.
Great article. Thank you!
Less intellectualizing, more courage. Courage leads to action. Action based on strategy. One other trait which can be used against Whites is that Whites tend to remain in the abstract. Doing is necessary for victory. Another, is Whites tend to sublimate themselves when down. Get knocked down?… then leap back up and counterpunch without reservation. There will be no stopping Whites once they no longer give a damn.
We have had quite enough pointless ‘doing’ to last three lifetimes. You mention ‘strategy’ but don’t suggest what it might be. Let me try.
Our enemies are driving our people toward us. What we need is to appear nurturing and caring and on their side. Our people need to identify with our vanguard, and our vanguard identify with our people.
Most Whites do not imagine themselves riding the steppes with the wind in their (blonde) hair screaming ‘RAHOWA’ as they charge toward their enemies. Most Whites are concerned about what their neighbors think because that’s how our a lot of our race evolved.
Talk about ‘courage’ and ‘victory’ and ‘counterpunch’ is utterly abstract to a middle-class White person who cannot afford to lose their job because of ‘racism’.
Our enemies have done a good job of boxing our people in, but at the same time our enemies keep creating situations that upset our people.
The strategic question is whether our people think racial solidarity is the first, best solution or whether something else is.
I think, in general, pro-Whites should encourage nullification and virtual secession on the basis of cultural and political alienation from ‘coastal elites’ and ‘cosmopolitans’. This will, in very many cases, lead to White majority territories where overt pro-White politics will be – at the very least – tolerated and maximally can gain ground.
If pro-Whites hadn’t been draping themselves in NSDAP regalia for the 70+ years in order ‘shock’ our people into wakefulness, pro-Whites might be in offices in majority White areas right now.
When you’re too far ahead of the pack, maybe you’re not leading. Maybe you’re just lost.
All the things our enemies say are ‘implicit white supremacy’ are, in fact, implicitly White and potentially supremacist. We should use these softer, more diffuse ideas to get a harder, more concrete political program going by electing pro-Whites on anti-anti-White and ‘fairness’ platforms. These folk can also use nullificationist and secessionist rhetoric to push the envelope even further toward psychic separation from the Judeo-supremacist Globohomo. Once that has occurred, a more racial discussion with the wider public would, very likely, be facilitated.
There is a need for graduated escalation in observations and demands. When a black like Jason Riley at the WSJ can casually observe that blacks now commit about 2/3 of violent street crime, why can’t a white like DeSantis? Why must whites always speak in code (where they don’t change the subject to something non-racial, or where specific remedies to the problem under discussion don’t work disproportionately work to nonwhites’ disadvantage)? I don’t.
I identified the key many decades ago (and so implicitly did Jared Taylor): just speak the facts – don’t use degrading language or make hyperbolic assertions in doing so – and hold fast to the truth. I still recall reading news coverage at the time about White Power rallies held back in the 1970s-80s, and they used to make me cringe even then – not because I was a cuck who was “offended”, but because I realized that this was a) terrible public relations, and b) totally unnecessary to further our cause, which was about our morally allowable right to maintain America as what it always had been, a white majority nation, as well as the plain duty of public truthfulness about racial disparities, especially in crime (but also in other areas where racially unequal outcomes were being blamed on racism instead of modally different distributions of innate abilities among the races).
I adopt this Facts First, neutralist approach even at work (to the extent some political crap gets broached; it’s not something I encourage or initiate, but if sensitive topics arise, I do not back down). I was a bit notorious during the Floyd fiasco for constantly pointing out that there was nothing to suggest that either a) Chauvin intended to kill Floyd, or b) that his actions did in fact kill him (as the coroner initially substantiated, then backed off from after the riots and public intimidation). One of the bosses had a complaint against me and confronted me with it. However, this smart (white) man knew perfectly well that what I said merely involved a factual disagreement with the media-influenced public narrative, and that the complaint was nothing more than an attempt to silence me because of this factual disagreement about a publicized matter, something arguably protected by the First Amendment (though maybe not, as this is not a public institution, though it is a corporation, and hence not as legally “private” as, say, CC; but undeniably violative of the spirit of 1stAm – and the boss knew he had nothing to nail me on, and that I would have definitely legally fought any termination for mere political disagreement; ie, that it’s a huge legal stretch to get to where the progressives want to take us, which is to establish that political disagreement can be tantamount to racial harassment [of them, please note: it certainly works out routinely to being so against us]).
A person who does not use objectively racially inflammatory language, or advocate for genuinely discriminatory treatment based on race, can actually get away with saying quite a bit that is racially true and useful, if abhorrent to white traitors and minority racists – more than the typical conservacuck realizes (or wants to test, being mostly cowards). The key is to be factual; mainstream in appearance and speech; and always to frame our side’s position as a matter of neutral, objective justice (which it always is), rather than one of racial power (and this even though there is, ultimately, no avoiding the issue of racial power: ie, in multiracial societies, history reveals that some race always dominates – in our case, why shouldn’t it be the race whose kinsmen founded, settled and built the nation?).
A good try.
There’s a concept in psychological operations (aka information warfare) of the key communicator.
You do not have to win over the majority of White people, you just win over the big opinion makers: mass media hosts, religious leaders, outspoken oligarchs, etc. Once you get them onboard with the pro-White program, they will bring the mass of White people with them.
This is why a Tucker Carlson or Elon Musk or Donald Trump is critical. Whether or not they are “our guy”…who cares? The thing is that they open the way for other people to say formerly proscribed things.
Which is why the Dissident Right needs to support them, and get more of them onboard with the program.
More critically, these key communicators can (or should!) provide infrastructure to support your average White person who has legit concerns about loss of job or status.
Example: you get fired for posting a pro-White opinion? Well, you now get employment with your friendly oligarch’s media corporation.
Example: the feds arrest you on bogus charges? Your friendly oligarch bails you out of lockup and pays for your legal defense.
At least in theory. All this is something about which White advocates need to develop tactics. Supposing a key communicator were to ask of the Dissident Right, “What do you want me to do for you?”
I’m sorry, but what exactly is the most important idea to get across? I keep looking at this essay and I’m still not sure.
Reread penultimate paragraph.
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.
Edit your comment