Counter-Currents
The White Liberal Question: A Nietzschean Response to Jason Köhne
Robert Wills
Jason Köhne
1,390 words
I recently watched an interesting debate centered on the Jewish Question between Mark Collett of Patriotic Alternative and Jason Köhne of No White Guilt. If you’ve been around this scene for a while, the debate wasn’t earthshattering. Lines have been drawn. Sides chosen. Listeners knew the arguments that both sides were going to make before they made them. And yet, what was truly great about the debate was that both sides made them, clearly and succinctly. Around and around the two went before they stumbled onto the questions of our age: How does our movement reach the man on the street, and how should a dissident movement present itself in order to create political change? These are fair points, and they are not discussed enough.
Mark Collett stressed intellectual honesty, and channeling newfound curiosity amongst ideological initiates into philosophical questions of ultimate sovereignty. Who rules you, and why? Here was where the debate got interesting. Replying to Mark, Köhne said, “How do we reach our brothers and sisters? What is in their heads?” In other words, you can’t reach the normies if you talk about the Jews. A familiar argument. But Köhne added an enormous twist.
What differentiates Köhne from other people who argued this — “evangelicals love Israel” — isn’t what he adds to the debate, but rather who he is trying to reach. Köhne’s chosen handle, “No White Guilt,” says it all. If there exists a conservative or Right-leaning individual with white guilt, I haven’t met them yet, and his book entitled Going Free appears to be an obvious appeal to liberals on the basis of a conservative trope about them. But even at this point my mind couldn’t seem to accept what Köhne was suggesting — that is, until he struck it over the head with a bludgeon of cosmopolitan mannerisms and Martin Luther King-style rhetoric: He is trying to appeal to urban, white liberals.
He is trying to make white identity appealing to urban, white liberals — urban, white liberals who mostly despise white identity and hate anything remotely Right-leaning, even the neocons. He means urban white liberals who sided with the Black Lives Matter rioters rather than the white people the latter was robbing, looting, and killing; urban white liberals who were chomping at the bit to send Kyle Rittenhouse to jail forever in a case of obvious self-defense; urban white liberals who would wash blacks’ feet, praise them for bravely speaking the truth, and then beat a white man with a bike lock for being too uppity – and these are only a few amongst the numerous other atrocities they’ve committed over a span of decades. Yes, those people. Köhne did not make a great point, but he did make a point greatly, and that was what mattered.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
We all know that an attempt to reach our fellow brothers and sisters from Libtopia is going to fail — and fail miserably. But why? Köhne is far from the only one on the Right who believes that the blue horde of white liberals are not beyond redemption if only they would give up their sinning ways. The 80-ton pink elephant in the room wearing a bow tie that no one wishes to acknowledge, however, is why do liberals insist on anti-white policies, despite being white themselves? Nietzsche offers some insight.
The conservative trope is that liberals are self-hating. I would argue just the opposite. In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche compared the Self to a tree, and he compared the winds that blew the tree from side to side to the Self’s subconscious motivating desires and creative ambitions. The white liberal is the tree, and the anti-white zeitgeist blows through liberals on a sub-conscious level, animating their will to power, which in turn manifests itself and creates its own version of anti-whitism that is fundamentally different from the dogma held by other racial groups. The urban, white liberal then uses this creation of their subconscious as a sledgehammer to beat down their closest competition: other whites. In this regard, the white liberal’s will to power understands anti-white ideology to be a powerful tool. This is why they so zealously promote it. Entire professions such as law, medicine, psychology, and so on are essentially gate-kept by anti-white liberals. Thus, in that sense urban white liberals are best understood as a tribe amongst themselves, and their fiercest enemy is Middle America — both American and European Middle America. When the white liberal professes his own woke virtues, it’s therefore best understood as a call to arms against an enemy tribe.
But how is the white liberal’s version of anti-whitism different from that of other groups, you may ask? In their version, white means Middle America — even the Middle America that votes Democrat. It means you grew up near a lake or a river and had a rope swing, rather than a gated liberal colony. It means your parents were not white liberals or professionals who read The New Yorker. It means that you reside in some watering hole in flyover country, not a proper shitlib stronghold. It means you don’t have a sister getting married in Australia and a brother living in England. It means you didn’t go to school with people like them. It means you are not a part of their international caste of mid-level bureaucrats. And most importantly, it means that you were not raised from childhood to support their value system, which is only a reflection of their caste’s will to power.
It is for this reason that Köhne’s plan will fail. Liberals rightly understand that Köhne’s plan to set them free will ultimately disempower them. Let’s be honest: Disarming anti-white ideology only disarms white liberals, not conservatives. It’s in this regard that liberals’ in-group bias needs to be understood. While liberals have a very low in-group preference (kinship to others in their racial group) by conservative standards, by their own standards they have a tremendous in-group preference for themselves. This can be demonstrated whenever liberals occupy a new neighborhood in a three-phase attack.
The first phase occurs immediately after they move into a new neighborhood. Here, explorer-liberals begin with a three-pronged attack on the mostly Republican-leaning local populace. The first phase is thus a mass display of yard signs. A normally conservative community with American flags and crucifixes will slowly and surely become decorated with sporadic BLM and “Hate has No Home Here” signs as the elderly residents pass away and other families are forced to sell their homes because of the economic situation. As houses are put on the market, explorer-liberals report back to their cohort and the mass-moving is set into motion.
The second phase of the attack centers on the establishment of businesses aligned with woke values: coffee shops with BLM flags, clothing stores with “Trans Lives Matter” attire, homosexual exclusive establishments, and so on. These establishments are almost always hostile to the locals, and seek “elite” clientele. It’s at this phase that white liberals establish themselves as an economic force in the war zone. The local populace, often working 12 hours a day, rarely pays much attention.
The third and final phase takes place after the white urban liberals have accumulated enough weight in the community, but are still very much a minority. They launch a full-scale assault on the local government. School boards are cleared, supervisors and governors are challenged, judges are forced out. The urban white liberal is counting on low voter turnout in the community’s elections, as the local people are accustomed to their conservative-leaning representatives winning every year. If the assault succeeds, nothing short of a bloodless coup emerges: American flags are lowered and gay pride flags raised in 24 hours’ time. The victors then begin the process of systematically raising the standards of living in the newly-conquered territory and expelling everyone else who is not of their tribe.
If the assault fails, the liberals will simply bide their time and strike from the shadows at their enemy’s throat at the next chance they get. This process is replicated at the institutional and professional levels, as well through the use of “woke” values. In that sense, urban, white liberals need to be understood as a grove of pine trees, poisoning the ground they grow on with acid so that no competing trees can spring up.
* * *
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.
43 comments
I grew up in Middle America. I have anti white liberal friends who had the exact same upbringing as I did. They have no connection to the coastal elites that hate them. They went to average midwestern colleges. No relatives lived in England or married in Australia. Yet these people are under some spell. How do we get through to them? Can they be saved?
Rightists are the ones who need saving.
So do you believe that liberals/leftists (whatever one wants to call them; we all know what we’re talking about) are fine the way they are, and live and think the way that white people who care about their own should live and think?
This is not a rhetorical question. I’d really like to know what you believe about them.
Whether or not I agree with the lifestyle choices of white liberals is beside the point.
There will never be any such thing as a white nation that does not include white liberals. So the American variant of white nationalism, which this article is based on allegedly espousing, can be sufficiently liberal to avoid alienating the extreme majority of white people or it can remain marginalised. Remember, 70% of America supports gay marriage, are they “poisoning the ground with acid”?
White liberals, contra your viewpoint, DO “care about their own.” The author of the article states as such in extremely strong terms: “. . . by their own standards they have a tremendous in-group preference for themselves.”
It’s an extremely simple political calculation. White liberals would rather live in a multiracial liberal society than an illiberal all-white society. That’s not “not caring about their own.” That’s just having priorities.
Liberals, despite what this author insists, are the only group of non-white nationalist white people who are open to white nationalism, because they actually embrace a racial identity. Whether it’s a negative racial identity is besides the point. White liberals identify very strongly as whites. So you can have a conversation with them about how white people should behave.
White conservatives reject all forms of racial identity out of hand. They are absolutely and categorically anti-racialist. They identify as “Christians” or “Patriots” and other civic nationalist subcultures. The ones that *do* supposedly embrace a racial identity are quick to renege it – Like embracing Kanye and other theological flavours of anti-semitism because it’s “based”. Their argument against multi-racialism is that Jews “spread degeneracy.” They are not racialists but social conservatives because they will side with illiberal non-whites against liberal whites.
“It’s fine if we go extinct, so long as we don’t have woke values!”
“Whether or not I agree with the lifestyle choices of white liberals is beside the point.”
Not to me; it’s actually the only question I asked. If you don’t care to answer it, I understand, but I hope you change your mind, because I’d still be interested to know.
***
“White liberals, contra your viewpoint, DO ‘care about their own.’”
No, they don’t. That’s incorrect.
You know that “care about” means “wants what’s best for” and that “their own” means members of their extended family, their race (i.e., white people as a group). The only “own” they care about (that is, when they’re not offering them up as martyrs to things like miscegenation or anti-white crime) is their immediate household and, maybe, a few close friends. Any other time, they are only too happy, if they can, to destroy the lives of other whites who aren’t sufficiently prostrate before diversity, because they are white.
***
“Liberals, despite what this author insists, are the only group of non-white nationalist white people who are open to white nationalism, because they actually embrace a racial identity.”
The only time they ever “embrace a racial identity” is when they are agreeing with their enemies that they, and everyone else like them, need to be rounded up for abuse or extermination. When it comes time to celebrate Western (that is, White) Civilization, on the other hand, it’s “race is a social construct” and “one race: the human race”.
‘White liberals would rather live in a multiracial liberal society than an illiberal all-white society.’
The simple truth is that White liberals largely already live a 90% White Nationalist lifestyle. Their neighborhoods are defined by concentrations of wealth (and security systems) that assure that ‘multiracial’ has little effect on them.
My own view is that we’re blaming anti-White racial politics for what is simply snobbery. These people are snobs. They don’t want to be associated with non-wealthy Whites whether they’re liberal or not. The anti-White puritanism is simply camouflage to avoid the adverse gaze of the Eye of Jewron.
A useful inquiry would be whether White liberals would being willing to support self-determination for Whites not in their cohort if it meant they didn’t have to be in any significant political arrangement with Middle American Whites. If we can them to not oppose separation – or even promote it – we would get more of what we want rather than nothing at all.
Can we craft a rhetoric and political program that either enlists White liberals as assets or at least discourage them from going on a death-march to stop us?
I think we can.
Liberals: “We hate you because you’re illiberal.”
Robert Wills: “Ackshaully, (armchair psychology).”
If you hate white liberals so much, who would you prefer to share a neighbourhood with? Conservative Mexicans?
I’d say there are many choices other than that.
Yeah like taking over the institutions and us shaping the narrative that the liberals will then follow. They’ll still be liberal, but we’ll set the Overton window, as our forefathers did.
We might say that white liberals are ‘anonymous Jews’ (cf. the great Catholic theologian Karl Rahner about ‘anonymous Christians’).
In a way, liberals have been taken over by the Jewish spirit. They worship at the same altar of the Holycaust, and are animated by the same hatred against whites. The Germans already theorized about a struggle between the Aryan and the Jewish spirit in ‘Mischlinge’ (half- or quarter Jews).
So it will take more than arguments to free them, rather an exorcism or a miracle. Miracles are sometimes possible, though. I myself used to be an ardent white liberal too. But my transformation went in small steps, the first of which was – rather unoriginal – the adoption of libertarianism (maybe we should proclaim Ayn Rand an honourable Aryan).
A response to the article and another comment. I’ve encountered a large number of white liberals in the woke-religious centers – major metropolises. Some are working folk in service (bartenders; waiters …), some are corporate professionals. The impression I get is that many adopt the woke credential because they are desperate to not be seen as Deplorables. They typically make the most explicit, anti-white statements. God forbid they say they are from Gary, IN and they be thought of as racist scum. Why do you think metalheads now perform concerts in front of the rainbow flag?
In short, there are different reasons for them being anti-white. What we have to do is to start imposing the social cost on them that they so fear. I don’t think we need to coddle them into waking up. They won’t. We need to use our people’s weakness against them – the intense fear of the social cost of being shamed and outcast for moral reasons. This looks like responding to some anti-white comment along the lines of. “Hey! I am white and so are you. As a matter of fact so are my (son/daughter/niece/nephew) and they are innocent. How dare you denigrate them because they are white. You need to take a good look at yourself and examine why you carry this bigotry – and not just any bigotry but bigotry against your own relatives, ancestors and future generations.” It could be simpler even. “Hey! I don’t like bigotry. You need to examine yourself for why you think that kind of bigotry is okay.”
As for the rest of the piece, I would say that we must not fall in to the trap of negative identity that blacks in America are lost in. I see this tendency in particular with the JQ. The bulk of our energy should be in being pro-white; in particular in our actions starting with ourselves. Let’s be bent on lifting ourselves up and then building using our own selective tribalism in stealth to help each other. We have a huge trove of a heritage to build our positive identity from and to inspire us to meet that legacy.
We were the only ones in America who agreed to the melting pot and we got screwed. Let’s just accept the reality that this is now a tribal society and find and build up our tribe. White liberals and others are against us? Fine! Let’s be a force to be reckoned with. As they say, the best revenge is success. Elevate. Infiltrate. Extricate.
I couldn’t agree more with your analysis and strategy. More than anything white liberals care about social status and popularity; they won’t respond to logical truth-focused arguments. They will definitely respond to ostracizing, though. We must take over the culture, one home at a time, one office at a time, one institution at a time. We must dominate and impose our worldview by shaming. Liberals are by-and-large feminized folllowers above all else.
The tree illustration in interesting and probably has much truth to it.
There’s a kind of structured constructed autism these wealthy white libs have. Naturally they don’t like to see what inconveniences them or affects their standing in their own community of libtards.
But however much they hate other whites, if you hang around them long enough they will privately concede there are some ‘issues’ with blacks. They sense danger with blacks.
A lot of it is these people mostly don’t reflect on themselves or what they are thinking.
White libs just assume whatever they are feeling is good and moral in the moment even if it’s in total contradiction to some other position they hold. This isn’t a nuanced context thing. Much of it is just feels to maintain their own sense of sophistication and cosmopolitanism. And that has been fostered in them by Jews as a commenter mentioned.
However, it’s important to understand not all of them are actually on board with BLM, immigration, trannies and other stuff. Many have a certain amount of confusion privately about many of these issues.
They may well publicly pay lip service to them, but privately some are not true believers.
It’s possible some kind of wedge could be exploited here.
I’m not sure if that Köhne’s intention. But I never really got the guy. I suspect he means well but he comes across as a bit cult-like. Cults are a very American thing, and by their nature attract some kinds of people and utterly repel others.
Personally I just want to deal in reality and actionable ways forward. I’m not interested in mantras and ‘going free’. Think this, think that. Do this positive thing. “Change within yourself”. But if it’s aimed at libs I don’t really care either.
The concept of trying to encourage white tribalism among leftists has a surface appeal. But having four sisters that would in no uncertain terms kick me out the door if I ever mentioned such a thing, I don’t see how it could ever work. At least not until the blacks and mexicans and chinese and indians come for them too. It is definitely about power rather than what is best for the tribe. We have two factions of our tribe and they will war with each other. Sadly I don’t see it ending anytime soon.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything NWG says, but I’ve been following him for years and you clearly don’t understand the people he wants to reach. He doesn’t want to bring rabidly antiwhite ideological fanatics like the ones you described to White advocacy, he knows it’s a waste of time, his goal however is to reach normies and bring conservatives out of pusillanimity.
Thank you for clarifying the goal of Jason’s work. NWG just did a livestream regarding this hit piece. Like you said, Jason’s mission is to focus on White people with normal sensibilities, and garden variety Republicans who are tired of being demonized for our immutable characteristics. That’s why the Go Free method focuses on our own victimization, and wellbeing, instead of obsessing over an out group. The ‘Name Them’ Crowd, is is Jonathan Greenblatt’s dream come true. The Antiwhite MSM is going to milk this ‘Dinnergate Fiasco’ right through the 2024 election, and that includes Antiwhite Republicucks like McConnell, Cheney, Romney, etc.. This slanderous article needs to be retracted. The author should’ve interviewed Jason before he regurgitated this garbage.
I have followed Jason ever since TWOTAR days and like much of what he does. I think his lexicon is brilliant. That said, as a National Socialist, I resent his constant punching right. So he has a different target audience in mind, so he has his own method of reaching out to them. So what? Jason is good, but he is not perfect, he is not infallible and his is certainly not the only way to victory for our people. We are in a battle for our very continued existence and it is being fought on multiple fronts and will require multiple approaches. What works for or on one person may not necessarily work on another. Rather than limiting our weapons of warfare to one weapon (Going Free), knowing that that one weapon will not take out every target, we should embrace multiple weapons. But Jason would have us limit our arms, calling the use of any other weapon than his own useless and even harmful and those who use such arms as _______ (Fill in the blank with the slur of your choice).
So, what I have to say is “Get over yourself Jason and stop punching right. Work with the rest of us to fill in the gaps in our coverage as we fill in the gaps in yours. Stop with your own slanders and trash talking of us and our beliefs and ways.” What normie, or even right leaning person wants to associate with people who can’t work together themselves on a common goal? The Left, the Anti-Whites and particularly the JEWs don’t have that problem. (((They))) may fight among themselves in private and sometimes in public, but when facing the rest of us, it is always and forever, (((Them))) against us. We are (((their))) enemy period.
I agree that Mr. Kohne should abandon criticism of those to his right. He gets too heated and frustrated with those on our side whose tactics are more open and aggressive. (If Commander Rockwell was heads, Jason Kohne is tails. Both on the same coin.)
Though I wouldn’t say he punches right (he doesn’t name names or even name ideologies, as far as I know), he does come too close for comfort. Even if his criticisms were valid (I don’t think they are), they shouldn’t be aired in public. It’s his most obvious handicap.
We need a *variety* of tactics, techniques, and procedures. Jason Kohne’s are one way, but not the only way. He’d be helping the cause, and himself, if he’d realize this.
Mr. Kohne, please read Greg Johnson’s ‘The White Nationalist Manifesto’. Everyone at Counter-Currents, please read ‘Going Free’.
Actually, while Jason does, rightfully avoid naming names, he does name ideologies and worse, he misnames them, using slurs instead of proper terminology. Slurs like AntNat (which I assume is Antique Nationalist) instead of Fascist or National Socialist, and which is the equivalent to the “Nazi” slur first raised by the Jews. “YehudiCentrists” for those who believe in identifying your primary enemy the Jews. And other slurs and slanders against our character, intelligence, motives, etc.
“Anti-Whites” is a great term, don’t get me wrong. It’s been in use for many years, long before Jason came along, though admittedly, he’s been instrumental in bringing it back into prominence. But it is limited in that it is a “general description” not a specific identification. An “Anti-White” can be anyone, of any race (including Whites), any political leaning, any social leaning. Whereas, the Jews as a group are, in fact, the leading Anti-Whites on the planet. They, the Jews as a whole, outliers not withstanding, hate Whites more than any other group of people. But they, outliers notwithstanding, are a hateful people as 3,000 yrs of history has shown us. They are also responsible, more than any other group, for inciting hatred of Whites in others, including Whites. These are simple facts. And ignoring facts leads to irrelevance if not outright defeat. What do they care if, we “go free” while they are able to freely continue to gain ever more control over the systems of government, education, media, etc., to the point where eventually, no White person will have any rights other than the right of servitude to them?
No. The infighting needs to end. We need to “Go Free” but we also need to awaken our people to who their main enemy is, the main provocateur of Anti-Whitism and isolate them from our communities and eventually our lands so they cannot do any more harm. Then, we can work on the improvement of our own race in peace.
The other thing is those little trading library kiosks they put up. Every time I see one of those I know a little piece of NPR has metastasized to my local red state neighborhood. Then they come out and start virtue signaling about other things. Very predictable. I think you could gauge the librardedness of an area by the concentration of those things, lol.
Im not sure this is implicit in the article, but white liberals don’t feel personal guilt. They project guilt on the white prole class in an effort to feel morally superior. They are elect. They have read To Kill a Mockingbird and understood it’s message. We are bad.
It’s similar in spiritual contour to the reformation period in Europe. Liberals are like Protestants among the Catholics. And you see ever more rarified purity spiraling among them as ever more holier-than-thou sects emerge, like anabaptists and mennonites. These would be like your advocates of sex change and genital mutilation for prepubescent children. No offense to actual anabaptists. (We on the altright are no strangers to purity spiraling either, so you see it’s common to the human condition.). And people held these beliefs very strongly, even though they seem like relatively insignificant differences to us today, people would go to the galleys, suffer martyrdom, and die in earth wrenching wars for them. There seems to be a strong sectarian spiritual predisposition in Europeans that leads to this behavior. A need to feel elect, or morally superior to the white people around you. Are we so different, after all? I have a sense of moral superiority and elect ness from my dissident right opinions and knowledge!
One element here is that many White liberals go along with the current dominant ideology. This is especially so given the lock on communications which the radical egalitarians possess via the mainstream media, academia, corporate HR departments, etc. The Left in America has always understood the importance of propaganda, the Right not so much.
Were White nationalism to become a dominant ideology, many if not the majority of White liberals would likely go along with it. Check of proof: the fact that the United States, Australia, Great Britain, etc., were until the mid-20th century pretty much White ethnostates. Take a gander at Jack London, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.
If White liberals today are to be considered hopeless (and many of them are hopeless), White conservatives are not very much better. They are too often into a civic nationalist or universalistic religious ideology to be open to White Nationalism. Nonetheless…
There are many White people who are open to a message of White Nationalism. A common grumble is that while every “minority” group has advocacy organizations, White people are not allowed to similarly organize. The events of the last several years have opened up many eyes re critical race indoctrination, statue destruction, affirmative action, the Great Replacement. There is a target audience here which can be won over.
The sector which needs to be aligned with the White Nationalist cause is not so much White liberals or White conservatives but key communicators who control the means of information. This is why Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter ™ is critical as the platform becomes a front for agitprop.
Let’s see White Nationalists exploit this front, and do so intelligently.
I would include a sizable portion of self-identified ‘conservatives’ as white liberals. Those that embrace universalism, first/second wave feminism, materialism, careerism. That covers at least half of em, whether they understand that or not.
For a moment, let’s imagine that ‘White Nationalist politics’ is neither left nor right, conservative or progressive. Let’s also admit that some parts of the White national body are at odds with one another over any number of sub-racial life-style matters. Now lets imagine that it is not in our interest as a White Nationalist political vanguard to aggravate these points of friction but to lubricate their points of contact to minimize the friction and keep the larger project of saving the White race moving forward rather than collapsing or stagnating.
To me, that means White Nationalism is neutral on all questions unrelated to the survival of the White race. We can seek to be guided by the lodestone of ‘What makes Whites happy’ but when there’s no one answer to that question on some particular matter of culture or life-style, we should not take sides but, instead, encourage separation and self-segregation. This shouldn’t be too hard because this is what we already do.
We need to craft a political doctrine and political posture – a political strategy – that keeps White Identity Nationalist (WIN) politics detached from these sub-racial issues. We also need to view WIN politics as a process in which seemingly non-racialist building blocks are put into place as stepping-stones to open WIN politics.
The WIN vanguard needs to be the Switzerland of White political differences.
If we really care more about whether the White Left or the White Right wins, we cannot win.
If we take sides we cannot win.
If we can craft messages and policies that make all sides of White life feel like their future can be trusted in our hands, then we win.
“If we really care more about whether the White Left or the White Right wins, we cannot win.”
Excellent point. Well said.
I think gender plays a huge factor in the divide between whites liberals and conservatives/rightists. And it must be addressed; it’s not going away. White liberal households are almost unanimously run by women and reject the traditional family and societal model. Thus they reflect the biases and orientation of feminist whites women: safety over chaos, equality over freedom, obsessed with social status, shallow and comfy, politically correct rather than sincere. The collective white liberal community then becomes a stifling but ‘safe’ place. Conservative/rightist households are typically more traditional with men leading, pro-natal (although this needs work-lot of young white women from conservative homes are embracing careerism), open to some chaos b/c they’re more confident, value loyalty and truth (even if it costs social status), despise deception and shapeshifters, value hierarchy, etc. i don’t think any understanding of the differences between both communities can be understand or possibly changed without addressing this gender war of sorts. A return to traditional familie structure and and resultant larger scale changes that makes to governance and culture is the only path forward if we want to overcome the challenges we face. Female-driven culture and institutions will always necessarily prevent us from confronting the harsh realities we face. No way around it.
There is much truth in this comment. I suspect the over-feminization is itself a symptom of some other collapse going on.
But yes:
Over-attachment to politeness (they think this is their virtue arrived at via their own agency) rather than their broken reflex.
Public demonstrations of conceding to – what they think the sensibilities of others are.
Condescending attitudes in general to those outside their community they have to interact with.
Not wanting to stand out in the crowd as stated, conforming as heavily as possible to their own community standards.
Not being able to say no to anything that would cause offense within their own community.
Comfort and its pursuit is a given. Totally agree.
This feminization of values over everything is real , and yet in those white liberal households where the woman has no children at all they create a life of endlessly living like a child themselves.
As they still have some hazy nurturing instincts they have dogs instead of children. Sometimes many of them as some part of them realizes that one dog doesn’t equal one child, so more dogs are required. Still a million dogs doesn’t equal one child but they can’t think that far ahead.
These dogs are their pretend children because real children are too much of an encroachment on their cosmopolitan lifestyle, they come with too much responsibility and dogs can just be replaced and swapped.
Alcoholism and other drugs: Wealthy white libs drink gallons of wine night after night after night. They can’t imagine a world without it. They may be using other drugs too like SSRIs, sleeping pills and so on. They are never really clean and these substances help keep everyone feminized, faggy and useless like the ‘other side’ in Zardoz (can’t remember the name of them). These people are usually under the influence of something.
While I am not a follower of Mr Kohn and disagree with him on several issues, I believe there is a huge audience presently primed for his message. An MLK/Gahndi type leader for the ‘white positive sphere’ that is organizing in the vein of TPUSA would be WILDLY successful.
If he focused on organizing instead of livestreaming he could become a real force to be reckoned with.
If he doesn’t do it, someone else will come along with a similar message, and they’ll be the ones to make history.
TPUSA loves Israel though. They are evangelicals and this is their default programming. I’m not saying their videos aren’t helpful but I live where Charlie Kirk lives and the evangelicals are hard to stomach sometimes. They can very anti white despite being conservative and Christian.
I didnt mean that Kohn and his Going Free method should adopt any of the beliefs of TPUSA, I’m just saying TPUSA is great at organizing and i think Kohn’s message would do well in a similar structure. Even if he did a Steven Crowder-type “change my mind” bit sitting at college campuses and posting the videos, I think he would do well with that.
If Jason would actually organize to get his message out in some of those ways rather than just livestream the same old talking points I think he could be very successful.
Thanks for clarifying, I agree.
I also wish WN’s would ask people who are outside their bubble their views. I see a few mistakes made and no one is listening. Just crazy spergs on platforms calling each other jews like a Tourette’s patient.
I can’t even share some good videos with normies because of the comments sections on some platforms, it ruins the message. Very unbecoming behavior.
Did Robert do any research before writing this article? If so, this is a gross misrepresentation of Jason Kohne’s positions. Jason has five books and thousands of hours of video content (No White Guilt on YouTube). Anyone reading this who watches twenty minutes of his content will find Robert’s claims about Jason to be false. Greg, how could you publish this piece? This is libel.
Unfortunately I have to agree here. Mr. Wills is out of line.
Kohne has some idiosyncrasies that aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, such as the tendency to believe his way is the *only* way, and allowing some obviously damaged people into his circle. He’d do himself some good by not getting so angry at those more explicitly and aggressively pro-White, and by choosing more carefully who he associates with (I believe there’s someone of confused gender?)
But I believe a lot of Kohne’s strategy is valid, and I’ve always assumed he was trying to reach the ‘color-blind’ conservatives who might join our ranks – and will be *forced* by necessity to join us if things get really hairy. (The people who, when knocked off the fence upon the current anti-White cold war going hot, will fall down on our side of it.)
Plus, where the hell did Wills come up with this one: “If there exists a conservative… with white guilt, I haven’t met them…”? That is one of the most naive things I’ve ever seen written on Counter-Currents. Absurd and blind. Who does Wills think is the purveyor of such imbecilities as ‘Dems are the real racists’?
Kohne lays out a clear, polite way to fight the everyday anti-Whitism we all encounter. More polite than most of us prefer to be, but sometimes circumstances require tact. The responses to anti-Whitism Kohne recommends in that book are responses any of us would not hesitate to say in public.
All White nationalists should read ‘Going Free’. Even if you can’t or won’t follow its tenets, you will definitely know people who would be receptive to its message. It would make a great gift to a person of conscience who is ‘apolitical’ and has never thought much about what it means to be White, but is becoming uncomfortable with the increasing and accelerating anti-Whitism in the world.
If nothing else, Kohne has the best answer to the slur ‘racist’ I’ve heard yet.
The author’s research amounts to discovering that Jason’s Youtube handle is NoWhiteGuilt then extrapolating, that since only “liberals” harbour “White Guilt” (utterly false) therefore Jason’s main focus must be on winning favour from the likes of antifa terrorists who violently attack those they suspect of not being antiwhite enough. He then expands upon this strawman as if to make it crystal clear how truly insane Jason’s “tactic” is. Not a single quote or scrap of evidence provided.
Even the most talentless journalists writing outright lies for trashy tabloids will contact the person in question for comment. If you had reached out, Jason would have immediately told you that he has never endorsed trying to win over antiwhites. In fact he has explicitly stated countless times that we should NOT waste our time on them. But the author obviously has no interest in accuracy or professionalism.
Does CounterCurrents have no standards as to who and what it publishes? Or is having “Nietzschean” in the title enough to impress the editor? This is the only article “Robert Wills” has published on Counter Currents. It seems CC has become a platform for anonymous TRS trolls to grind their axe. Disappointing.
LP
LOL.. the Nietzsche name drop always makes laugh. So much posturing.
Eye roll on the forced use of a German poet philosopher in an article when claiming to care about regular white people in America. Nietzsche is the pseudo intellectual dissident rights way of “virtue signaling” IMO. I see his name dropped far too often in WN circles.
I’m a “regular white person” and I think this article is not only slanderous but a huge mistake.
The Go Free method is the only appropriate way to teach a child/teen/ young adult how to comport themselves.
Comments about another powerful groups behaviors online could potentially ruin any teen or young adult’s future employment or college application. Teach your children to stay away from ANY one who is anti white..no matter their ethnicity, race or voting party preferences.
There are plenty of anti white mid west republicans/conservatives.
They quote MLK and think marrying their daughter off to a black man shows they’re the good ones and the democrats are the “real racists”. It’s utterly absurd and pathetic to witness in chat comments on YouTube.
I watched the leaving PWR show but don’t recall any overt claims that he is trying to make “White identity” appealing to urban, white liberals. Maybe I missed that part in the video. As Lovely Porridge points out though – my take away from watching his content has been that we should quickly assess how antiwhite someone is and only devote time and energy to those people most likely to be open to the “going free” message – like the strategy of a salesman: good leads.
Jason’s main target audience is probably what he calls “vagues”. From his book he defines them as: “People who have not come into contact with any form of antiwhiteism, or those who are not [emphasis added] firmly antiwhite but who speak,write and act (virture signal) in ways that conform to the antiwhite narrative.”
If he is thinking of “converting” urban white liberals or hardcore antiwhites, it’s probably much lower on the priorities list. I think he’s probably more interested in capturing/diverting White men and women with a fighting spirit to his strategy and away from what he calls “playing the villain” in the antiwhite narrative. This is to prevent their lives from being harmed with stuff like Nazi imagery, Roman saluting, and hating on Jews – and put that energy to more effective use spreading the tools of the Going Free lexicon to empower Whites to defend against antiwhiteism.
I would encourage the author and others to take the time to look into Jason’s work but with a caveat: his personality can be quite acerbic/unlikeble to some. If you can look past that – the “Go Free” strategy of focusing on language is sound.
“…his personality can be quite acerbic/unlikeble to some. If you can look past that – the “Go Free” strategy of focusing on language is sound.”
You said more succinctly what I was trying to say in a comment above.
Also, I’d like to add that *most* of the time, Mr. Kohne is quite positive and friendly. He’s never blackpilled. But he does occasionally get too publicly angry and frustrated with people more openly and aggressively right wing. It’s indeed acerbic and unpleasant, but it’s fairly infrequent.
I have two hypotheses about this piece: On one hand I’m inclined to believe that the author hasn’t done his homework and is misrepresenting Jason Köhne due to ignorance.
On the other hand though, I get the feeling this might be a shit-stirring article written by a bad actor who’s trying to plant the seed of discord among Pro-White advocates, because anyone who knows NWG’s way of thinking is aware that he isn’t trying to win over BLM/Antifa lunatics who’d happily commit the most heinous acts against Whites if given the chance – such a claim is what actually makes me think this was purposefully written to besmirch NWG’s image. Anyone who’s followed Jason Köhne for even a short period of time knows he wants to reach normal people who might not yet be racially conscious, but aren’t necessarily anti-White.
Either way, this article is rubbish and will lead to people who aren’t familiar with No White Guilt leaving with a completely distorted view of him and what he promotes. I’m honestly disappointed to see it published on Counter-Currents.
P.S. Conservatives and Right-leaning people don’t have White guilt? LMFAO!!
I concur. If we give Mr. Wills the benefit of the doubt, he’s just ignorant and bumbling around unprepared. Going off half-cocked, as it were.
The fact that this is the first time we’re hearing from him, however, does make one suspect ulterior motives.
Nothing I’ve seen over the years makes me doubt Jason Kohne’s sincerity, even if we don’t always agree tactically. I can’t say the same for this Wills fellow.
I was never simply an “urban, white liberal,” as I was greatly impressed in my early 90s college days by a self-described quasi-Straussian, right-wing Heideggerian professor. But I suffered from intense cognitive dissonance from, say, 1990 to 2015, was heavily into 90s rave, 00s rock bar cocaine nights, had contempt for both corporate and middle America, and had many more black & gay friends than the typical white liberal of the era, and yet here I am, in the white nationalist camp. And until last year, I spent my entire adult life in big cities.
Granted I was more nihilist than striver, but I’m hardly the only one to go from left to right. That’s not the true divide, as the C-C website’s serialized translation of de Benoist’s book demonstrates. Also, post-Covid, the anti-GMO Left is ripe for recruitment.
Wonderfully written article.
Is this sarcasm? I think the comments above have demonstrated there are massive problems with it.
I at least found the article to be quite interesting. I also listened to some of the Collett/Köhne discussion.
I really don’t care if Islamists or sub-Saharans hate White people or not ─ as long as they stay in Kebabistan or Wakanda. When and if they bring their swarthy bodies and their vitriol to our countries it means war. And wars are meant to be won ─ by whatever means that are necessary.
I also don’t think that one necessarily has to hold any certain conclusion with regards to the proverbial Jewish Question. But what is essential is that the JQ must remain on the table. It has to at least be eminently discussable. In fact, I would argue that this is inescapable for White Nationalism.
Any WN organizing approach that garners more Jewish fundraising to reach its “goals” is by definition going to lose its way fast and impact the concrete hard if it purports to serve White interests. Indeed, this is pure sabotage.
So Mr. Köhne can try his hand at organizing dodgy Whites in the greater interest of “Whiteness” all he wants ─ more power to him ─ but I remain skeptical that there is some secret sauce of “optics,” or not mentioning the you-know-whos, or whatever brand of slick packaging (and fundraising) that might be tried to successfully sell it.
However one does try to square the circle, “esoteric” White Nationalism is absurd, at least to me.
And, in my opinion, the Big-H is hugely important to debate and to discuss ─ even if only because it is the one taboo or line that must never be crossed to stay within the comfy Kosher safe space.
This is about a conflict of will and power, and if you expect to win you have to at least be willing to venture further than failure and defined impotence.
I am certainly no genius at organizing White people, but I think we are better off making enemies of traitors and appeasers from the start. Are some of these weekend Leftists and anti-White milquetoasts redeemable? Yeah, maybe. So what? The salvation of lost sheep is not my top concern.
🙂
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