Counter-Currents
Ryan Sanchez, aka Culture War Criminal, poses with Greyson Arnold of Pure Politics at CPAC 2023. MAGA Inc.? Or America First?
2,598 words
I asked over the Counter-Currents Telegram channel last Saturday if any of you had questions for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2023 attendees. You people really pulled through. I had so many great questions that I wasn’t able to ask them all, but I tried to pick those that seemed to overlap so I could cover as much ground as I could.
Due to the very unscientific nature of simply wandering around and making conversation with as many people as possible, I can’t pretend this is a completely accurate representation of the average CPAC-goer’s mind, but the questions you sent sparked conversations that were revealing about the state of the GOP and its voters.
Before anybody asks, no, I did not see the vibrating “exercise” board, but I was only there on Saturday, so I probably missed it. If anybody else was there and has pictures, I’m dying to see it.
Your questions are in bold, below.
Do you think groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) should be able to get together to support their collective interests? What about white identity groups?
The overwhelming majority of people I spoke to said yes to both questions. Particularly given that others are allowed to organize to defend their ethnic interests, whites should be able to do the same. This was a pleasant surprise, and I doubt the speakers would have given the same answer. It nevertheless reflects recent polling showing that 30-40% of Americans believe that white identity politics is legitimate. Given that non-Hispanic white Americans are 56% of the population, it is reasonable to assume that it’s whites who comprise that 30-40%. This is likely even more so given that 23% of Republican males have a favorable view of White Nationalism; therefore, Republican white males are extremely likely to approve of white identity politics.
What will it take for you to support the National Divorce as proposed by Marjorie Taylor Greene?
There was almost no support at all for National Divorce as suggested by Marjorie Taylor Greene, even among the younger people I asked. Only one person I spoke to supported the idea. The rest said it was impractical and would probably lead to violence, not to mention the fact that it would put financial strain on rural towns that depend on those cities which contribute more to the state coffers and take less in the areas of education and infrastructure. However, most people agreed that Americans are voting with their feet and are leaving the cities for more rural, red areas.
On a scale of 1-10, how afraid are you of being called a racist/unenlightened/stupid? Does that fear influence your views or what you are willing to say or not say? Is a charge of racism more or less damning than it was five years ago?
I was delighted to hear that, although most respondents are still concerned about being labeled a racist, the networking that has popped up over the last five years via various organizations has made them more comfortable with the idea of being honest about their political views. One attendee told me about the Manhattan Project, which was started by the New York Young Republican Club (I assume this is not a reference to the project to build the atomic bomb), and is a recruiting and training program that will place young people in political jobs ahead of the 2024 election. (Check out their press release here.)
Do you love Jesus more than Martin Luther King?
This is a great question for a Republican MLK Day event. When the time comes, send me a time and a place around DC or Pittsburgh!
Do you think whites will be discriminated against and denigrated once we no longer constitute a majority of the population? Also, do you agree with Scott Adams?
I asked if people agreed with Scott Adams that whites should “get the hell away from black people.” This made respondents uneasy, and I usually then brought up the subject of the South Africa farm murders. There was almost no awareness of these murders, and very little regarding anti-white hate crimes. Although one attendee did remember seeing the video of the 9-year-old white girl who was beaten on the bus by a black teenager in Florida.[1]
Do you feel like your representatives are representing your interests?
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
Boomers were more likely to think Trump could take back the White House and save us from “woke” culture. However, about a third of the people I spoke with said the speakers did not do a good job representing their interests. Matt Gaetz and James O’Keefe were favorites.
People under 40 were more likely to say that they feel that almost none of the speakers represent them. Favorites were Matt Gaetz and James O’Keefe. The mainstream media is reporting that the crowd was wild for Trump.
They may have been wild for Trump merch (I saw a woman carrying a bejeweled purse displaying “TRUMP” in rhinestones), but there was plenty of seating in the ballroom on Saturday evening.
The crowd politely sat through an hour of rambling about his own persecution and accomplishments, but responded positively when he said: “Under my leadership, we will use all necessary state, local, federal, and military resources to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American History.” This is great, but many are wondering why this operation didn’t happen during Trump’s first two years in office, when Republicans held the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.
Some credit Sam Francis with the quote, “The leadership of the Democratic Party is always farther to the left than their voters. And it’s the same way with the Republicans.”
One of our paywall insiders shared the graph below, where this sentiment was actually plotted out in the United Kingdom:
This is certainly true at CPAC.
Don’t you think Israel can take care of itself by now?
Sometimes it takes a while to get people to feel comfortable enough to say what they really think. For example, the answer to “What do you think about Kanye West?” typically started with a comment along the lines of, “Well, he went off the rails . . .” but usually meandered into acknowledging the massive Jewish power behind the main culprits of cancellation: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). One gentleman who was relatively young and well-spoken, after first expressing the same general statements, ended up explaining to me that the world is run by a cabal that is 95% Jewish.
After I started “noticing,” as they say, I counted eight yarmulkes, and was told many more wore them under their Trump hats. I’m not surprised by this, given that Orthodox Jews are socially conservative, and generally Trump is considered one of the most pro-Israel presidents in history. Others wore the United States/Israeli Friendship Flag lapel pin.
At one point, when Trump mentioned the Deep State, someone in the audience shouted, “The Jews!” Trump emphasized how extremely dangerous an alliance between Iran, Russia, and China would be to Israel.
Ron DeSantis is equally pro-Israel, and he again made his allegiances clear here, at a competing Club for Growth event in Florida the same weekend, where referenced the occasion when he was quick to sanction Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever over their boycotts of Israel. [2]
What is the most important issue?
The majority of people believed election fraud is the biggest issue, with many of them asserting that immigration is tied, or a close second.
* * *
I was tickled to run into a reporter from BorderHawk News. We chatted about how immigration should and must be the number one issue, because while election fraud may be rampant, it is only exacerbated as the American people are replaced by immigrants who vote Democrat.
The GOP is still pandering to Hispanics. Earlier in the week, there had been a panel discussion on “Getting Out the Vote in Latino Communities.” The Republican leadership seems to be convinced that Hispanics are natural conservatives due to their Catholicism, but it’s been statistically proven over and over again that most of them vote Democrat.[3]
One kind man who had just retired said he was looking for something to be involved in. He was moved by the panel on the January 6 prisoners. But when I asked what he thought the biggest issue of the day was, he said we needed a convention of the states to impose things like term limits on Congress and restraints on increasing the national debt, which would limit corrupt federal power. These are fine ideas, but none of the speakers addressed why the federal government is corrupt — or why government regulations are increasing. (According to Turning Point USA, “Big Government Sucks!”) It’s interesting that, according to the chart below, which ranks countries in terms of a “human freedom index” from highest to lowest, the population gets darker as the human freedom index grows smaller.
Source: World Population Review
Gender issues were a top issue, just behind election fraud and immigration, and on this CPAC actually delivered. Saturday’s breakfast was sponsored by Moms for America, whose keynote speaker was Riley Gaines, a competitive swimmer who lost an National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championship to a biological male transsexual, Lia (formerly Will) Thomas. Matt Schlapp has been notably vague on this issue in the past, but the base won’t tolerate it:
Michael Knowles, a commentator on Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, won the crowd over in his speech by saying that “transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.” Leftist journalists, of course, reacted by making it seem like a call for another holocaust:
Nick Fuentes was barred entry to the conference on Thursday, but the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hannah Gais was welcomed, as was this woman, Amanda Moore. Moore’s claim to fame is that she stopped wanting to kill herself every day when she discovered that she has a purpose in life: sleeping with minor figures in the MAGA-sphere in order to expose them by revealing that they say the same things in private that they do in public.[4]
I was happy to bump into Ryan Sanchez, aka Culture War Criminal, and Greyson Arnold of Pure Politics, as well as a handful of “groypers” who joyously heckled the journalists who had been hoping to “expose” them, including the aforementioned Moore.
Scene from the future? Greyson Arnold poses at a Trump Oval Office Replica at CPAC 2023.
* * *
Fuentes hosted a party across the street that evening despite having lost his original venue. The Residence Inn by Marriott ended up being a last-minute option. Marriott has been criticized for accepting it, and according to some, hosting his event was even more egregious a sin given the presence of a Shabbat celebration at the same hotel that evening. Fuentes’ event was nevertheless so well-attended that the Fire Marshal had to ask 25 people to leave.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
In the final analysis, the GOP’s current ideology as represented at CPAC seems just as empty as its seats. Speakers spoke incessantly about family, freedom, and patriotism (also defined as “freedom,” according to CPAC presenters). But what is the substance behind these values?
As for family, there are families everywhere, so what makes American families exceptional? And despite the speakers’ claims, most people tolerated drag queen Lady Maga’s presence. The homosexual agenda is, at least nowadays, primarily an American export. In 2022 the US government allotted $200 million for gender equity and equality programs in Pakistan alone, for example. But lest we are tempted to blame all of this on the Biden administration, in 2020, still under the Trump administration, the US allotted $10 million to Pakistan for the same causes.[5] And, of course, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy makes appeals to LGBTQ rights as a way to win over more American dollars.[6]
When it comes to freedom, it is a safe value to promote. How could anyone possibly be against freedom? But freedom to do what exactly? “Freedom” is a meaningless value in itself, since allowing freedom to some individuals inherently limits the freedom of others. According to the CPAC attendees and presenters, should Americans be free to carry firearms? Yes! Should Lia Thomas be free to compete as a woman? No! Freedom means freedom to pursue the self-actualization of the nation’s founding people. What people does our country exist to serve?
Do these GOP headliners have the courage to acknowledge the people for whom and by whom the country was created? What is it exactly that makes America great? Steve King paved the way by doubling down after being cancelled in 2017 for saying, “You cannot rebuild your civilization with somebody else’s babies.”[7] In extraordinary fidelity to the truth, King then addressed the 2022 American Renaissance conference.
Americans created Liberia for former black slaves, complete with a constitution modeled after America’s and a flag which still resembles our own. It doesn’t seem to have done much good, however, given that Liberians now represent the largest share of African refugees currently enriching Philadelphia.[8]
The Haitians likewise inherited the French constitution, yet it is still in a state of ongoing catastrophe causing Haitians to flee to white countries. The average IQ of a Haitian is 67. Up until 2014, the minimum IQ required for a defendant to stand trial in Florida was 70. These are not small differences, and radically different peoples create radically different societies.
In a panel titled “A Rabbi, A Christian, and a Cardinal Walk into a Bar,” former National Football League player Jack Brewer explained that “kids can’t read and write” because “our land, right now, is cursed.” Brewer was referencing statistics showing that 23 schools in Baltimore, Maryland have zero students who are proficient in math.[9] Are we cursed? Or is it genetic?
* * *
At the hotel bar that evening, I leaned into the mid-century modern teal couch and studied our surroundings. The hotel bar was staffed exclusively by blacks and Latinos. All the hotel’s hospitality staff who served us that day were either black or Hispanic. At the dinner we’d had earlier, all the servers were black and Hispanic except for one tattooed woman sporting short, dyed hair. Washington, DC is majority black at 55.1%. Non-Hispanic whites make up only 29.9% of our capital city.
My sink was leaking when I returned home. I chatted with an older contractor — still white in this town –who taught me how to fix it. During our conversation, I mentioned I had been at CPAC and he told me, “We’ve got to save America!” He and most of the older CPAC attendees earnestly believe that America is in dire peril and trust that the featured CPAC speakers are going to save it.
Judging by this conference, the GOP is dying out. More importantly, Americans are dying out. Who will “save” America? Or is it already too late?
* * *
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.
Notes
[1] “Video shows 9-year-old Florida girl savagely beaten by two boys in school bus attack,” Selim Algar, New York Post, February 2, 2023
[2] “Florida Gov. DeSantis threatens to sanction Ben and Jerry’s, Univever over boycott,” i24News, July 22, 2021
[3] “Latinos support Democrats over Republicans 2-1 in House and Senate elections,” Gabriel R. Sanchez, Brookings, November 11, 2022
[4] “The MAGA infiltrator is sad, not brave,” Bill Zeiser, The Spectator, October 27, 2021
[5] “US provides $200m for gender equality” Anwar Iqbal, Dawn, December 24, 2022
[6] “Zelenskyy notes LBGTQ rights support in Golden Globes speech” Michael K. Lavers, Washington Blade, January 11, 2023
[7] “Rep. King: ‘I meant exactly what I said’ with ‘babies’ tweet” Louis Nelson, Politico, March 13, 2017
[8] “More detentions, deportations, abuse: The challenges Black immigrants face” Eric Edi & Lilah Thompson, The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 28, 2023
[9] “23 Baltimore schools have zero students proficient in math, state test results reveal,” Chris Past, February 8, 2023 WBFF
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
28 comments
Cyan, when you made the rounds asking questions were those you asked aware of your affiliation with Counter Currents? Was CPAC? If so, did anyone comment about it?
Thank you for the report!
Hi James! I had no cards left at the end of the night! The younger the attendee, the more likely they were to have read CC. Although about half the time I only handed out my card near the end of the convo to keep in touch.
As far as I know, CPAC was not aware of my affiliation. Although, if I’d applied for a media pass like the SPLC, maybe I would have gotten in for free! I wouldn’t have had the same privileges to mingle with guests that I enjoyed during the speeches though.
That’s great! It sounds like you took the best approach. We need to not be skulking around in the shadows like the pariahs they want us to be; just show up at these events, or anywhere else we care to go, and behave like we have a right to be there. Normalize it.
I think we should seek the level of profile our resources can protect. Right now, they can come for any of us and there’s nothing we can do. Pretending we ‘deserve respect’ or that we have ‘rights’ is a recipe for disaster. One of our greatest assets is the ‘cool’ factor that comes from being ‘outside the mainstream’ while still speaking to the values of normal, decent White people who are concerned about their future, especially their future as White people in an anti-White culture and political-economy. The virus doesn’t asked to be noticed. Neither does the cancer cell. But both are powerful in their capacity for replication once a certain threshold is reached. We just need to keep on truckin’, one step at a time.
Hey, H.T.
I believe that more of us can be “out” than might realize it, and if we can, we should. (I don’t mean showing antifa our drivers licenses and SS numbers, but people like that think that everyone right of Mao deserves to be flogged, so letting them determine our every move is a sure fire way to never be known by anything but a pseudonym.)
However, I also subscribe to Greg’s position: the degree to which each one in the movement feels compelled to be anonymous is for him or her to decide and must be respected by everyone else. So I agree with you too in this regard.
If you want to attract “decent white people” in America, you’d better learn to be a damn sight more respectful of Christianity. There is nothing, absolutely not a single thing, that is more idiotic from a prowhite optics perspective than being seen as in any way, however remote, antagonistic to Christianity. WNs have a lot to learn in this regard.
One wonders whether Lord Shang wants us to be friendly to Christianity because it’s in our political interest or his religious interests to do so.
While I understand Greg’s stance that asking people to take hard stances on tangential matters is self-defeating, I don’t think this is that. My main problem with Christianity is not merely that it is false (although I believe it is), it’s that it is fundamentally at odds with a WN social and political order. Optics are a matter of rhetorical style. This is an essential matter of principle, not an accessory matter of optics. At most, there is the tactical question of how obvious we make our hostility to Christianity, and how soon. My personal views on that question is that while people might be able to deal with the cognitive dissonance, they will eventually abandon either their Christianity or their Nationalism. So it makes sense to ask them to choose now, or at least begin thinking about it.
I’d also like to add that if you’re a Christian for genuinely spiritual reasons, all I can say is God bless you. It’s the person converting to Christianity or starting to take it seriously for essentially cynical political reasons that I’d like to apostatize. I don’t entirely see why genuine Christians would have an issue with this.
I strongly disagree with you. First, I never said I was a Christian. Repeatedly, I have stated that I come from a Christian background, but am a philosophical agnostic. I would like to become a Christian again, but that will require a “philosophical conversion” of some type. Second, I have averred that there is no ultimate moral-theological contradiction between hewing to Christianity and wishing to prevent white extinction. My parents – and countless Christian (and much less antiwhite) generations before them – would find such assertions as Christophobic WNs make extremely bizarre. It is simply a fact that the West has never been more secular, and also never less racio-survivalistically committed. Correlation does not equal causation, but sometimes it does, and I wonder if this is not one of those instances. Third, I have argued that, especially in America, the only large pool of possible recruits to white preservationism lay among white conservatives, the majority of whom are practicing Christians (and not just ancestral ones like me). This is the “Trump base” – and the Trump base is absolutely the ONLY people receptive to race realistic arguments (voluminous polling data demonstrate this). Why O why is this so hard for WNs to accept?
If you force white American Christians into having to choose between religion and race, most will choose their faith, and you will have doomed the prowhite cause – and needlessly, for our cause is 100% compatible with Christian ethics. Those who disagree with me have been bamboozled by the very progressive leftist propaganda they claim otherwise to see through.
WN MUST come to be seen as morally compatible with real Christianity (not some theologically aberrant and unsupported “Christian Identity”), or our race and civilization are at their end.
I am not ready to say it’s over for America, but political process for solving our problems is dead. That ship sunk with the 2020 election. And last week I met Ron DeSantis and he gave off weasel vibes, I felt no future coming from that man. Great work, Cyan!
“I am not ready to say it’s over for America, but political process for solving our problems is dead.”
Ok, but then how is it not entirely over for America?
To save America, you first have to protect the White majority. To protect the White majority, you need the power to stop immigration (Or make it White only) you need the power to deport illegals. You need the power to offer/enforce repatriation. Etc. Not to mention you also need a sizable number of Whites to have the will and desire for these things to happen.
A lot more things would have to he done too, but this one is the most crucial. If we have lost the power and ability to do this, what else can be done?
It really comes down, as you say, to “will and desire”. It may well be the case that due to the rules of the game, political power is lost before actual, physical power. It could also be the other way around.
With enough will, almost anything is still possible, politically or otherwise. Without it, almost nothing is possible. Most people are apathetic and just want to take the easy path through life. 10% of the people usually can’t do much politically no matter how fervent they are, but if they’re willing to go beyond politics, like their ancestors would have, 10% of the people can make all the difference. Imagine 15 million white Americans showing up at the southern border with rifles. Or walking off the job. But who’s got the time and energy for that? I think there might be a game on…
Exactly. Politics may be downstream of culture, but politicians and their henchmen can themselves exercise an out-sized influence on said culture. Brilliant outreach from the dauntless Mrs Quinn. Is her work part of the reason for the history news network (HNN) characterisation of CPAC 2023 as a Mussolini moment?
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/185174
Politics isn’t downstream from culture. That’s just the wrong metaphor. Each interacts with the other. Politics can (and has) galvanized a latent culture of discontent (such as in 2015/16).
In answer to HT, I think you more or less just restated my argument whilst seeming to diasagree. You then gave the example of Trump. He cynically used nationalist populism because he and his handlers knew there was a huge constituency for it. That constituency exists because of the largely occult nationalist culture. Obviously the bigger and better-educated we can make that occult nationalist culture the better the political situation for Europeans
It’s been that way for a long time, which is why our enemies have seen flooding the country (every white country) with nonwhites by all available means as so urgent. At this point, I don’t think it’s a matter of just “willpower”. It’s becoming a matter of overturning the status of having already been conquered. It’s really game over for whites, both in America and I think globally. My constant suggestion is the only way forward: WN territorial ingathering, and the long push for secession and new sovereignty. As I realized over two decades ago (though I was suspecting this even with the poor political showings of Pat Buchanan in the 90s), most whites are either a) active race traitors (for a host of varying reasons, ranging from misguided ethics to serious psychopathy), or b) totally indifferent to long term well-being, and this either due to simple selfishness, or basic stupidity and lack of imagination (as well as propensity to indoctrination in tandem with having lived through several generations of the most intense indoctrination ever seen in history).
Most whites will only ‘awaken’, if ever, once their backs are literally against the wall and it’s far too late to offer any meaningful resistance.
It’s not entirely over for America because whites are realizing we are getting close to having nothing left to lose. Once that happens the game changes. My game is changing almost daily. I am helping others open their eyes. Sending them here to CC is one way. I have stopped taking it in increments. Soon I’ll stop altogether. I believe there are many many more like me.
Although one attendee did remember seeing the video of the 9-year-old white girl who was beaten on the bus by a black teenager in Florida.
Although she appears to be light-skinned on the video, it wasn’t a white girl who got beaten on the bus in Homestead, FL. Her mother is shown in the first few seconds of the first video on this page.
I saw the video and I think you’re right, but on a related note there has to be some European blood fraction above which it’s reasonable to call them “white”. For example, the average black in the US is about 25% white. The typical “half-black”, then, is likely over 60% white. (It’s not so easy to calculate.) Then in the next generation, like a Megan Markle, you could be getting over 80% white. At some point a non-white mom can have a white kid. At least that’s what this race traitor says.
Not that the victim’s race should matter much when it comes to little girls being savagely beaten. The perpetrator’s race on the other hand…
Thank you, Cyan for taking on the hard job of being C-C’s field anthropologist to the homo conseratus.
I usually then brought up the subject of the South Africa farm murders. There was almost no awareness of these murders, and very little regarding anti-white hate crimes.
And these are conservatives who are ‘conservative’ enough to be attending CPAC and, presumably, consume lots of ‘conservative’ media.
The censorship in this area of antarianism is clearly very effective.
This suggests that our enemies know that this kind of visual information is ‘radicalizing’ and we should think hard how we can make use of it.
Perhaps a giant quilt of names of Whites and their killers making sure those names are obviously not White.
The censorship in this area of antarianism is clearly very effective.
Where does the word “antarianism” come from? That might be a good word to start using more often, but I’d like to know its derivation.
I think it was introduced into the Urban Dictionary in 2012. It’s bit fringe, even on Gab, but we need something pithier than ‘anti-White’.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Antarian
The threat you responded to about ‘antagonistic toward Christianity’ was played-out so I’m responding to your here. Huge numbers of White ‘Christians’ are antagonistic toward their own race. This is is a painful, but nonetheless obvious fact. While I encounter a few racially-focused pro-White Christians, they are not, by any stretch of the imagination a majority. There are almost certainly more self-identified pro-White Whites than there are self-identified Christian pro-White Whites.
I’m not hostile to Christianity. I’m hostile to a version of Christianity that will not allow Whites to collectively organize in our interests. If Christians attack pro-White organizing on the basis of their religious beliefs, I’d like to hear how you intend to separate the religion from the problem of anti-White Christians.
Can we build a movement without today’s current crop of Christians? I’d say ‘Yes’ because in order to be a pro-White Christian, you’d need to be a different kind of Christian altogether. From the conversations I’ve had with pro-White Christians, they believe there are resources within the faith for a pro-White Christianity. It’s a matter of emphasis, from what I gather.
Christianity is not my religion and I’m not under any obligation to pander to its sensitivities. However, I respect my pro-White Christian brothers and sisters and would consider it very bad manners to engage in religious debate with them. It’s simply not relevant to what brings us together: Our Whiteness.
Fair enough. Perhaps I seemed to be attacking you personally (which was not the case) with my dashed off comment. But I strongly disagree with a few points.
This topic is awkward for me because, while I was raised in a strongly Christian family, and am certainly a friend of the Faith (and would rather have lived in the West when it was more Christian, albeit not when it was so fanatically Christian that free thought was actually persecuted; basically, I’m referring to the 19th-to-mid-20th centuries here), I cannot actually be considered Christian. This is not because I’m anti-Christian in any way, but simply due to “philosophy of religion” problems. I’m an agnostic who reluctantly suspects atheism might be correct. I have no interest in personally spreading Christianity (and I don’t think I would be ‘preachy’ even if were to become ‘born-again’).
Indeed, even if I came to believe that God exists and Christ is His only Son, my main activity beyond personal life-maintenance would still be racial study and white consciousness-raising, as I hold that we are a persecuted group that has a right to resist its replacement and oppression, a right which is perfectly compatible with traditional Christian morality and social values. Our people are being passively genocided (ie, the conditions necessary to our racial perpetuity are being intentionally vitiated or removed); IOWs, we are true victims. I perceive no way in which the cause of awakening whites to the truth of their genocide, and urging them to resistance, violates Christian ethics (Christians who argue otherwise are either foolish or ignorant or perhaps actually malicious {though I doubt as a definitional matter whether any person deliberately seeking to promote white extinction truly merits the designation “Christian”}).
I thus believe that white awakening activities are at least allowable for Christians (to the same extent that I don’t think black Civil Rights marchers were bad Christians simply for agitating against “Jim Crow”; whether white Christians had to accede to Jim Crow’s removal is a far more challenging moral question). But because whites are by several empirically ascertainable orders of magnitude the most virtuous race, and thus, I hold, the race without whose presence nonwhite mankind will greatly suffer (indeed, without whose care and oversight all life might come to be destroyed), I incline to the far more controversial view that Christians are actually under a moral obligation affirmatively to try to halt white extinction.
At the very least, I think the kind of ethical white nationalism that is being presented and developed here at CC could be made to seem acceptable to Christians. We have nothing to fear from making our case to them, and I think we could persuade many – not, let me be clear, to become raving Nazis, but to accept that whites are experiencing injustice (including the ultimate injustice, which is race replacement, and the cultural and faux-ethical assault aimed at demoralizing us so that we will offer up no resistance to that replacement), and that WNs are proposing ethical acceptable remedies to it.
This then leads me to the kind of sociological and political data I have long asserted here: that atheists and seculars tend to be more leftwing than white Christians; that white Christians were Trump’s (and every other conservative’s) base (I know you dislike Trump, and I recognize his grift and failures, but my point is that the American Right, the Right which doesn’t just oppose abortion but also open borders, affirmative action, CRT, etc, is filled much more with self-identified Christians than with any other group); and that conservative white Christians are by far the largest group of white American “persuadables”. Our cause will only grow so much by appealing to “pissed off secular white men”. We’ve got to get at least the religious rank and file on board, too (Christian leadership, like leadership almost everywhere, is filled with cucks). And we won’t do that if WN continues to be viewed by Christians as hostile or incompatible with God’s commands and His church.
The ‘rubber meets the road’ question is whether there is any movement whatsoever in Christian circles to even consider abuse of the White race in their homelands to be an issue worth of Christian concern.
I don’t.
And every Christian I engage in discussions about pro-White views always falls back to the same position: Christ must come first.
That’s seems fine until you realize that ‘Christ comes first’ means that ‘race’ comes never.
Christianity is not interested in reforming itself to allow for the defense of the White race.
Or, at least, I see no evidence of it.
There are Christians who support a generically pro-White viewpoint (as indicated in the Rasmussen ‘It’s okay to be white’ poll, but I don’t see this sentiment reflected in any Christian commentary, do you?
Whatever ‘Christianity’ is supposed to be in theory, in practice American Christianity is the worship of Negros, Jews and money and I see no resources within the faith for changing this orientation.
My view is that racial self-loathing by White Christians is much harder to reverse because they have a spiritual justification for accepting their sixth-class citizenship in ‘diverse’ America: Martyrdom is holy.
For White liberals, it seems to me that they still have interests that can be furthered by ‘community rule’ and ‘self-determination’ even if those principles lead to racial separation. Technically, it’s just the cost of allowing ‘diversity’ to get out from under the thumb of ‘white supremacy’.
The overarching problem that pro-White advocacy encounters has nothing to do with religion or politics. It has to do with the enormous number of Whites who already lead a ‘White Nationalist’ lifestyle due to either (a) White flight and implicit redlining or (b) the long-standing White racial homogeneity of rural America.
In either case, the value proposition of explicit pro-White politics isn’t obvious…until the Judeo-left forces diversity upon those areas using Title IX or via a ‘refugee resettlement’.
It was liberals in Virginia that led the fight against CRT, and the same has been true in most places.
During that skirmishes around CRT, I don’t recall a single quote from ‘scripture’, do you?
The liberal commitment to universal ethical values makes them much more prone to accept ideas like ‘self determination’ and the anti-racist benefits of racial separation than Christians.
I have a prediction about the future of Pro-White recruitment that runs contrary to everything I believed, and what I wanted to see happen. That prediction is this:
White Nationalism will grow through a “Boomerang Effect” in which garden variety White Liberals and White Democrats come to embrace the core beliefs of the ideology, which are support for racial separation between Whites and nonwhites, opposition to miscegenation between Whites and nonwhites, and the control of White governments over world affairs (which necessarily entails White Globalism being chosen over Ethnonationalism)
By the same token, the opposite values will be embraced by White conservatives and White Republicans: Support for multiracialism under the umbrella of Reaganism or MAGAism. Support for race mixing between Whites and nonwhites. Demonization of White collective organizing. And so on and so forth.
Here’s the truth: White Nationalists such as myself and Lord Shang are oddballs and exceptions. We are ex-conservatives (conservative-libertarian in my case) who found our way to the Pro-White Movement through our own inquiry and free will. We are not representative of the conservative mind. As unpopular as conservative policies may be, there is actually an intellectual justification for them as represented by philosophers such as Adam Smith and Fredrick Hayek, but your average conservative not only has no knowledge of this intellectual tradition, they are in fact NPC’s, most of them.
Right now, White Liberals are anti-racist and are deeply opposed to White Nationalism. The Boomerang Effect, if it comes to fruition, would result in these smart, good-natured people changing their minds, converting to White Nationalism, and using whatever control they have over the levers of power to disrupt things and change things. I have more faith in the humanity of a White Liberal than I do in a White Conservative, who, in his heart, simply yearns to emulate what his masters tell him.
I was wrong about Russia – I consider myself entirely detached and neutral in that conflict now; its a fight between two cabals of competing gangs – and I suspect I’m wrong about there being some sort of overlap between White Nationalists and White Conservatives.
I agree. I think its a historical accident that pro-White advocacy has been dominated by ‘right-wing’ politics there’s really no logical relationship between ‘conservative’ and ‘right-wing’ views and pro-White views.
Did you see the ‘It’s okay to be White’ Rasmussen poll?
The difference between Democrats and Republicans polled regarding ‘It’s okay to be white’ was a mere 3%.
Conservative and the Right act like liberals are so besotted in their altruism that they like being dispossessed.
I don’t think that’s true.
I come out of the left and I saw the anti-White animus in the 80s and got out.
Still, my political sympathies are on the left and I think the case is stronger to move more liberals and leftists toward supporting ‘self-determination’ and ‘community rule’ even if it means ‘White supremacy becomes the standard in some communities.
Christian conservatives can always come up with a justification why race is irrelevant. Paul’s ‘neither Jew nor Gentile’ quote gets used a lot to justify rejecting the idea of ‘race’ altogether. And then you have folks like E. Michael Jones who insist that ethno-religious sectarianism is preferable in all cases to the idea of ‘race’.
I don’t know if there really is such a thing as the ‘Boomerang Effect’, but I do know that liberalism doesn’t have a principled argument against a policy of universal self-determination for all communities even if those communities are explicitly racially separatist, but Christians reject racial separation as violation of ‘scripture’.
The more clever the argument that ‘scripture’ can be interpreted to support racial separatism, the fewer Christians can follow it.
The path is less uphill with liberals and the left than with Christians.
I grew up in a blue state. My whole extended family is at least left of center and many of them are involved in progressive causes on a professional level (either in advocacy groups, think tanks, and the like) or informally (academia, tv, etc). I grew up defaulting to a sort of normie center-left, albeit non-woke perspective although in hindsight I suppose I was raised on some RW authors like Kipling. I also think that the combination of low agreeableness and high openness predisposes me and others to find nationalism.
But with that disclaimer out of the way, I think you’re absolutely right. I would say that it is a massive mistake to think conservatives are our only or even our best potential audience. I suppose people should focus on recruiting people who are similar to themselves in terms of geography, personality type, subculture and interests, socioeconomic class and so on. But I truly believe that we have something to offer all kinds of White people whether they’re old school blue collar union types or hippie environmentalists or whatever the case may be.
I also hate to invoke DR3 but I really do believe that the average White liberal has a fairly low opinion of brown and especially black agency, which is why they want to protect and help these people. Their universalism is merely a different species of ethnocentrism where they believe our norms are so obviously superior that other groups will adopt them as soon as we come in contact. The White liberal’s revealed preferences in his own life are also always for “good schools” and “safe neighborhoods,” so on some level he already wants for himself what we want on a political level. I think it would be far easier to convince this person than a psychologically/temperamentally conservative Evangelical who loves The Constitution and Our Greatest Ally.
I think our message needs to be primarily directed at high-IQ (and ideally high-testosterone) White men, although I’d be willing to work with others if it doesn’t mean compromising our central message. Let’s find human quality. Prior involvement in conservative politics is at best neutral and more likely a bad sign.
My position is not to rule any White person out of the coalition as long as they are honestly pro-White. But I also think that convincing people to give us the circumstances that can lead to openly pro-White territories is better than trying to convince people what we want. And to do that, we need to think about what those ‘circumstances’ are. Liberals don’t want to live under ‘conservative’ rule because they see that rule as deeply flawed in a number of ways. And ‘conservatives’ don’t want to live under liberal rule for the very same reasons. And pro-Whites don’t want to live under either a conservative or liberal rule because neither functions from the racial premises we require in order to be confident in arriving at good policies. So, my position is that pro-Whites should support any and all nullificationist and secessionist politics and seek to become a power-bloc within these more autonomous political units.
The pro-White political strategy has to be to encourage the ‘one size does not fit all’ mentality across the political spectrum. What pro-White politics needs at this point is the ability to proselytize. And to do that, we need to weaken the power of our most relentless racial/political opponents. And I believe that forcing them to confront thousands of different more-or-less racially-and-culturally homogeneous quasi-autonomous political units is the way to weaken their power over the continent.
I think liberals are at least as receptive to ‘one size does not fit all’ as conservatives, perhaps more so.
Most intelligent Whites of any political persuasion do not want to live near substantial numbers of non-Whites.
They’re just afraid to say so and prefer to be silent and vote with their feet.
I don’t think we’re going to get White liberals to admit that they prefer a 90% White Nationalist Lifestyle, but I do think we can get them to give the rest of us the conditions for the possibility of White Nationalist enclaves on the basis of ‘You’ll be free of us and we’ll be free of you, but we can still talk and collaborate’.
We need to get to a point where we have a rhetoric that will likely give us what we need rather than what we (ultimately) want.
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
Lost your password?Edit your comment