Counter-Currents
On White Normie “Brainwashing”:
A Reply to Kevin MacDonald, Paul Craig Roberts, & Other Dissidents,
Part 1
D. H. Corax
Amy Biehl, an American anti-Apartheid activist who was murdered by blacks in South Africa in 1993.
3,168 words
Part 1 of 2 (Part 2 here)
There is something of a critical mass effect with much of the information we take in on a day-to-day basis. We can read or hear the same sort of thing 99 times without thinking much about it, but on the hundredth time it suddenly registers as if it is something new, and we then act on it. For whatever reason, recently reading Kevin MacDonald’s essay from September of 2022 about the utter naïveté on racial matters expressed by the people at his reunion had this effect on me. It combined with the rest of the somewhat black- (or at least grey-) pilling articles and comments I’ve encountered on various dissident Right sites — most notably the Unz Review, where Paul Craig Roberts’ jeremiads against the “brainwashed” and “insouciant” nature of most Americans are a near-daily feature — to convince me to write this essay on an element of our situation that is often missed, misunderstood, or underappreciated by many on our side.
I have no formal training in psychology, so please forgive me if some of the concepts that I mention are already known by different names. I am also only self-taught in economics and history, although while I know far less than the two above-mentioned giants among intellectual dissidents, I still feel that I know enough about human nature in general and nature of American whites in particular to point out something that they seem to be missing, and which makes our situation less apocalyptically bleak than it might at first seem. In doing so, it may reveal the path towards solutions that could make it even less bleak.
To begin, let me introduce a concept which I call the “emotional hangar,” a part of white and East Asian mental architecture which seems to be lacking or is otherwise severely underdeveloped in those of pure sub-Saharan African ancestry. It is also weak, yet present, in other non-white and non-East Asian peoples.
As far as I can tell, the emotional hangar serves two major functions. To know what these are, let us look at what its absence or extremely weak form looks like, with examples from the lives of three men who dealt with pure sub-Saharans on a day-to-day basis for many years. One is an American policeman, another is an American teacher at an almost all-black high school, and the last is an American teaching at various universities in Africa.
Let’s begin with the last, Gedaliah Braun, who wrote a remarkable article in which he put forth the idea that virtually all differences between blacks and whites and the resulting social pathologies of the former fall under the broad umbrella of lacking the ability to perform abstract thinking well. Many black characteristics, such as having short time horizons, are familiar to most on the dissident Right, but there is one which they seem to view only from the angle of impulse control, but which is actually more complex: a lack of precaution involving conscious scrutiny of possible emotional reactions and their consequences. You can call this merely a form of a lack of impulse control, but I don’t think this fully captures it. Braun approaches awareness of the missing emotional hangar when he writes:
However harsh it may sound to say so, blacks are, in many ways, child-like, and this is illustrated by the often superficial quality of their emotions. They are easily provoked into violence and mayhem but, like chameleons, they can turn completely docile the next moment.
A recent incident is perhaps revealing. I was driving in heavy traffic, and cut in front of a black taxi. As luck would have it, we met at the light and the driver shook his fist at me, cursing me in anger. I raised my hand, acknowledging fault. Instantly, the anger became a broad (and, I believe, genuine) smile of friendship. This kind of instant transformation is common.[i]
Now compare this with testimony from the other two:
As Tom Andrews, the nom de plume of a self-described “police officer in the United States,” tells us:
Even when there is no crime, blacks can get out of hand. We get a lot of runaway calls. Most of the time the parents are more angry than frightened, because most children have not been abducted; they just don’t want to come home. One call I took was about a black girl who was supposed to come home from her job at a convenience store only a short walk away. When she didn’t show up, the whole family became hysterical.
As I took the report, I had to give up on talking to the mother — only in her thirties — since she curled up into a ball on the floor screaming, while her own mother rocked her back and forth. Hysteria is contagious, and the younger ones started screaming, too. I couldn’t get answers to many of the questions I needed for the report, such as the missing girl’s social security number or blood type.[ii]
And Christopher Jackson describes the hazard of teaching in “a predominantly black high school in a southeastern state” thus:
The violence is astonishing, not so much that it happens, but the atmosphere in which it happens. Blacks can be smiling, seemingly perfectly content with what they are doing, having a good time, and then, suddenly start fighting. It’s uncanny. Not long ago, I was walking through the halls and a group of black boys were walking in front of me. All of a sudden they started fighting with another group in the hallway.[iii]
What do all three of these have in common? Not simply lack of impulse control, if we define that as the behaviors exhibited by those with “a low-activity version of the MAOA gene, which previous research has dubbed the ‘warrior gene’ because of its link to aggressive behaviour,”[iv] but an allelic variant with a racially biased distribution:
The warrior gene [is] found to be more or less prevalent in different ethnic groups. The 3R version, which produces less MAO-A, was found in 59% of Black men, 56% of Māori men (an aboriginal New Zealand group), 54% of Chinese men and 34% of Caucasian men. The 2R version, which produces the least MAO-A, is found in 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men.[v]
And
Additional analyses revealed that African-American male carriers of the 2-repeat allele scored significantly higher on an antisocial phenotype index and on measures assessing involvement in violent behaviors over the life course. . . . The effects of the 2-repeat allele could not be examined in Caucasian males because only 0.1% carried it.[vi]
Thus, since “monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) . . . breaks down neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine [and] . . . scientists have proposed that. . . low levels of this enzyme should imply more neurotransmitters — as there’s less MAO around to degrade them,”[vii] a population carrying the warrior gene, but lacking the genetic and neurochemical configuration to keep it in check as Europeans do, is likely what causes our prisons today to look like Zimbabwe.
As you can see, while the high school teacher’s story is a textbook example of low impulse control, the other two really aren’t. In the cop’s account, the negress mother and her family were showing not heightened aggression, but misery and worry heightened to the point of a mental collapse; and in Braun’s account the black driver, he slipped out of his aggression as quickly as he’d slipped into it.
Yet, all three do share something in common: emotional shifts that are instantaneous and without a delay, building, or gradation that would allow them to be analyzed by the higher parts of the brain in preparation for the action that they may induce. This therefore reveals to us one of the major functions of what I’ve termed the emotional hangar: Just as an airplane hangar allows planes to start up and stand at the ready for potential action without actually taking off, with the option to be powered down and deactivated if there turns out to be no need for them to fly, so the neurochemical configuration of whites and East Asians allows them a way to feel gradations of emotions. The weakest emotions are kept waiting, often almost subconsciously, while the rational parts of their brains begin to go into overdrive, assessing what the weak emotions mean and planning potential courses of action in the event that external events should call for their full release.
You can buy Greg Hood’s Waking Up From the American Dream here.
This process thus leads to increased survival rates in two ways: directly, by allowing for a more rational analysis of opportunities for both resource acquisition and danger avoidance; and indirectly, by facilitating the kind of complex, trust-based, cooperative social interactions needed to build and maintain the types of advanced civilizations that make advanced agriculture and capital accumulation possible.
For an example of the first, consider a group of hunter-gathers who are walking through the jungle when they hear something crashing through the brush, but can’t tell whether it’s a potential danger or prey. If they instantly react with either joy and aggression or fear and flight, they could easily be killed or potentially lose game. If they thought it was a sambar but it turned out to be a tiger, they’d be sitting ducks; but if they thought it was a tiger and it turned out to be a sambar, they would have retreated too far away by the time it became visible to catch it, and thus would have gone home hungry. But if they’d felt a small amount of fear — just enough to get their minds racing without getting their bodies to do the same — they could quickly take stock of their surroundings and move into a position where they would be close enough to kill potential prey, but also near enough to trees that they could climb to escape from danger.
As for the second, think of all the times you’ve become angry with someone and walked away, stewing and mulling the whole thing over before deciding how to deal with him next, if at all. You probably kept your anger on a slow boil in the hangar so that it didn’t bubble over until your fist was well out of range of his face, or until you could take your aggression out on a soccer ball or some other harmless way. Or, perhaps you simply eventually decided that it wasn’t worth your time to obsess over it. Sometimes you might even think it over and decide the other person was right, or at least had a point. These types of situations are micros, without which the macro of an advanced civilization would crumble — or simply not arise in the first place.
But the emotional hangar has a second major function as well, one which reaches to the heart of the true — and myriad, as we’ll see — nature of “brainwashed” American whites, to say nothing of Europeans. It allows emotions to be stored at the subconscious level, either to keep them from hampering the maintenance of social cohesion during times of stress and tribulation, or to keep them potent yet not debilitating in order to give power to the cultural and moral norms which provide structure and order in an advanced civilization.
A people that cannot continually feel misery and stress during times of famine and conflict, save for those moments when its full force is upon them, can neither work constantly to survive such perils, nor retain the emotional discomfort that will compel them to resolve never to suffer them again — or at least not as badly — and thus cannot make preparations for the future accordingly. On the other hand, a people that is completely debilitated by misery and despair will not be able to maintain social cohesion and/or act rationally well enough to survive. The ideal compromise from an evolutionary standpoint is therefore to keep the negative emotions constant, but weak and in the subconscious — something the emotional hangar allows for.
Beyond that, it allows for the optimal — and mostly non-violent — enforcement of cultural norms and morals. Consider the case of someone who breaks ranks with the European Christian social order by stealing or killing and gets away with it. And say, moreover, that he is not psychopathic and doesn’t lack internal constraints; he only acted out of desperation under extreme circumstances, and thus is not a constant danger to society. What, then, would be the optimal internal reaction for him from a social/evolutionary standpoint?
Were he to be overwhelmed by negative emotions, he might simply kill himself or become too debilitated to keep going, and thus would be unable to help the group press on through trying times — the strain of which successfully tempted him to sin. On the other hand, perhaps he can simply use reason to overwhelm and purge such negative emotions. After all, barring a metaphysical code of justice, it is perfectly rational from an individual standpoint for someone to try to minimize the pain felt from major crises such as losing a child (“I’ve got to pull myself together; lapsing into alcoholism and losing my job won’t bring him back”) or carrying out major crimes (“I’ve just killed a man! If I let anyone know, they’ll kill me, too, and that won’t bring him back. Better to just keep quiet, go back to my normal life, resolve to never do it again, and let guilt and misery — which won’t bring him back, either — die as well!”). These are events that have already happened and can’t be changed. From a social standpoint, not doing so all but guarantees that society will barely advance beyond the level of so many African tribes, whose members, as Braun points out (referencing William Stewart, the American linguist and sociologist who did extensive work among African peoples), do not internalize constraints and are entirely dependent on those imposed by tribal elders and other authorities.[viii]
It is therefore best to prevent the negative emotions from overwhelming us, and to consign shame, guilt, and misery to the subconscious while one works and lives as normal. In this case, it will either overwhelm one and cause one to confess and begs one’s peers for forgiveness or a just punishment, or perhaps simply induces one to never again give in to such a temptation. This could possibly aid the future social order, if one warns one’s children or others one is close to about the unbearable misery that comes from making such a decision.
The degree to which pure sub-Saharans take almost casual pleasure in the most vicious varieties of murder and mayhem, as well as their apparent lack of shame or guilt, again strongly suggests just how primitive or absent the emotional hangar is in them. Recall, as Braun reminds us, that the various tribes involved in Rwanda’s genocidal conflicts actually filmed themselves dancing in the blood of their slain enemies:
The author of an article in the Chicago Tribune, describing the equally gruesome way the Hutu killed Tutsi in the Burundi massacres, marveled at “the ecstasy of killing, the lust for blood; this is the most horrible thought. It’s beyond my reach.” (“Hutu Killers Danced In Blood Of Victims, Videotapes Show,” Chicago Tribune, September 14, 1995, p.8.) The lack of any moral sense is further evidenced by their having videotaped their crimes, “apparently want[ing] to record . . . [them] for posterity.”[ix]
Another aspect of African behavior that liberals do their best to ignore, but that nevertheless requires an explanation, is gratuitous cruelty. Here, Braun quotes a reviewer of Driving South, a 1993 book by David Robbins:
A Cape social worker sees elements that revel in violence . . . It’s like a cult which has embraced a lot of people who otherwise appear normal. . . . At the slightest provocation their blood-lust is aroused. And then they want to see death, and they jeer and mock at the suffering involved, especially the suffering of a slow and agonizing death. (Citizen [Johannesburg], July 12, 1993, p. 6.)[x]
The murder of the pathologically altruistic American activist Amy Biehl and the trial of her killers serves as another stark example:
In 1993, Amy Biehl, a 26-year-old American on a Fulbright scholarship, was living in South Africa, where she spent most of her time in black townships helping blacks. One day when she was driving three African friends home, young blacks stopped the car, dragged her out, and killed her because she was white. A retired senior South African judge, Rex van Schalkwyk, in his 1998 book One Miracle is Not Enough, quotes from a newspaper report on the trial of her killers: “Supporters of the three men accused of murdering [her] . . . burst out laughing in the public gallery of the Supreme Court today when a witness told how the battered woman groaned in pain.”[xi]
All of this taken together goes a long way toward explaining why the kind of society which Europeans and East Asians, the vast majority of whom possess an advanced emotional hangar, habitually build has never appeared in sub-Saharan African lands under black control.
Of course, in this life everything is a tradeoff, and no strength or ability comes entirely without downsides which can, under the right circumstances, transform it into a weakness or liability. So it is with the emotional hangar and its ability to sublimate emotions. In a healthy society with a true Christian culture (as opposed to the banal, heretical bilge that tries to pass itself off as such in our time), or at least a culture not under the control of a foreign power or an alien and deadly ideology, the hangar allows for a strong yet flexible social order at every level, one which can be honest with itself. But in an unhealthy society which cannot or will not be honest with itself — one in which taboos function not to enforce civil behavior and the basic social order, but rather to suppress discussion of inconvenient realities — the hangar’s sublimative ability allows for the preservation of an unsustainable order built on a reality-averse ideology, one which ought to be tossed into the ashbin of history.
* * *
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
[i] Gedaliah Braun, “South Africa under Black Rule,” American Renaissance, August 31, 2019.
[ii] Tom Andrews, “Policing While White,” American Renaissance, December 7, 2021.
[iii] Christopher Jackson, “A White Teacher Speaks Out,” American Renaissance, December 7, 2021.
[iv] Melissa Hogenboom, “Two Genes Linked with Violent Crime,” BBC News, October 28, 2014.
[v] Ana Aleksic, “Is Maoa the ‘Warrior Gene’? High/Low Levels & Testing,” SelfHacked, November 10, 2020.
[vi] Kevin M. Beaver, John Paul Wright, Brian B. Boutwell, J.C. Barnes, Matt DeLisi, & Michael G. Vaughn, “Exploring the Association between the 2-Repeat Allele of the MAOA Gene Promoter Polymorphism and Psychopathic Personality Traits, Arrests, Incarceration, and Lifetime Antisocial Behavior,” Personality and Individual Differences, Pergamon, September 28, 2012.
[vii] Aleksic, “Is Maoa the ‘Warrior Gene’?”
[viii] Gedaliah Braun, “Racial Differences in Morality and Abstract Thinking,” American Renaissance, January 14, 2020.
[ix] Braun, “Racial Differences in Morality and Abstract Thinking.”
[x] Braun, “Racial Differences in Morality and Abstract Thinking.”
[xi] Braun, “Racial Differences in Morality and Abstract Thinking.”
48 comments
Another article shilling for Christianity as being “healthy” instead of a weird cult fixated on self-loathing.
Seriously?
Yes. See my former comments and quotes of previous articles, and these quotes from the article above:
“. . . cultural norms and morals. Consider the case of someone who breaks ranks with the European Christian social order . . .”
“In a healthy society with a true Christian culture . . .”
Corax’s articles have been all the same, just shilling for Christianity as the answer to any and all problems and trying to make out like it’s a super secret ethnonationalist scroll of wisdom instead of a brown resurrection cult. I don’t really have the patience for the jokers and clowns who are still doing the Jesus bit when Hispanic border-jumpers are by and large Catholic. Given that your snarky reply was unhelpfully nonspecific, “Seriously?” to you too.
The article mentions Christianity once, in passing, by my count, and the overwhelming focus is on presumably genetic differences between Congoids and Northern Eurasians.
Christianity was molded in the Middle Ages to be acceptable to our pagan ancestors, with the many venerated saints and Mary and Joseph taking over as the pantheon from Wotan et al. For centuries Europe prospered and expanded with a Jew-skeptical Christianity as its creed. It is only in the age of electronic media that it has been possible to brainwash European peoples to accept their own replacement. An explicitly racial supremacist religion such as that of Jewry might have prevented that but would it have suited our race soul; and given the intrinsic nature of Europeans, especially our womenfolk, would it have been able to withstand the full spectrum propaganda assault of the last eighty years?
Modern Christianity is heretical and jewed but most of the best folk of European ancestry still adhere to it. This is a problem. I don’t believe bagging Christianity is the solution.
What would European peoples without the history of Christianity actually look like? (I don’t mean physically.) This is inconceivable. Christianity, for better or worse, united the tribal hordes of warring barbarians (Celts, Germans, Slava, etc.) and made peoples of them, and sometimes in a way that wasn’t entirely consistent with the letter or the spirit of the Gospel but that was nonetheless Christian. Post-Christianity has been a disaster. Pre-Christian paganism isn’t an option. What is?
The article mentions Christianity once, in passing, by my count…
Learn to count better:
“the European Christian social order”
“a true Christian culture”
You mention:
a Jew-skeptical Christianity
What a silly idea, considering that Christianity deifies a Jew who never set foot in Europe, all of the apostles were likewise Jews, and the entire religion is merely a heretical offshoot of the religion in the Old Testament. People on this thread keep reverting to the fiction that it’s “modern” Christianity which is “Jewed-out.” It was Jewish from the get-go.
Mx. Dew has a point.
Why would anyone want to go back to a homogenous, stable, white Christian country when we can move toward a more inclusive, secular society where we worship he-shes and blacks?
Modern Christianity has been thoroughly corrupted by Jewish subversion. Even a blind man can see that it is anti-White.
Even ancient Christianity was anti-homogeneity:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. —Galatians 3:28
True, so the question is: should we jettison the faith, or weed out its racially destructive heresies and/or inessentials? I think a reactionary white nationalism has a chance (the “old days” really were better); a revolutionary one (Building the New Racial Order) is a pipe-dream. I confess I’m also biased, though I try to be objective: I’m an old-fashioned conservative, not a neo-fascist. Such old school conservatives would have recognized mass immigration as both foreign invasion, and revolutionary activity on the part of elites.
As I have said many, many, many times, I would rather a secular multiracial society to a racially homogeneous Christian society.
No matter how many times I say it, it seems like the eternally arrogant Christian sympathisers just don’t get it. So once more, with feeling: living in a Christian society is for Christians a nice to have, a bourgeois luxury. For non-Christians, especially the pink brigade of LGBTQ or introverted atheists, agnostics and cosmotheists or some other individualistic variant, living in a non-Christian society is an existential necessity. To the degree that White Nationalists pointlessly sympathise with Christians and their eternal victim complex, they can expect hard-line resistance from the intellectual and culture creating segment of whites.
Just a very minor correction on Jim Goad’s comment. Jim writes “all of the apostles were likewise Jews…” I seem to remember from my Catholic grade school that Luke was a Greek. So 11 of 12 were Jews.
Well, at least you’re transparent about where your priorities lie.
“For non-Christians, living in a non-Christian society is an existential necessity.”
You sound like a neurotic shitlib.
“As I have said many, many, many times, I would rather a secular multiracial society to a racially homogeneous Christian society.”
So, you’d rather live in present-day America than 50s America or modern Poland?
Why even be a white nationalist then? What do you think the odds are of a white ethnostate promoting pride parades while also defending our borders?
Don’t like theocracy? Fine. Don’t think Christianity should be central to our movement? I agree. Expecting white ethnostates to be liberal and irreligious? Don’t count on it.
Good one! I can’t help but wonder if all this stuff is concern-trolling.
A WN platform which is anti-Christian is dead before it begins; anti-Christian sentiment is a full force rejection of the last millennium of European history and ancestry – it is fully farcical and a non starter.
Is it “anti-Christian” to uphold secular law and the separation of church and state? Because that is definitely the American way.
Reminds me of the time Theodore Dalrymple wrote about Liberians all watching a video of a former president being tortured and killed. They especially loved the torture part.
All of Africa can be summed up in the words ending Joseph Conrad’s “The Heart of
Darkness” — “The horror, the horror”.
In 1993, Amy Biehl, a 26-year-old American on a Fulbright scholarship, was living in South Africa, where she spent most of her time in black townships helping blacks.
There are some stories about the Whites who fought the Apartheid from some earlier times. Some of those Whites have cooperated with the Soviet intelligence services, the GRU and the KGB, which gave espionage and sabotage training to them. Most famous of them is of course Ronnie Kasrils, of Jewish origin. But now another such activist publicize her memories. This is a woman named Sue Dobson. Her book Burned: The Spy South Africa Never Caught should be published in May, 2023, and for this year also a film is planned, based on her story. Clever Sue, who should of course be seen as a traitor, not as a political oppositional activist, because of her collaboration with the Soviet GRU, now lives in the UK, not in her liberated and free South Africa. It is interesting to note that all articles in the Western media about her story are written very positively and with bif sympathy to her.
Never heard of this traitor before. Odious:
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2021/09/03/i-owe-everything-to-the-man-at-the-soviet-mission
Hindsight is always 20/20, but the South Africans really handled their situation very poorly. I recall back in the “anti-apartheid 80s” (when there was a lot of anti-SA activism in the US and across the West) saying “South Africa today, USA tomorrow” – that SA was the frontline of a global antiwhite movement, and that once it had fallen (as I always believed it would), the US would be next (I would not have believed that Europe would come to outpace America in racial decline … though I still recall seeing those Muslim graves in Helsinki 40+ years ago, and wondering …).
The South Africans were always too weak and liberal – and too desirous of the Western standard of living. If they really wished to continue living as a white nation in that very forbidding environment, they should have gone full Ethnostate – and I’m not only referring to forced population transfers, as well as some “territorial pullbacks” and concurrent government indemnification of dispossessed white landowners (or they should have said to frontline landowners, “You may remain here, but at your own risk”). They should have militarized their entire society, and developed a mandatory ideology of white preservationism, which would have included military training for all [white] males; very high military spending; and very heavy pro-natalist ideology and incentives (the “war of the wombs” should have been a major state priority). They should have actively encouraged white immigration.
I believe a more militaristic SA could have remained white, but perhaps that’s a fantasy. Without a well-ingrained and perpetuated racialist morality and state ideology – the development of an ideologized volksgemeinschaft – too many of the professional and high IQ whites would have left for greener pastures eventually anyway.
Here’s a suggestion: If, for whatever reason, you want to appeal to “normies,” maybe stop using cult-like jargon such as “normies.”
“Normie” is to “dissident” as “cisgender” is to “trans.” Like Norm Macdonald said of “cisgender,” “It’s a way to marginalize normal people.”
This is a great point. We need to come up with terms that are apt in describing the differentiation, but not offensive. That is difficult, but necessary. Do you have any suggestions Jim Goad?
Apt is easy. Apt but not offensive is not.
Maybe we should flip the terms. A problem with normie, is that it is not apt at all. We are the normal ones. What we believe is actual perfectly healthy and normal. It is just that the degeneracy of our society is so advanced that what is abnormal is considered normal.
That is the best I can come up with for now. We stop painting ourselves as outlying rogues and dissidents. We are the norm and thus the normies. Self preservation of a people and a great civilization and the nations that constitute it is perfectly healthy and normal.
The Cerebral Hangar Captives? The Captivated? … In any case, this is a great point and something we need to work on.
But Jim, you don’t understand. Corax is intelligent, more intelligent than normies, and he wants everyone to know it.
Would “muggle” be out of the question?
I can’t find the bit where he talks of normies. It’s not terminology I personally use but ‘normie’ or ‘ NPC’ is shorthand for a set of traits which are most unlikely to be found in anyone amenable to Counter-Currents and its ilk. How else could we describe them: ‘unskeptical regime supporters’, ‘brainwashed masses’, ‘the damned’, ‘goyim’?
The cussedness required to go against the prevailing gale of what nowadays passes for culture is unfortunately possessed only by outliers. It is not the norm and probably never has been.
It’s in the title.
I can’t find the bit where he talks of normies.
Uh, it’s in the TITLE.
Yes, it’s in the headline but not in the article as far as I could see.
My problem with the phrase “brainwashed normies” is that I don’t see the connection between the genetic characteristic that enables the emotional control necessary for giving consideration to an event before acting (the science part of the essay) and–brainwashing. The genetic characteristic that apparently Asians and Caucasians share but sub-Saharans don’t have would be shared generally amongst the humans in those broad groups. So where does the “brainwashing” come in?
Here’s a suggestion: If, for whatever reason, you want to appeal to “normies,” maybe stop using cult-like jargon such as “normies.”
Pay attention to that faultless suggestion. ‘normies’ sounds like the name of a pet dachshund.
Here’s a suggestion: If, for whatever reason, you want to appeal to “normies,” maybe stop using cult-like jargon such as “normies.”
“Normie” is to “dissident” as “cisgender” is to “trans.” … (Jim Goad)
Statement #1 is sound marketing advice (though “normie” is shorthand for people like us to designate something like “unawakened whites who are not actually antiwhite”). What other shorthand could we use: “normals”, “regular folks”, “modal whites”, etc??
I fail to grasp the analogy in Statement #2 (despite my once having gotten I think a 94 or 96 [over 90 anyway] on a Miller Analogies test that a grad program I was then interested in required; granted this was pushing 40 years ago, and I may be aging poorly; OTOH, I distinctly recall at the time thinking that at least a couple of those questions were truly unfair, not in the progressive-whiny sense, but insofar as they required what I thought was ‘specialized knowledge’ or at least vocabulary in both art and music theory that I just didn’t and probably still don’t have).
“Cisgender” – a word I don’t think I’d heard of before 2021 or 22 – is the opposite of “transgender”. But is “normie” the opposite of “dissident” (really, “Dissident Right”, as we mean the term)? I would say the opposite of “dissident” is “woke” or even “antifa”.
Dear Lord Shang, I’ve taken to reading, pretty much exclusively (other than Counter-Currents, TOO, and the like) delectable 19th century novels by the likes of Mary Elizabeth Braddon and Anthony Trollope. Reading your comment just now recalled to me that certain flowing, eloquent style of stating even the ordinary. I think you would have fit right in during that time period — and I mean that as a most sincere compliment!
As to the article above, I thought it was excellent; unique and very informative. The author gave me a new way of looking at the obvious, but also subtle, differences in mentality that make multiracial societies so dysfunctional and its inhabitants so absolutely miserable.
Thank you for these encouraging words. I’m unfamiliar with Braddon, and, sadly, haven’t read anything by Trollope (I purchased the Oxford World’s Classics edition of The Way We Live Now not long before the pandemic, but it’s still sitting on a shelf, unread; I also inherited a hardback set from the 70s of the Palliser novels; again, unread). I agree that 19th century writers were simply better – probably because they could make greater cognitive demands on their readerships without fear of losing them (as would be the case today). For some unaccountable reason, I’ve been furiously rereading my complete collection of {Agatha} “Christies” over the past year; 23 ‘murdered’ so far (I got hooked again after a more than four decade hiatus when I decided to reread Death on the Nile prior to seeing what turned out to be the excruciatingly irritatingly ‘woke’ Kenneth Branagh filmic remake early last year). What’s disturbing is that I routinely come across words I’m certain neither Trump nor Biden would understand. These mysteries were once considered the merest “popular fiction”, but I doubt they would be accessible to more than half our current population. Indeed, in the 19th century, Dickens was beloved and widely read.
Your comment reminds me of something someone (maybe Jared Taylor) said about Sam Francis after his death – that he developed his inimitable literary style (politicians don’t walk but ‘waddle’; they ‘belly’ up to the public trough; etc) from extensive and immersive reading in both 19th century historiography and imaginative fiction, especially the great British authors like Dickens and Thackeray (presumably also Trollope; but perhaps not George Elliot).
I’d like to try my hand at some essays for CC., but I fear they’ll have to wait for my still too-distant retirement. Occasional comments are about all I can manage for now.
Agatha Christie is wonderful. I’m sure you’ve heard that some of her works are in the process of being either surgically revised, or provided with “contextualizing” trigger warnings, to remove certain now heretical perceptions of Jews and non-Whites. The same, of course, would be happening to all the 19th century literature I’ve read, if it was still in popular readership, because race-realism was definitely the default position of that age. As you point out though, the modern reader would find the much of the material rather rough rowing, if not completely impenetrable.
I will look forward to seeing your byline on some future Counter-Currents essay!
The target audience of this article is not “normies,” though. I would agree that the word should not be used when trying to appeal to normies, but it’s a convenient shorthand that is useful in conversations with other white nationalists.
@Alex Graham – Well stated; I absolutely agree.
I was confused by the reference to a sambar, which is a South Indian lentil and vegetable stew. But now I know it’s also a kind of deer.
Thank you! I took a mental note to ducduckgo that, but then I forgot.
Slow clap for this article.
Part 2 ties it together. Jim Goad’s point about terms that do not offend is one to tackle. Part 2 and connecting the Catechisms of the Cult of Woke with the SCE is well done, as is the attempt to understand the psychology of those arround us.
The anti-Christian disposition of many WNs is very peculiar. You only have to ask yourself one question: Who else happens to be anti-Christian? There you go. You’re in league with literally every single enemy of white people. Not one of you can point to a pagan ancestor. All of us have deep Christian origins. This would be like claiming to be from France even though your family is from England or Ireland with a Norman surname. Yeah, a millennium ago.
There won’t be a Christian revival, so you can save your blasphemy of our ancestors. Probably everybody here had a deeply religious grandmother that you’re spitting on right now. If not for Christianity, European nations as we know them would not have formed into ethno-states. The Jewishness was thoroughly whitewashed over the millennia if you hadn’t noticed, especially with Swiss-German deity on the cross. Paganism was already incorporated into every sect. That’s how it conquered everything region. If not for the fertility cult of Christianity we may very well have gone extinct during the Black Plague or have been completely conquered by the Arabs, Mongols or Turks.
Until your LARPing neo-paganism starts to actually produce something, shut it.
Good points. I respect those from Nietzsche and Spengler down to Greg Johnson and Collin Cleary in our time who might offer serious objections to Christianity, whether atheist or white nationalist (or both). But conjoining anti-Christianity with white nationalism is both philosophically unnecessary and politically stupid, especially in the US (though to varying extents everywhere). Easily 99% of anti-Christians in the West are either white progressives or nonwhites. More importantly, as I have argued here many times, most whites amenable to the broad white preservationist message are already “on the Right”, at least as ‘normie’ conservatives – but most conservatives (at least in America) are Christians. What kind of morons insist on forcing such possible racial converts to make a philosophically and theologically totally unnecessary choice between their race and their faith – especially when the kind of non-violent white preservationism espoused here at CC is, pace Goad, completely compatible with the Christianity most of us grew up with? To suggest that it isn’t requires accepting a very Far Left understanding of Christianity and its derivative social ethics.
I agree. It’s an old question, but I wonder what the grounds are for moral beliefs if not religion. If I were living in a white ethnostate which had still drag queens (albeit white ones) performing for children in front of neon signs reading “It’s not going to lick itself,” I’m still in a moral hellhole.
“still had”
That’s a philosophically very deep and difficult question. I believe that ethics is independent of God (murder is wrong is, imo, a statement of fact; moreover, it is wrong in itself, not because a God condemns it), but that only belief in God can give effect to ethical strictures. Why be moral (in the true, Kantian sense) if there is no punishment for not being moral (or reward for being so)? Without God, we are nothing but creatures alive for a brief duration, and subject to no external controls, save what we ourselves collectively impose. Ethically mimetic behavior might then arise out of group rewards for individual conformity to rationally-derived and group-approved behaviors (those which enhance overall group well-being, of which each individual partakes), but I don’t view such behavior as truly ‘ethical’ (the essence of which involves altruistic sacrifice).
I’m agnostic yet also ethical. I am so out of a) caution that there might exist a punitive and/or remunerative God; b) fear of the consequences of falling afoul of some law (much of which is based on ancient ethical beliefs); c) the facts that violence and cruelty bring me no pleasure; and d) the fact that few forms of unethicality hold any selfish appeal for me. The only situation wherein I could be tempted by an act classically defined as ‘evil’ would involve bloodless financial crime on a large scale: a reasonably safe opportunity to embezzle, say, ten million dollars. If I had that opportunity and rejected acting on it, it would be because of a) and/or b) above.
You only have to ask yourself one question: Who else happens to be anti-Christian? There you go.
You only have to ask yourself one question: Who else uses computers? Shitlibs! There you go.
What a flat-out dumb analogy.
Christianity worldwide is majority nonwhite. The entire religion was founded by nonwhites. Galatians 3:28 is anti-racist.
You only have to ask yourself one question: Who else is Christian? Nonwhites. Far more than whites. There you go.
Can we get a pro-Christian in here who can actually put together an argument? Can we find someone with a brain bigger than a two-cylinder lawnmower engine that enables them to realize there are more options than reverting to ancient myths, whether Christian or Pagan? Can we get someone who’s capable of realizing it’s stupid to look backwards when we’re hurtling toward a brick wall? Please?
This is a reply to Jud Jackson- You are confusing “Apostles” and “Evangelists”. Luke(if that was really his name) was an Evangelist or gospel writer. Goad is right, all 12 Apostles were Jews. Also the 4 gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were originally anonymous, and received those fixed names long after they were written.
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