On White Normie “Brainwashing”:
A Reply to Kevin MacDonald, Paul Craig Roberts, & Other Dissidents,
Part 2

2,469 words

Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)

In all cases not involving a fully-fledged occupying army, as with Russia after its Civil War ended and with the United States currently, the hostile elites, be they native or alien, who wish to subjugate a population do so by achieving what I call the Stalin clap effect (SCE). This is named after the Soviet dictator’s unwritten policy, as reported by Solzhenitsyn, of sending the first person to stop clapping after one of his speeches to the Gulag:[1] It is where the ruling group sets the penalties for deviation from its official stances high enough — in the USSR by the Gulag and bullet, in the US by deplatforming and job loss — that those who hold contrary views can never be sure of their true numbers and support (“Is the man next to me truly fooled, or is he faking his enthusiasm like I am?”) and so fail to oppose them.

In the US, where the regime’s level of oppression of dissidents is still only on its way to achieving Soviet levels, the SCE is achieved primarily through Talmudic control of the media, which when used on whites cleverly creates a kind of cultural self-fulfilling prophecy. (Note that by Talmudic I do not mean merely those who adhere to Judaism, but rather all those who exhibit the dual morality which holds that there should be one set of rules for dealing with fellow Jews, one set for dealing with the goyim.)

As Prof. MacDonald explains in the first chapters of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future,[2] the cold, harsh climate in which northern Europeans evolved both prohibited the formation of extended kinship networks and necessitated the need for intense cooperation among families — often those who were only distantly related, if at all — to ensure survival. This in turn meant that the larger social units into which families came together were not extended clans based on kinship, but moral communities based on trust, reputation, and moral codes that had a more universal character than those of non-European peoples. Hence, to be seen as a moral reprobate and ostracized by the community meant almost certain doom for an individual. Today, although a cold shoulder is no longer synonymous with a cold death, that primordial fear of being shunned still haunts the psyches of those of northern European descent, leading them to fear falling outside the bounds of the moral consensus.

Thus, by controlling the media and making sure to cloak their ideologies in the language of universal morality, the Talmudists and other hostile elites can create the illusion of a cultural and moral consensus which in turn, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, becomes actual consensus. This occurs because most people end up believing that most others have accepted it themselves — or rather, have pretended to accept it. This is especially true of transgenderism and the wackier aspects of the Leftist cult — and I would bet everything short of my life that it is all only for show for all but the craziest. The elites thus maintain their illusory consensus by making use of their economic and legal clout to achieve the Stalin clap effect.

But then the elites face what you might call the paradox of power: The only way they can be sure that their power is absolute is by demanding fealty to a cultural and moral order that is so twisted, perverse, and contrary to reason and nature as to almost dare them to reject and revolt against it. And as with all parasites, as their power and arrogance waxes (and their sanity wanes), thus do they accelerate the destruction of the wealth of the nations that serve as their hosts.

In order to see how all of this means that the situation is less bleak than it seems, we need to introduce the idea of human identities. These are, by my definition, any aspect of a person — be it genetic/physical, spiritual, ideological, etc. — which is a part of him, and which he believes — correctly or incorrectly — to be a part of him. Some of these can be and often are mutually contradictory or in conflict with each other, even though the person might not be aware of this. Together, the sum total of his identities determines his actions, free will allowing him to determine to some degree those identities he adopts or drops, and the relative importance he assigns to each.

In pure sub-Saharans who, as Braun points out, rarely seem to suffer from neuroticism and similar problems,[3] as well as other groups with absent or less developed emotional hangars, identities are fairly straightforward and on the surface, and moreover exert their influences in an equally straightforward manner. As the high school teacher bluntly puts it:

There was a lot of promiscuous sex among my students and this led to violence. Black girls were constantly fighting over black boys. It was not uncommon to see two girls literally ripping each other’s hair out with a police officer in the middle trying to break up the fight. The black boy they were fighting over would be standing by with a smile, enjoying the show he had created. For reasons I cannot explain, boys seldom fought over girls.[4]

You can buy Greg Johnson’s In Defense of Prejudice here

Hence, there is rarely the subtlety, concern with maintaining appearances (and other social niceties), deceit, and subterfuge that so often mark conflicts among whites or East Asians: girls fighting over boys is rare among whites, but rather common among blacks, as the teacher points out, and seems to be a remnant of their original, polygamist culture. Black girls bypass the white girl’s conflict escalators of gossip, rumor, scheming, and social ostracism, and simply act with fists, teeth, and nails. Likewise, black males who feel disrespected don’t wait until they can take it outside and away from property and innocent bystanders, but simply start pummeling, stabbing, or shooting each other in the school. And so it continues, down the line of behaviors that require a cop on every floor of every inner-city school just to maintain the semblance of order.

It is different with whites and East Asians. Many of their identities are sublimated or complexly layered. Their important identity types are what I call iceberg identities, cloaking identities, and stalking-horse identities.

Some quick definitions:

Iceberg identities: Parts of us which, once bound together, form an important, unassailable whole that, like an iceberg, only shows one or a few of its parts above the surface to others, or even to ourselves — the latter in cases of sublimation and self-deceit. If you’re arguing with someone who is honest and refuting every argument he makes, but still do not sway him in the least, there’s a very high chance you’re dealing with iceberg identities. In other words, your rhetoric, logic, and knowledge are not addressing those parts of your interlocutor that lie below the surface. If he is a sociopath, you’re likely dealing with a stalking-horse identity.

Cloaking identities: Identities which we use to conceal other identities about which we are embarrassed or ashamed, such as how a child might hide his fear of standing up to a larger bully behind his identity as someone peaceful who believes that violence never solves anything. This goes straight to the heart of our current predicament in terms of the seeming impossibility of waking up normies.

Stalking-horse identities: False or only partially true identities which we present to the world, but which serve to hide the true one(s) driving our actions. Sometimes they are innocent and harmless; you might fake a mutual interest in a subject to a girl you want to date, for example. But often they are not, as is the case with our elites, the majority of whose identities they present to us are mere stalking horses concealing a raw drive for power and dominance. And, of course, sometimes such identities are purely defensive, as when a Soviet citizen pretended to believe in Communism, or when a white dissident Rightist at an American university mouths woke slogans.

Also critical is that there are three major groups who would oppose the current regime, and its current Democrat/Republican dichotomy, if they felt they could:

1. Those who feel that there is something deeply wrong with the current order and its perverse ideology, but for whom respectability is too important to allow them to embrace any non-controlled opposition. These people are usually of the upper-middle and upper classes, and are comfortably far enough — at least for now — from the damage done by the elites that they don’t feel the need to learn about it or exert any effort to stop it. Prof. MacDonald’s former classmates likely fall into this category.[5]
2. Those who see the damage being done by the elites, but who can’t overcome their fear of futility enough to move from controlled to real opposition.
3. Those Whom the American System Hurts (TWASH): Those who feel so harmed by the current regime that they reject both parts of the duopoly. They are dissidents in their hearts, if not their minds as well. They are mostly from the white working classes, but can be from other groups as well. Many working-class whites would rather keep embracing the illusion of a politician such as Trump if doing otherwise makes them feel mired in the futility of a hopeless cause.

To put it all together succinctly: The more powerful the regime grows, and the more fiercely it pushes its unhinged ideology, the more it is forced to rely on the SCE to maintain control, and the higher the percentage of those professing adherence to it are merely exhibiting stalking-horse or cloaking identities. Also, the more powerful it becomes, the more ravenously it consumes the wealth of its hosts, and hence pushes more of those from category 1 into category 2, and those from category 2 into the TWASH bin.

This means that the regime’s increasing power, wealth, and control is actually making it increasingly fragile and setting it up for a rapid reversal. If someone could unite the TWASH, their numbers would allow those who desire a real opposition but fear that it would be futile to join without feeling so. This would then constitute enough of a respectable showing to bring in most of category 1, with the rest being brought in by better optics (i.e., get a pro-white spokesman better than Richard Spencer or Donald Trump).

At that point, the resulting snowballing will allow you to win over those who aren’t very political and who just support the side they feel is closest to their vague, half-formed ideas and inclinations, as well as those who simply hate the direction everything is going in and want the entire regime to just go away. In that way, the regime could be non-violently toppled by the inherent nature of its own rise to immense power — that is, if you can also overcome the issue of voter fraud, which is a separate issue.

But this is not the topic of the present essay. Here, I wish only to show those who believe that the situation is hopeless, believing that too many whites are simply too brainwashed to work for their own survival, that they are at least partially mistaken. I hope I have shown that this is largely illusory. To know how truly brainwashed someone is, you have to be able to know what iceberg, cloaking, and — if the person doesn’t fully trust you — talking-horse identities may be in play so that you can test for and rule them out.

To offer a quick example of what I mean, let me describe what is probably the deepest and most common type of cloaking identity among middle- and upper-class whites. Because, as Prof. MacDonald explained, whites are uniquely universal in their morality, many are terrified of the very idea of there being large intellectual and moral inequalities among the races because it seems to put them between a rock and a hard place, ethically peaking: There are tens of millions of blacks in the US who, unlike illegal immigrants, have no connection with the lands from which their ancestors originated. Thus, if they truly are on average much dumber and more criminally-inclined than whites, to keep them here as they are is untenable, whereas shipping them back to Africa would seem to be as immoral as keeping them here in a state of subjugation. This renders the whole situation an unsolvable moral puzzle for them.

From my experience, you can tell when you’ve hit on a formerly sublimated iceberg or cloaking identity when you lay out, consciously and in full, what you suspect their true concerns are and watch a unique reaction creep over their face: shock and/or fear without anger, which is very different from the defensive outrage or indignant denial you may have encountered when you’ve confronted the same types of people with black crime statistics and so on.

This is the art that all true dissidents who wish to defeat the regime must master: playing Claude Frederic Bastiat, the famous economist and author of “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen,”[6] as a psychologist and seeing both what is on the surface and what lies below — or is perhaps cloaked by something else — and addressing both fully, to the best of your abilities.

Many or most of the whites who at first appear to be merely brainwashed are not so much dupes or fools as weak people who love their families, friends, and lives, and do not wish to sully what happiness they still have by acknowledging that the world they know is coming to an end. They have seen the current regime press on from one perverse victory to the next, with no real or effective opposition in sight. If they refuse to listen to those who not only offer them no real plan for victory or even sympathy for their concerns while asking them to risk the loss of their incomes and reputations, but also deride them for their delusions, who can blame them? While we might not yet be able to offer them a specific plan for victory, we can at least meet them on their own terms and address their true concerns, helping them to exorcise those fears that haunt their white, European psyches.

* * *

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] Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenit︠s︡yn, tr. by Thomas P. Whitney, The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, vol. 1, (New York: HarperPerennial, 1991), 1:69.

[2] Kevin B. MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future (Seattle: Kindle Direct Publishing, 2019).

[3] Braun, “Racial Differences in Morality and Abstract Thinking.”

[4] Jackson, “A White Teacher Speaks Out.”

[5] Kevin B. MacDonald, “Seeing Some Old Friends and Acquaintances,” The Occidental Observer, September 21, 2022.

[6] Claude Frederic Bastiat, “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen,” Mises Institute, August 18, 2014.