Counter-Currents
3,765 words
I was down in the dumps last weekend when I headed once more to the annual American Renaissance conference. This year was a significant milestone for the organization, founded by Jared Taylor in 1990: It was the twentieth such conference. I was hoping that spending some time with fellow haters would perk me up — and indeed it did. Let me tell you why.
This year Mr. Taylor assembled a very strong roster of speakers. The first was Ricardo Duchesne, formerly a professor of sociology at the University of New Brunswick, and author of The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. His talk was entitled “Liberalism is Responsible for Western Greatness and its Current Decline.” Duchesne argued that the most important political question that faces us is why the West has embraced “diversity.” The answer, for Duchesne, has to do with the modern political tradition of liberal pluralism. Its conception of society is one in which everyone is free to act on their own conception of the good life. In other words, liberalism champions the right of individuals to self-determination.
Liberalism assumes that all human beings are alike in desiring this self-determination. A liberal society is one in which no one is coerced into holding any particular set of values, or forced to conform to any particular set of norms. The only exception to this is liberal pluralism itself: It is permissible for individuals to be coerced into accepting (or, at least, refraining from criticizing) liberalism’s core tenets — because any member of a pluralist society who rejects pluralism is a potential threat to the liberal order. It is because of this that liberals feel they are justified in using censorship, ostracism, “cancellation,” and even prosecution in order to suppress Right-wing critics of pluralism.
Liberalism puts forward no conception of a common good; only the pluralist ideal of “many goods.” Indeed, it seeks to emancipate individuals from all collective constraints. Duchesne argued that liberalism has been on the march since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and he presented a detailed historical account of the evolution of liberal ideology down to the present. What we are witnessing today is liberalism in extremis: Its worship of autonomy has now reached the point that it seeks to emancipate individuals from nature itself. Hence, all natural differences between individuals, and all natural constraints on human behavior must be denied. Sex differences (now monickered “gender differences”), racial differences, and natural hierarchies are denied, and anyone who affirms them is anathematized. A society founded on such a denial of nature is unsustainable — a point which was echoed by a number of other speakers.
Despite the fact that the radicalization of liberalism has been effected by the Left, Duchesne argued, very perceptively, that liberal pluralism and capitalism are a perfect fit. Capitalism, just like liberalism, abstracts individuals from all collective identities, e.g., nationality. It even abstracts individuals from their “gender identity,” all the while presupposing a metaphysics that seems to endorse the belief in a kind of “generic subject” underlying all natural characteristics, and all attachment to any particular place and time. The outcome of both liberalism and capitalism is the assembly-line production of uniform, interchangeable, culture-free, gender-free, generic “persons” whose “self-actualization” shall consist, apparently, in nothing more than consumerism.
Duchesne also criticized those on the Right who blame our current woes on “cultural Marxism,” and who are preoccupied with critiquing the Frankfurt School, feminism, gender theory, or critical race theory. All of these, he argued, consist merely in liberalism taken to its logical conclusion. He poured particular scorn — quite justifiably — on conservatives who take “cultural Marxism” to task while essentially arguing for a “return” to liberal pluralism: “alt lite,” “civnat” types such as Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker Carlson. If what we desire for our people is a healthy society in which they may pursue natural ends, devoted to a conception of the common good, then liberalism must be rejected root and branch. We must affirm the good of what liberalism sees as the cardinal sin: “imposing our values on others.”
Next up was young Irish nationalist Keith Woods, whose presentation was titled “An Island for Everyone? Ireland at a Crossroads.” Woods sought to address the question of how Ireland, in a relatively short period of time, has become super-“woke.” He traced the origins of Ireland’s wokeness to the emphasis, beginning in the 1960s, on building an independent Irish economy. In order to generate economic growth, Ireland pursued the strategy of attracting foreign capital. In purely economic terms, this plan was a great success and by the 1990s Ireland had entered into what became known as its “Celtic Tiger” phase.
Inevitably, however, as Ireland sought to secure its position in the global economy, its leaders began to embrace the ideal of a cosmopolitan identity and became determined to “deconstruct Irishness.” One also supposes that those aforementioned “foreign investors” put considerable pressure on Ireland’s leaders to move in that direction. In terms that resonated with Woods’ American audience, he spoke of a Dublin elite that sees itself as very distinct from the rest of the country, and is embarrassed by Irish identity. Woods also quoted a damning series of statistics showing an astonishing increase in Irish suicides, alcoholism, and other markers of psychological alienation — all since Ireland decided to emulate Germany, France, Sweden, the United States, and many other Western nations in repudiating its heritage and cultural uniqueness. In doing so, the Irish elite ignores the will of fully 75% of the country, who, in recent polls, declare that they want no more immigration. They do this, of course, while at the same time mouthing platitudes about “democracy.”
You can buy Jef Costello’s The Importance of James Bond here
And now for something completely different.
Our next speaker was Mr. Stephen McNallen, an outspoken advocate for Asatru, the worship of the tribal gods of the Germanic peoples. McNallen is the founder, in fact, of the Asatru Folk Assembly, which has attracted notoriety for its position that Asatru is the ethnic religion of Northern European peoples — and thus for whites only. Drawing on the work of Carl Jung, McNallen’s speech, titled “The Spear of Fury and Wisdom,” argued that we are in for a new awakening of the “Wotan archetype.” Jung saw the resurgence of that archetype in the National Socialist movement, in response to the decadence of the Weimar Republic. However, McNallen argued that the Nazis only drew upon one aspect of Wotan and his spear: fury; the power of brute force. Now we living through a new Weimar era (arguably much worse than the first), and a return of the Wotan archetype is being prepared by the mysterious forces underlying history. This time, however, we will draw on Wotan’s wisdom, rather than exclusively upon the power of brute force.
“Why not both?” I said to myself, though I doubt that McNallen would disagree. Just a few minutes into his talk I heard the sound of distant thunder. We were sitting in a large, air-conditioned banquet hall, however, and at first I could not be sure. “It’s not going to thunder, is it?” I thought to myself. “That would just be too perfect.” But thunder it did. Indeed, what became a violent thunderstorm lasted throughout McNallen’s talk — and ended right about when he ended. The significance of this was lost neither on McNallen nor on his audience. The heathens in the room took the storm as a sign of the god’s approval — his endorsement of McNallen and his speech. Not to be outdone, the Christians insisted that the thunder meant that Jesus was not happy with any of it. The atheists, for their part, insisted it was merely atmospheric electrical discharge. In the spirit of conviviality that has marked all 20 American Renaissance conferences, these groups agreed to disagree.
Due to a delightful lunch at the local Cracker Barrel which went on a little too long, I was quite late in arriving for the speech by Estonian patriot Ruuben Kaalep (who addressed last year’s conference via a pre-prepared video). His talk was titled “Towards a Twenty-First Century Ethnonationalism.” I do not know what Mr. Kaalep said about ethnonationalism, but I gather from talking to other attendees that he is for it. I also gather that those attendees found his talk eloquent and genuinely inspiring, and so I am very sad that I missed it. More details can be found in this competing conference report, which I have chosen not to plagiarize.
My lateness was partly due to the fact that, when I arrived back at the hotel, I was distracted for a few minutes by the sounds of protestors. This is the third American Renaissance conference I have attended at Montgomery Bell State Park, but it is the very first time I personally experienced any sensory evidence that protestors were on the scene. I did not see them, however. Instead, I heard a lone male voice that sounded like it was calling from the other side of the lake. I stood on the sidewalk outside of the hotel, listening intently, as if I were straining to hear the sounds of some rare, seldom-encountered bird. The voice sounded hysterical and consumed by impotent rage. I only caught bits and snatches. At one point I made out “. . . National Socialists! . . .” Then, astonishingly, I heard “You’re the ones molesting children!” I have no idea what this refers to, but methinks he doth protest too much.
Mr. Kaalep was followed by James Edwards of The Political Cesspool — always an entertaining speaker. Mr. Edwards called his speech “Reasons for Optimism,” which was no doubt an enticing title for many. I myself tend to be optimistic about our struggle, but I can always use more reasons for optimism, so I listened carefully. Edwards argued that there are definite signs of increased racial consciousness among Trump voters. People are now increasingly aware that liberals are not anti-fascists, but anti-white. One recent poll showed that 75% of Trump voters believe in the Great Replacement. In addition, 87% of Trump voters are worried about anti-white discrimination. Fully 92% of Trump voters think that the mainstream media = the Democratic Party. Large percentages of Trump voters also say they would be better off if their state seceded.
Further, there have been major changes on the political landscape. For example, the Bush-Cheney-Clinton dynasty is gone; not a single one of them now holds public office. Even the mighty Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is at bay. Edwards noted, to the satisfaction of his audience, that 20 state attorneys general had issued a joint statement to Attorney General Garland stating that the SPLC has been discredited as a source. Further, there is a general erosion of trust in institutions. While the Washington establishment and all the media continues to describe the war in Ukraine as a battle for “democracy” and as the most important thing going on in the world right now — perhaps the most important thing ever — Republican voters, at least, are not sold.
Edwards noted that our country is now more polarized than at any time since the War of Northern Aggression. Blue State America can keep arresting the President of Red State America, but it is not going to contain the rebellion. “I think we’re in for something next year that is going to change history,” he said. And Edwards added that it is his belief that reform of the system is now utterly out of the question. “Under the present arrangement our people has no future on this continent,” he stated, near the end of the talk. What will the future bring? Edwards did not engage in any specific prognostications. Indeed, no one knows. But one thing is certain: It’s going to be interesting.
Edwards is a tough act to follow, but Gregory Hood was up to the challenge. Titled “The Moral Necessity of White Nationalism,” Hood’s talk began with his claim that the problems in our society are not meant to be solved. The system is intended to alienate. The more miserable that people are, the better off our rulers are, because the system wants us broken. With respect to the transgender madness, a favorite topic of conversation for those on the Right, Hood noted that it is hard to think of anything more evil than telling people that they’ve been born “the wrong way.” And yet this is precisely what the system tells us. This is what it tells whites. Noting the rising suicide rate, especially among white males, he asked, “Why wouldn’t you kill yourself if you’ve been told that you are worthless?”
The system aims at creating a society of sniveling cowards while simultaneously it seems devoted to the destruction of everything that makes human flourishing possible. What we are fighting, Hood said, is a spirit of entropy and chaos. The spirit of equity is the spirit of nihilism. Rejecting this, he insisted, is a moral imperative. We need to unite as a common people, and form a state explicitly dedicated to our racial survival. Hood ended with the following challenge: “Of course I’m a White Nationalist, why aren’t you?” It was a genuinely inspiring and rhetorically brilliant speech. And its ending was marked by applause so thunderous it rivaled the storm arranged by Steve McNallen. Mr. Hood simply does not disappoint.
Our banquet speaker this year was Dries Van Langenhove. A Belgian activist of Flemish ethnicity, Mr. Van Langenhove served in the Belgian senate, founded the nationalist youth group Schild & Vrienden, and has started a number of boxing clubs for young men. My friends, not since Jonathan Bowden spoke to a private group in Atlanta way back in 2009 have I heard such an inspiring banquet speech. As did others, Van Langenhove called upon us to organize and fight for our people. But he also called for us to develop ourselves: to become disciplined; to resist the siren calls of pornography and consumerism; to start families; to become physically fit. Our age presents enormous challenges — but it also presents enormous opportunities for self-overcoming. This is why he titled his speech “The Greatest Time to be Alive.”
You can buy Jef Costello’s Heidegger in Chicago here
The audience sat spellbound by Mr. Van Langenhove, a genuine firebrand. By the end of this passionate speech, I was ready to follow him over the barricades — and I mean this. I also gather that he was quite a hit with the ladies present at the banquet — so much so, in fact, that men who had brought their wives or girlfriends were not too keen on having them chat with Van Langenhove at the party later that night. Sorry, ladies: Jared Taylor noted in his introduction that Dries recently tied the knot.
The final day of the conference began with an address by Jared Taylor himself, entitled “Reflections on 30 Years of Racial Activism.” Mr. Taylor began by admitting that when he started American Renaissance back in 1990, he was, as he put it, “very naïve.” In many ways, those early years were the heyday of AmRen. Taylor was frequently interviewed in the media — on some occasions by journalists who had actually familiarized themselves with his work and were halfway fair and decent. His book Paved with Good Intentions was widely reviewed. Recorded talks from American Renaissance were even shown on C-SPAN.
All this attention and relative fair-mindedness lulled Mr. Taylor, by his own admission, into the false hope that within a few short years race realism might triumph, and that there would be major changes in public policy. But it was not to be. All signs indicated that liberal idealism about black perfectibility had been completely discredited. Blacks had been given desegregation, Affirmative Action, and trillions of dollars in public assistance, and yet somehow they still did not transform into dark-skinned simulacra of white people. This presented liberals with a tough choice: either there must be something wrong with black people, or white racism is even more prevalent and insidious than they’d thought. Unwilling to question the dogma of human equality, liberals affirmed the second disjunct.
They then proceeded to find racism literally everywhere. Even where one could not point to actual racists, invisible racism still pervaded everything. Indeed, it was “systemic.” Any discussion of racial differences became verboten. The mildest affirmation of such differences could get you fired or declared an unperson. The Left even announced that race did not exist; that science had disproven it (a complete and total lie, in fact). Police reports ceased to mention the race of criminals — even when those criminals were on the lam and a threat to the public. Black crime could be discussed — but only in the sense that it was permissible to note that blacks were disproportionately accused, tried, and convicted of certain crimes. Liberals just knew from their armchairs that this was injustice, and that whites were committing many more crimes, but getting off scot-free due to “white privilege.” The solution? Eliminate the rules of civilized life. If, for example, a disproportionate number of blacks are being arrested for shoplifting, stop enforcing the laws against shoplifting.
As Mr. Taylor put it, liberals decided in effect that chaos is better than admitting that they were wrong about race. He quoted Voltaire, saying that if you can persuade people to believe absurdities, you can persuade them to commit atrocities. Since blacks cannot catch up to whites, due to their inherent limitations, the result will be never-ending programs of injustice against whites. As he always does, however, Mr. Taylor offered us reason for hope. There is good news, in fact. The censors are failing. Our numbers grow all the time. And the system we are living under is completely absurd. “What pathetic worms our rulers are!” Mr. Taylor noted at one point, to great acclaim. Even though it appears to be powerful, the system is dying. Terrified despots always try to censor or to suppress the truth. It works for a time — but cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Mr. Taylor stated that he disagreed with Gregory Hood about one important matter: In contrast to Hood, Taylor does not believe that liberals want chaos. Mr. Taylor has often stated his belief that liberals are not, for the most part, spiteful mutants aiming to destroy civilization. Instead, he holds the optimistic view that it is possible to reach many liberals and to rationally persuade them of the truth. Surely this is in part due to the fact that Mr. Taylor himself was once a liberal. This is a point of perennial debate at American Renaissance — whether liberals can be converted — and I fear that Taylor is in the minority.
My own position is closer to Mr. Hood’s, as is the position of the conference’s final speaker, Mr. Sam Dickson. Dickson has closed all 20 American Renaissance conferences with his “Benediction for Heretics.” In his introduction, Taylor quoted the SPLC describing Dickson as “weaned on hate.” Since, using Google, Taylor could find only one other person in the world who had been described this way, he concluded that Sam Dickson was “uniquely evil.” I have long thought this, and it is a label I am sure Dickson will wear with pride.
Before making his remarks, Dickson paid tribute to Jared Taylor and called upon us to rise and sing “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow” — much, I am afraid, to the modest Mr. Taylor’s embarrassment. Still, it was a fine gesture, and well deserved. Dickson opened his remarks by stating an obvious truth: We believe in reality, whereas our enemies reject it. Taking the diametrically opposite position from Taylor, Dickson told us that just as Christ was said to have emptied himself of everything but love, those of us on the Right must empty ourselves of compassion for Leftists. He quoted a Francoist who stated that he knew civil war was coming to Spain when he realized that he no longer saw the Leftists in his midst as Spaniards. Mr. Dickson said that he has now reached this point.
Leftism has morphed into a religion, and Leftists are not willing to debate their fundamental premises. What we are currently witnessing is the Left in the midst of a religious frenzy, in which facts mean nothing. Dickson noted that there are absolutely no studies showing that the racial idealism of the 1960s has done any good. Black home ownership is lower than it was in the ‘60s. The rate of black illegitimacy is around three times what it was in the ‘50s. There is no study showing that integration of the schools has improved blacks. He reminded us of some words seen on protest posters in the Soviet Union around the time of its collapse: “70 years on the road to nowhere.”
Dickson concluded his talk with a personal anecdote. Many years ago he made the acquaintance of Count and Countess Andrássy, Hungarian nobles who had escaped Communism and were living in Florida in poverty. Dickson asked Countess Andrássy, “How have you coped with losing everything?” She said that she could answer him, but that she was afraid that her words might offend. When Dickson assured her that he could not be offended, she proceeded to answer his question. “We have not lost anything,” she said, “except our money. We have our religion, our culture, our language. You Americans have lost everything — except your money. When the day comes that the American economy collapses, you will be the most bankrupt of all nations.” We are indeed heading for the iceberg, Mr. Dickson noted. But we have truth and reality on our side, and that means that our triumph is inevitable.
The common thread that runs through all of these speeches is optimism. In the midst of censorship, cancel culture, and the weaponizing of the justice system against dissent, we are nonetheless optimistic. Just as Mr. Taylor and others noted, the establishment’s actions betray their fear. And I must state my agreement with Sam Dickson: Any system that sets itself against nature — against truth and reality — is doomed. Years ago, when I first became involved in this movement, I did not believe that I would live to see the downfall of the present system. But, as you must have noticed, events are moving very rapidly. The collapse of the American regime may come sooner than any of us think.
By the end of this conference, I no longer felt down in the dumps. I felt enthused and ready to return to my life, with a renewed sense of dedication to our cause. Who knew that American Renaissance was a cure for depression? If Jared Taylor could bottle these conferences, Switzerland would be plunged into recession. Sadly, insurance will not pay for you to attend American Renaissance. When we are in power, we will change this.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
52 comments
Well done!
Bravo! You filled me with optimism. More than I’ve felt in quite some time.
I’m glad. Thank you!
Taylor’s work is admirable and courageous. But, contrary to his position, I still say that Jews must not be allowed under any circumstances to live among Aryan peoples in an Aryan nation. There must be rigid separation They are not White, they are more detrimental to us than Blacks, and, like Blacks, need to live as far away from us as possible. .
The jew who no longer thinks of themselves as a ‘jew’ – whose loyalty is to the White race first, last and always – is not a threat to Whites. The jew’s only superpower is racial nepotism. If Whites take the same path, the jew has nothing.
That is exactly my long held position. Jewish power is based on high IQ, ethnonepotism, and, wrt their relations to whites, above all, white atomization (this is unlike Muslim or Chinese or Hindu power, which are based on massive population, as well as ethnic pride and group assertion; also, high-IQ in the case of the Chinese). Not only within an all-European ethnostate obviously, but even within a diverse society like America now, if a majority of whites were white nationalist, the JQ would simply disappear as a major threat to white preservation.
That’s why any form of white identity or organization is feverishly demonized as “white supremacy” and hate and “impending genocide,” lol. The oligarchy understands what the winning evolutionary strategy is and they must nip it in the bud before it’s the glimmer of a dream in any other hi IQ group.
“The jew who no longer thinks of themselves as a ‘jew’ – whose loyalty is to the White race first, last and always – is not a threat to Whites.”
I grew up with frequent and, at times, close interaction with Jews. My debate partner in high school, whose family lived in my neighborhood, was Jewish. I spent most of my professional career in a government agency dominated by Jews.
I have never met or heard of a Jew who no longer thought of himself as a Jew and whose first loyalty was to the White race. I was aware of one Jew who considered himself Messianic, but even as a convert to Christianity, he most definitely continued to see himself as a good Jew.
Even if a few such hyp0thectical individuals lived among us, what about their children, parents, siblings, relatives, friends, colleagues, and other members of their tribe who will remain in contact, influence their lives, and live nearby?
It is my observation that, no matter how intensely they quarrel among themselves – no matter whether they are devout, “non-observant”, or atheist – Jews regard themselves as a distinct race superior to all others, see White men as their primary impediment to global dominion, and will immediately close ranks in response to what they they perceive as an external threat.
Exactly so! This my experience as well, but one only needs to be an astute observer of history and society to quickly come to the same conclusion.
I do know a few examples. If not for them, I might be more of a cynic about it.
Jews have their own country, Blacks have their own continent.
Jews more detrimental than blacks? I know that some of our guys believe this way, but the case has, for me anyway, never been convincingly made. (You, however, have simply stated that you believe Jews are more detrimental than blacks, so I don’t presume to know your reasoning.) But I would use the opportunity here to mention the reasoning I have heard, because I think it’s harmful and counterproductive.
The Silver-Bullet Argument, you could call it, posits that if we can just get rid of the Jews then all other problems will magically disappear. This is naive. It fails to recognize that other groups have agency. It also places too much importance on the role of the gatekeeper, as if people who want in only ever try to get in through a “gate” that is opened for them to conveniently do so, and accept defeat and leave if that easy pathway is blocked.
This reasoning is like the gun-control proponents’. Blacks are the “guns,” Jews are the pro-gun “manufacturers and legislators.” Get rid of the pro-gun manufacturers, defeat the pro-gun legislators (here, the Jews), and you, again magically, don’t have a gun (black) problem anymore.
Frankly, the more I hear our guys harp on about the Jews to the degree they do, the more I question their ability to see the myriad other threats that we face. They’re like a fighter who has become convinced that he’s only ever going to be kicked in the nuts. His entire line of defense centers on avoiding that. So he routinely drops his hands and sets himself up for a knockout by headshot.
Jews are, as a group, a problem. But I’d sure rather break down in a Jewish neighborhood than a black one. And I’m also sure that that black neighborhood would be every bit as bad if there weren’t a Jew in sight.
Jews control every major lever of power in this country, whether directly or indirectly. As gravity is the basic ordering principle of the physical world, jewish power is the basic ordering principle of the political/social world. Jewish power is the foremost problem from which most of the others derive. A conference of White “leaders” that ignores Jewish power is largely futile.
No, it’s not.
We have many enemies. They’re not all controlled by Jews, and getting rid of Jews doesn’t magically depose them.
“The Silver-Bullet Argument, you could call it, posits that if we can just get rid of the Jews then all other problems will magically disappear. This is naive.”
Who here has brought up the Silver Bullet Argument? No one here claims that ridding ourselves of the jew will make all our problems magically disappear. Indeed our foremost problem is our own weaknesses, such as lack of racial consciousness and loyalty. But it is patently naive to ignore the historic fact that the most insidious, cunning, and persistent of all our enemies is the jewish tribe. There is nothing naive about seeking to put boundaries and distance between them and us.
(You, however, have simply stated that you believe Jews are more detrimental than blacks, so I don’t presume to know your reasoning.)
Please notice that, what I said to you earlier.
But the silver-bullet argument is pretty common. And when anyone points it out, the person who uses it gets very upset that you do not see getting rid of the Jews as, well, a silver-bullet.
Blacks are an annoyance, they aren’t a threat in any meaningful sense. They don’t have any power whatsoever; they are completely reliant upon Whites to prop them up. The actual threat are the people in power: self-hating Whites, Jews, and various other smaller groups.
Surely you jest. 😑
To your fighter allegory: ignoring the jews is like a fighter not recognizing that he is going to be kicked in the nuts, and thus not wearing a crouch protector. All his good punches will be to no avail if he is offering his nuts as lowhanging fruits. He needs both croutchprotection and punching. We have many problems that wont disappear if the jews dissppear, but theres no chance of solving them when we have jews playing devide and conquor in all our homelands. These problems are essential security meassures for jews, namely that they don’t risk living amongst a strong, united gentile ethnic of equal iq, who might squash them when they try to dominate. Thats why they are nationwreckers. We are for them what the africans were for the colonizing europeans. They are “civilizing us and raising us out of ignorance”, the ignorance of not serving them. Like what europenas did to africans. It is as stupid to think that jews have the shared interests as it was for africans in belgian congo to think that europeans and africans had shared interests. And to your car breaking down allegory: I’d rather have black people trying to buy our politicians with their united monetary and mental wealth, than the united capital and mental wealth of world jewry.
Regarding your new analogy, that would be a stupid fighter indeed.
But you should reread what I wrote, the analogy I made; the fighter in it is one who only thinks about the Jews (i.e. getting kicked below the belt). He trains for nothing else. That is, he minimizes all other threats.
* * *
I offered that analogy in passing, but don’t usually like analogies. Why? Because people tend to do what you’ve done: ignore the original analogy, then come up with one of their own that says what they want it to say. In other words, they aren’t interested in knowing what a person is actually saying, rather in using the “opponent’s” comments as a springboard into talking about something they’d rather be talking about themselves.
In our circles we spend far too much time arguing ad nauseum and don’t seek to actually find agreement, to pay attention to details of what our would-be allies are saying. (It’s what keeps me out of chat rooms most of the times, honestly, because it is so insufferable and saps energy from finite reserves that are depleted even more as one ages.)
* * *
To cut through the confusion and state my own position as tersely as possible:
Jews are a problem, but they are not the only problem.
We have many enemies; those enemies have agency of their own, and agendas of their own; some of those enemies are even arguably more of an immediate threat to life and limb than Jews are.
Our other enemies may to one degree or another be influenced by Jewish propaganda; however, those other enemies are not under some Talmudic spell which, if broken, will magically turn those harmful enemies into friends who’ll wish us well, pack up their things, then return to their respective homelands without a fight.
My position is not that jews are the only problem, and that if tyey were gone there would be no problems. But if jews are not stopped colonizing and sacking our nations, then the other problems cant be fixed. All the other forreigners here can be dealt with groupwise one by one if it were not for the jews. The chinese are a big challenge like the jews, and they will be as big a challenge in the not so far distance. But at present the jews are the ones strangling, enslaving white countries and looting them, and they have been doing so for centuries if we are to believe Dostojevsky:
”
So great was the Russians’ hate for their Jewish tormenters that the Russian rulers were obliged to institute special legislation, both protecting the Jews and limiting their depredations against the Russian people. Among the latter was a ban against Jewish settlement in central Russia; they were restricted to the regions of western and southwestern Russia (the “Pale of Settlement”) where they had been most heavily concentrated at the time Catherine the Great had proclaimed the ban, in the 18th century.
This, of course, was regarded by the Jews as “persecution,” and it was their incessant wailing about not being allowed to fasten themselves on the people of central Russia which first moved Dostoyevsky to set his pen to paper on the Jewish question. In the section of his Diary published in March 1877, the writer remarked:
. . . I know that in the whole world there is certainly no other people who would be complaining as much about their lot, incessantly, after each step and word of theirs — about their humiliation, their suffering, their martyrdom. One might think it is not they who are reigning in Europe, who are directing there at least the stock exchanges and, therefore, politics, domestic affairs, the morality of the states.
https://counter-currents.com/2011/11/dostoyevsky-on-the-jews/
There is no point in fighting this fight if we at the same time ally with our main attacker. You dont want another man to run your house, and you dont want another race to run your country. Let them be our greatest ally when they can be so from in their own country. Untill then they can only be disingenious, they are helping you only to share and hand over YOUR ressources and territory..
Does anyone know why this Amren conference was held in the summer? Aren’t they usually held in the winter?
Apparently just because it had never been done before. They were curious whether it would drive attendance up or down (it drove it down, but only slightly). Next year it will be in November.
November is by far preferable, for multiple reasons:
Too many distractions in Summer: boating, golf, school’s out, etc.
November works better. Sorry I missed it this year.
Funny how that protester thought that he was being accused of molesting children without anyone speaking to him..
Thank you for this excellent summary. It’s been a couple of decades since my last AR conference. I’m surprised Greg Johnson didn’t speak at this one. Ditto for Edward Dutton – every AR shindig ought to have at least one representative from the sciences, given the extent to which our worldview is built upon scientific (as well as social scientific) fact.
Lots of good ideas here. Progressivism (really, race utopianism, which is the foundation and main, though of course not only, concern of today’s Left) is clearly the successor ideology to utopian socialism, as well as, increasingly, the contemporary counterpart to egalitarian utopianism’s political spawn, communism. Race-denialism-as-utopianism is a fertile topic for deep historical investigation. Likewise, the inevitable connection between revolutionary leftism and state terror. Who can doubt that today’s “antiracists” [read: “antiwhites”], were they to achieve full control of the State apparatus of rule and law enforcement, would be no less brutal against recalcitrant elements than the Jacobins and Bolsheviks? This is one reason (among many unrelated to race) why white preservationists today should utterly oppose every form of socialism: our power and people are disproportionately concentrated in civil society and the economic private sector. Anything that lessens or weakens State power, in the zero-sum world of politics, de facto strengthens us (the only exceptions would be those governmental areas, such as state and local constabularies, which disproportionately either a) benefit us, or b) are controlled by us).
In the USA (and I think many other formerly white-controlled countries) today, there is an enormous overlap in practice (though not in theory, of course) between the goals of WP and those of classical liberalism or libertarianism. WP activists would do well to emphasize points of agreement rather than disagreement with other factions of the true Right.
Moving on, while I would never take umbrage at or personally disparage Asatru (any movement that puts WP at its center has my at least tacit support), count me sceptical that it will ever make much headway among the masses of our people. The white man’s “metaphysical future” is either Christian or atheist. No matter how much men like McNallen or Collin Cleary try to develop it, Asatru is just never going to possess a fraction of the intellectual and cultural richness of Christianity, let alone the breadth of its institutional presence. There are many white Christians who are deeply aware that accepting a (non-military) foreign invasion and alien conquest of their countries is not a part of Christian doctrine; there are many more who are theologically ignorant, but are apprehensive of the unGreat Replacement; know in their guts that it’s wrong; and would be immediately responsive to a serious theological re-envisioning of Christian doctrines related to both race relations, and, especially, mass immigration. There is a somewhat similar elite vs masses divide between immigrationists and restrictionists within the Church as there is within the larger society. Church, like secular, elites are mostly on the race-liberal-to-race-traitor spectrum, while the Christian white masses are much more divided, with huge numbers on the Right side. If you doubt me, ask the treasonous evangelical ‘leader’ Russell Moore, who spends much of his time these days denouncing Trump-supporting evangelicals for their “infidelity” to Diversity-worship and Replacement.
IOWs, the more intelligent tack is for WPs to demonstrate the ethical allowability of Christians to fight Replacement and racial dishonesty, as well as to rediscover and reinvigorate Eurofolkish cultures, as opposed to seeking to convert white Christians either to Asatru or atheism as a way to enlist them in the WP cause. When I have written in past CC comments of the need to develop a prowhite Christianity, this is partly what I have meant: merely deconstructing the false idea that whites cannot be both prowhite and sincerely Christian (the other part – the more complex, renegade, and difficult to establish one – is my holding that white Christians should be prowhite; that not only is racial irrealism immoral, but that Christians, including nonwhite ones, have a moral obligation to work to prevent white extinction).
The other reason to tackle Christianity head-on is that it is the only source of ultimate morality (for whites, anyway). Gregory Hood talks about the moral case for white nationalism, but what is his foundation to argue for the existence of any morality? Is there morality in the animal kingdom, or is nature necessarily “red in tooth and claw”? I’m not sure Christianity (or any supernatural religion) is true (though I would like it to be, or at least to think it is). I have numerous “philosophy of religion” problems. But many whites do believe the Creed, and once one can posit God as the ultimate moral arbiter as well as personal eschatological Judge, one can start building a moral case against racial hypocrisy and the mistreatment of whites. But without believing that God is on your side, one is merely appealing to historically contingent intuitions when making moral claims. Until the physical life situation of most whites deteriorates a great deal more (as it will … but what a lot of suffering our people have in store!), foundation-less moral claims are likely to remain insufficient to inspire very much sacrificial action.
You make some good points. However, viewing the issue purely from a practical perspective, consider the following:
Establishment of Asatru as a bona fide religion provides for Constitutional protection, in addition to robust tax exemption benefits.
Increases the dedication and motivation of our adherents, and allows a Weltanschaung consistent with our goals and ideals.
If you don’t believe in something, you’ll fall for anything.
Thank you for your review. Well-written and entertaining.
As for ‘leftists’, I think we should speak as though all can be forgiven and act to neutralize them at every opportunity. As Sun Tzu says, ‘Never force your enemy onto a death ground’. If you give your enemy no way out – if you force them to fight to the death – then the price of victory will be higher than necessary.
All sub-racial ‘issues’ are mere distractions. The more we openly discriminate against White liberals, the fewer Whites we can save. And saving Whites (even if from themselves) is part of the job of the White vanguard.
Not quite. Yes, the more we openly alienate white leftists over “sub-issues” (ones unrelated to white preservation), the more we retard the day when WNs will become the dominant ideological group among whites (eg, in the 90s I knew a girl who was both militantly pro-choice on abortion – even a single issue pro-choicer – but who also detested black thuggery and would not date interracially on principle; chasing her from WN because of her views on the sub-issue of abortion would indeed be ridiculous). But the more we try to bridge the divide between prowhites and antiwhites in the name of what the leftists themselves mock as some sort of spurious “broad white tent”, the more we are denying that biology plays a key role in determining our ideological preferences. In the past, there were many whites who voted liberal without fully understanding that in doing so they were hastening racial oppression and replacement (remember the Solid South voting in FDR?). But with time and the internet, there are ever fewer such ignorami. And race, unlike monetary or regulatory or nuclear anti-proliferation, etc, policy, is visceral anyway. One doesn’t have to be that bright to see the double standards. More and more, progressive liberalism is defined by racial hostility toward whites, and that hostility is increasingly visible to them (though more awakening work always needs to be done). Those who remain leftist are either supportive of the antiwhite agenda, or unbothered by it.
How many committed anti-White Whites do you think there will be if there’s (at minimum) no disadvantage to being ‘pro-White’?
The ‘broad white tent’ cannot included pro-Whites and anti-Whites. That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.
What I’m suggesting is that sub-racial issues simply not be treated as ‘serious’ issues.
The ‘big tent’ approach is regarding these sub-racial issues.
‘The Right’ has associated itself with pro-White politics but pro-White politics transcend the left/right divide.
It’s a mistake to write off ‘the left’. White American Left anti-White-ism became noticeable (at least to me) around 1990. Before that ‘the left’ was primarily concerned with ‘injustice’, at least paying lip services to injustices against working-class Whites.
This recent anti-White leftists politics is 100% driven by the jews whose money funds (and hence controls) the left. It’s not natural and framing the White race as a global minority confronted with immigration policies driven by global corporations and their desire for low wages.
When leftists mock an idea, it means they’re afraid of it. If an idea really doesn’t matter, they don’t even talk about it.
I certainly endorse a (white) Race First agenda for the Right. All policies should be judged in terms of their effects on, first, white genetic interests (the good of the race itself), and second, white non-genetic interests. I believe that using our very limited resources to reach out to white leftists (ie, to attempt to persuade them to become prowhite) is as much of a waste of time as normiecons and Republicans reaching out to blacks to persuade them to be conservatives and GOP voters. The work is too hard, the payoff too minimal, when compared to other uses of the scarce political capital. To me, THE defining feature of American self-described “leftists” today is antiwhiteness, whether this stems from race-denialist-utopianism (the majority of white leftists), or antiwhite bigotry and hate (the majority of nonwhite leftists). Our task should be to build a Big White Tent … on and among the Right (ie, among civnats, conservatives, Christianists, even GOP country-clubbers, and even libertarians, many of whom I’ve known were not especially supportive of immigration or race-denialism).
Furthermore, I do not want to “save” white liberals. The very fact of their liberalism is already a sign of their ideologico-genetic defectiveness. I want to breed up a new white race of the future, one that is instinctively prowhite (as I am, and I assume most people here are). I didn’t have to be “awakened”; I was never race-blind. My deeply Christian parents might not have had much time for Evola or Heidegger, had they even known of them, but they sure as hell were very early opponents of the immigration invasion. My dad always knew that “no good will come from letting in all these people”, as he used to mutter, grimly. That’s the mentality we need if the Ethnostate and our race are to endure. Saving some liberals now via intense debrainwashing will also conserve their defective genomes, and that will likely mean trouble sometime down the road – rather as admitting Turks and Algerians into Europe in the 60s/70s meant admitting the latent possibility of their children or grandchildren rediscovering their “identity” and the ‘joys’ of Dark Ages Islam and its jihadi requirements.
White nationalism is a long term ideology; therefore, let us keep an eye on the long term always, and in all ways.
I don’t think there any additional resources used to craft and send a message to be pro-White that is inclusive of Whites of all political persuasions than there would be to craft and send a message that excludes White liberals and leftists.
The reason the Racial Right is such a poor ambassador for Whites is precisely because you think it’s ‘pro-White’ to write-off about 60% of White America (and the wealthiest part of White America to boot).
As for a ‘big tent on the Right’, good luck with that. But I’m not going to bet the survival of the White race on a bunch of people who are just as racially hostile to Whites and ‘the left’ you hate so much.
As for White Nationalism being a ‘long term ideology’, that seems like self-comforting or apologetics for the failure of the Racial Right to chalk up a single success in almost a century.
An effective White Nationalist message and ethos will not need a century to work.
The anti-White messaging of our enemies relies on the valorization of the freak, the fringe and the anomaly. Our messaging – the White Nationalist messaging – needs to elevate the typical, the ordinary, to give solidity to emergent pro-White ‘concerns’ and give voice to unconscious sentiments about ‘Whites, together’.
I think that message needs to include Whites who are not anti-White and invite anti-White Whites to rethink their positions.
In general, people’s political positions are largely a series of slogans and cognitive short-cuts. Give them new slogans and new cognitive short-cuts that align them with the interests of the White race and they will have new political positions. Especially if they can see the benefits that come from taking their own side in the inter-racial conflicts that abound in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, anti-White culture such as America now has and promotes.
Did anyone at AmRen mention the Jews? Or, do they still declare that it would be “unproductive” to discuss them (even politely and fairly), and focus instead on just naming the liberals? What about conservatives? Were they discussed?
I read everywhere on the right these days that our leaders are getting desperate and afraid, but I don’t see it that way. I see growing hubris and confidence (which I don’t automatically associate with desperation and fear). But I agree that the current situation is completely unsustainable. Intolerance and tolerance will meet head on, and things will explode. We all know it. And whether Donald Trump is convicted in court or assassinated on the tarmac, I don’t think it matters. He will not be “elected”(our moral betters won’t let that happen again!), and everything is going to accelerate from there. This doesn’t give me hope or induce optimism, but it is sobering and forces me to keep facing reality.
I disagree with the Hungarian nobles. We Americans (actual Americans, by bloodlines), have not lost everything, not as long as we are alive and breathing. Europeans (in Europe) are fond of saying that Americans are materialistic and the United States is not a serious country for that reason. Which “Americans”? Do they mean the tens of millions of immigrants from foreign cultures that came over after the Civil War and opened shop? It isn’t and never was all about money for us or our ancestors (money as in profit, not just providing food for the table and resources for some pleasant diversions). I noticed years ago, in my youth, and before I could articulate it, that immigrants (and not just Jews) in this country were very, very materialistic and consumer based. Very much so. To them, America was the land of opportunity and freedom…to make loads of cash and spend, spend. Not that there is anything wrong at all with earning an honest profit and enjoying the fruits of one’s labor and creativity, but pursuit of profit isn’t everything. Happiness (joy) is founded on familiarity and attachments and connections with people. And the people who came over here from foreign lands are not at home here. They remain foreigners, even if they speak perfect California English and attend baseball games alongside us. It is they who will lose everything because they were never Americans and they will have lost that freedom and the opportunity to make money off of us. They really have no other reason for being here among us.
The criticism about materialism is similar to the comments made (often by Europeans in Europe again) that Americans are violent and gun happy. No, we are not. Blacks and Hispanics and Asian gangs are. And, they say Americans are deeply religious. Uh, in the South, yes. But it’s a big country and most Americans are pretty moderately religious. I’m on a bit of a tangent, but I get annoyed when everyone groups every person in this country as an “American” and says it is liberalism that has given rise to the insanity. This is why I became an ethno-nationalist, not just simply “pro White.” There are a lot of people (including Whites) in this country now who are not Americans and not all of them embrace liberalism, let alone “Cultural Marxism” or whatever. I am aware that AmRen engages in more nuanced conversations about these matters than what I am presenting in this rather disorganized comment, but…
I always hope to hear from the AmRen conference attendees something that rings true to me. And even if the speakers do circle around subjects that the Counter-Currents crowd regularly discusses, Amren always come across to me as people in denial, or slightly dishonest (in other words, it isn’t just about disagreement). I am often as frustrated with them as I am with liberals and conservatives. I can appreciate some aspects of their arguments (including Duchesne’s, although he seems to think America’s problems were seeded in its foundation because of the founders’ liberalism and Enlightenment values, but I think he willfully misunderstands a few things). All things considered, it really isn’t about liberalism and/or conservatism for me. It isn’t about IQ, either. And it isn’t about the White race. It’s about bloodlines, kin and kind.
I don’t mean to be dismissive of Mr. Costello’s fine essay here, or of AmRen generally (they do some good work), but race realism isn’t enough. I prefer the discussions at Counter-Currents than what is addressed (or, not addressed) at American Renaissance.
Great recap by Costello. Very good writing.
I agree with Flower, however. The left has completely won. This crazed legal persecution of trump has broken the right, in the sense that most middle class whites are withdrawing from the political process. We see it as fixed in that the election was likely stolen(it’s the perception here that’s important, not the absolute truth), tucker was kicked off fox, and now the legal persecution of trump. We are all way past the point of outrage fatigue.
We are still far from any type of open rebellion, however, as whites still have their middle class jobs, 401k accounts, and for the younger set, video games, internet and sports. Life is still too good to take any risks.
Disengagement in the face of leftist hegemony will be the norm from here out, I think, and we will all turn back into frogs in slow boil.
That reminds me of something I read earlier this year in Gregory Hood’s Waking Up From The American Dream where he said something along the lines of it is long past the time when we could work within the system as it is but we haven’t quite got to the point where we just start shooting the bastards. I got a good chuckle out of that.
Hey Fire! Well it’s true. People have to be really uncomfortable before they start taking risks, like the currency going zero in Weimar.
I would like to go to Amren. Do you think it would be safe for me to go? What are the risks involved with doxy? What kind of jobs do guys have?
I’ve never been to one, but it seems from what I have seen that any protesters are kept pretty far away from the place. I wouldn’t worry about doxxing or anything else like that. Regardless, I would gladly take that risk just for a chance to shake Uncle Jared’s hand.
Europeans do not understand the absolute size of the USA. Euros always assume their own small nation states and think that the American from Florida differs only in small nuances from the one from Idaho. Like with us the Bavarians and the Holsteiner. This thinking makes it easier. I am simply tired of the discussions about the US gun laws, not being as believed here. They want to believe that any 12 year old boy can buy an assault rifle there, it’s like dogma.
AmRen can be useful as a gateway. I attended one conference, and the presentations were informative, but I felt there was something missing. There was a lot of talk about “our rulers,” but no indication of who they meant. Apparently, to avoid offending some of their donors, AmRen observes kosher boundaries. The comments on their site can be quite bizarre, too. One particularly obnoxious character, who called himself Engleman, felt the need to insist upon the supreme intelligence and industry of the Chinese and Jews in almost every one of his incessant comments. AmRen even let him post an editorial enumerating his many reasons for admiring Joe Biden, and stating his intent to vote for the old fool; that was about the time I moved on to more honest analysis.
Yes, Engelmann drove me off their site too, they let him in control of the comments, and he was openly anti-white. But thats what you get when you let the small hats into your organization. Its fine to have some organizations out there that avoids the jq, as to not scare off new arrivals, and thus bring in the crowds, and down the line let them mingle with the more redpilled people who will bring them the rest of the way. But those organizations still should keep out the small hats from their engineroom, so they dont gatekeep and hijack, as they eventually just about always do otherwise, as their ethnic interests are separate from that of Europeans. Yes, they are smart people, funny people, clever people. But if we can’t succeed without them, then we can’t succeed. Mr Taylor seems to be a paradox in this regard as he is succeeding in bringing white nationalists together and keeping the red pills flowing amongst them, even if he seems to have his share of small hats involved. Perhaps he really is out-jewing the jew.
I’m sitting here having not been able to sleep. I’ve worked my way through a CC podcast and several articles, thinking I’ll slope back off to bed after a good catch up of CC as I have been too busy lately (I know, sackable offence). I’ve been awake since 3am and this has undoubtedly perked me up so much, I’ll refrain from any last residue slumber and head off for an early morning walk with the dog and contemplate the optimism shared. Congratulations on a superb summary and to Amren on reaching a milestone anniversary.
I’ve had my own thoughts about liberalism and why the West has embraced “diversity” from a Jungian perspective. Liberalism in its abstract form has become the denial of the shadow side of life, a blind devotion to “love” and a denial of even the mere possibility of “hate”, it’s all “yang” and no “yin” which is precisely why it’s so dysfunctional, and fundamentally un-whole. It can’t be tough, can’t bear hate, and can’t discriminate, and is therefore all the more tyrannical. Liberalism doesn’t understand that you need hate in order to love genuinely, you need force in order to have peace, you need strength in order to afford weakness. The mere concept of needing a concept of darkness to even define what “light” means is lost on them. Beware a man who is incapable of hate, for he will love even the most reprehensible of things.
I think there is a worthwhile psychological and spiritual battle to be fought there, indeed I think an unspoken target in combating the negative and self-destructive excesses of liberalism is the “cult of love” that’s started right around the ’60’s when all of these troubles began in earnest. To be a whole and complete functioning human being you must bear an equal capacity for both love and hate. I do believe that most on the Dissident Right do what we do out of sheer love, but we only do it because we are inclined to a wholeness of character, a multifaceted character that knows how to hate the bad as well as love the good. This is an abomination to Liberals, but as we ourselves know, it is an important key to happiness, inner peace and clarity, something that they rob themselves of. Teaching liberals to hate the right things, and love themselves for the right reasons, might be an important goal.
Thank you Jeff for a great summary of the conference. I think I have convinced the missus to go with me next year for the first time and I can hardly wait. Well, that is if we aren’t in the midst of another scamdemic or declared climate emergency or the beginning of the collapse of our nation after the upcoming shitshow that will be the 2024 election. Brandon and his minions are not going out without a fight, and it will be ugly.
Thanks for that. I wish that I could have been there. My optimistic view is that, although we might not win, our enemies will surely lose.
Of course, they set course for the edge of the world and intend to throw themselves over. Failure is their noble mission, and they will succeed at failing. The problem is the rest of us are tethered to their ship of fools.
There is zero reason for optimism. We are under a totalitarian regime which controls all facets of the media, we have a KGB type of “justice” dept that does the bidding of the regime in charge, opponents are either jailed or faced with multiple legal charges, fixed elections at the state and national level, condoned lawlessness in most of our major cities plus the ongoing and aggressive demonization of the white race.
I could go on but why bother? Does anyone with a brain think that there is eventually going to be an awakening and rising up of the people? Next time you go to a mall or a place where there are a lot of people, tell me that a population of mostly fat, slovenly people are going to do anything. Just tell most Americans what they want to hear, or, let them think that when “my guy gets in everything will change.”
250 years we’ve had. For the most part it was a good run. At some point all nations run their course and die. That’s what we’re witnessing now.
I am sure there were people saying the same thing in East Germany in August of 1989.
Nihilism is the refuge of the coward.
Nihilism – like very other ideology – should be treated as a tool. If it delivers value, it’s ‘good’, if it undermines success, it’s bad.
> “…those of us on the Right must empty ourselves of compassion for Leftists”
Yes! This is the *critical* lesson our children must be taught. If our people are to survive, our enemy must be crushed absolutely and without pity. Once our victory is gained, we must ensure we never come this close to the brink of extermination again.
The Racial Right couldn’t even stop and outbreak of children’s lemonade stands, let alone ‘crush’ the international left. If I had a choice between a leftist pro-White movement and a rightist pro-White movement, I’d take the former over the latter. Whites would have a better chance of survival.
Interesting comment, Hamburger Today.
I had a conversation with someone recently and she expressed something similar: the ball will get rolling when Whites on the Left start to advocate for White interests. Why? Because (she said) people on the Left (no matter where they are on the spectrum) tend to be activists. People on the Right tend to prefer the status quo. When Whites on the Left start to think out loud, “Hey, when we said equal rights, we didn’t mean kill off Whitey!”, things will get interesting.
Yes indeed, it will be very interesting to see how many Whites (both sides) react in the next few years as things rapidly deteriorate. When your life, not just your livelihood or reputation, is on the line, people will not just respond, but react.
I am neither Left nor Right. I went home and thought about what she said, and I think she’s correct.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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