1,921 words
White people face enormous challenges today.
Our living standards are declining due to globalization, immigration, and anti-white discrimination.
Our societies are being destroyed by multiculturalism, anti-whiteness, and the debasement of all standards: of behavior, of education, of taste.
Our private lives are in chaos as well. The collapse of norms governing sex has led to rampant confusion. Men and women don’t know what to expect from one another, so it is increasingly difficult to form and maintain relationships, much less families.
This confusion has been compounded by online pornography and chatrooms, which have led to the proliferation of increasingly bizarre and boutique fetishes, including a shocking uptick in the number of transsexuals.
It is hard enough for ordinary people to find soulmates these days. Imagine the plight of a preop male-to-female (MTF) who identifies as a dragon.
Unsurprisingly, all this real-world misery has driven increasing numbers of white people to despair. Thus we see rising levels of addictive forms of escapism, from relatively benign pastimes such as gaming to drugs, both legal and illegal. Drugs and nihilism are also leading to rising numbers of white “deaths of despair.” Indeed, the average white lifespan is now shrinking, something that we associate with war or civilizational collapse.
No white person is immune to an anti-white system, but some of us are more vulnerable than others. For instance, working- and middle-class whites are more vulnerable to the effects of globalization and immigration than businessmen and professionals, some of whom actually benefit from such changes. Younger people are more vulnerable to the collapse of sexual norms than people who grew up in healthier times. Younger people are also more online and thus more susceptible to the poisons that spread there. Rich people actually abuse more drugs and alcohol than the poor, but they are also less vulnerable to the downward mobility that inevitably follows.
Thus it is harder for older and more prosperous whites to relate to the challenges of Millennials and Zoomers. This has led to a whole genre of hilarious “Okay, Boomer” memes in response to sincere but clueless advice on how to find a job or a mate. It has also led to bitter and borderline insane diatribes blaming entire older generations of whites for present problems.
As a White Nationalist, my aim is to promote white tribal consciousness based on an awareness of common identities, interests, enemies, and, yes, grievances. Once whites sufficiently collectivize, we can pursue political solutions to these problems: abolishing anti-white discrimination, de-globalizing our economic lives, halting immigration and commencing emigration, cracking down on the purveyors of addictive escapism, and restoring healthy families and sexual norms.
Why political solutions? Because ultimately, all the problems we face are political. What is happening to white people is not a mere “misfortune.” It is not random. It is not natural. It is intentional and malevolent. These problems arise from political decisions whose predictable consequences are to make life increasingly difficult and finally impossible for whites. As individuals, we can do what we can to adjust to these problems. But the problems themselves will vanish only if we collectivize and take political action to remove them.
Of course we are going to face plenty of opposition, some of it from very close to home, some of it from within our own movement.
When faced with stories of fellow whites in distress, you have the choice of being big or being small.
The big response is white solidarity based on shared blood, shared culture, shared enemies, and the recognition that we are all in this together. White solidarity is necessary for any sort of political solution to white decline; i.e., the only solution to white decline.
The “small” response to white decline is premised on individualism, which in turn is premised on a conviction of superiority, even invulnerability. This is delusional, because anti-white policies target us all. Such attitudes, moreover, prevent a political solution, which requires white solidarity. Indeed, such attitudes are so inimical to White Nationalism that our enemies would actively promote them if our “own” people did not do it for them.
The most common “small” response to white decline is to use it as an opportunity to signal one’s feeling of superiority: “I’m not threatened by affirmative action. I’m not threatened by a competitive economy. I’m not threatened by strong women. So what’s wrong with you?” Or: “I don’t have trouble finding a woman. What’s wrong with you?” Or: “Young people today lack the work ethic of my generation. Surely that’s why things are harder for them.”
Such signaling is at least plausible given the undeniable fact that people aren’t equal. Some people really are better than others. So some people are more vulnerable to social decline than others. But it is delusional to think that anti-white policies won’t affect all whites eventually. Moreover, although people aren’t equal, all whites are good enough to enjoy a homeland of their own.
But the proper response to such one-upmanship is to reject the individualist framework it assumes. Individual preening and posturing cannot lead to collective political solutions to collective political problems. So the proper response is: “Maybe that’s true. But it is beside the point. We won’t solve these problems as individuals. We will only solve them as a group.”
The most obnoxious “small” response to white distress is to declare that subjecting whites to inhuman conditions is actually a good thing, because it is somehow “eugenic.” Bad economic conditions disproportionately affect those with low-skilled jobs, which means that we will have fewer people with those “low-skilled job” genes in the next generation. Involuntary celibacy hits “beta males” harder than “alpha males,” so that means we will have fewer of those “beta-male” genes in the next generation. Feminism weeds out “cat-lady” genes. All those deaths of despair weed out those with genes for depression and substance abuse. Ten years ago, before the epidemic of transsexualism, we never suspected how many “tranny” genes were in the population, but now, thankfully, those weeds are being dealt with as well. In fact, the people who are flooding our countries with rapists and killers, our streets with drugs, our culture with decadence, and our minds with poisonous ideas such as white guilt and feminism are actually doing us a favor.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Trial of Socrates here.
Although I regard this position as absurd and contemptible, eugenics is based in fact. Genes do play a role in our economic and sexual success, as well as our susceptibility to drink, drugs, and bad ideas.
But not every problem is caused by genes. Moreover, those problems that have a genetic component need not be solved that way. It is especially absurd to think that social problems based on bad ideas can and should be solved on the genetic level. For instance, instead of positing “cat-lady” genes that can be weeded out genetically over how many generations, why not simply counter feminist brainwashing today?
If genes matter and ideas don’t, why share ideas about genes? If one’s ideas are determined by genes rather than observation and argument, then educating people about genetics is really beside the point.
The most charitable explanation for describing our anti-white regime as eugenic is that such people actually feel deep sympathy for the plight of fellow whites. But they feel so impotent to change it that they are grasping at the straw of eugenics to see something positive in an otherwise intolerable situation.
But I don’t buy that. I have never seen eugenicists who argue that they should be weeded out of the gene pool. Thus I suspect we are just dealing with people who wish to signal their sense of superiority while the world burns. They are, however, deluded to think that they are invulnerable to what is coming for all of us.
But the main problem with embracing white decline as eugenic is not moral or factual, but practical. It is individualistic and thus cannot lead to any collective political solutions.
Another obnoxious individualist meme is to shame whites for complaining by likening them to blacks blaming white people for their problems. It’s as if someone didn’t open our borders, institute anti-white discrimination, debase our culture, and destroy our institutions. It’s as if these problems have always been here.
The truth is that white people’s lives have become objectively harder over the past 60 years due to politically-engineered decline. So white decline is not merely a matter of a victim “mindset.” We really are victims. Thus, white people have every right to blame the decline of our societies on those who are responsible. Comparing our complaints to those of blacks, who fail despite being an objectively privileged group, is not just insulting, it is obscene.
The most seductive individualist arguments against white discontent use the language of self-help. Self-help arguments can be benevolent (“Clean your room, Bucko”) or mean-spirited (“Learn to code”). But they, too, have some basis in fact. Ultimately, we all have room for improvement, and there’s always something we can do to better ourselves. So am I really going to argue against self-help? Yes, I am.
I have no objection to self-improvement as such. I am always trying to better myself. In fact, I think that life is largely about becoming the best possible version of oneself. But since we are not just individuals but social beings, self-actualization also entails social and political commitments.
Self-help arguments become problematic when they become entangled with apolitical or anti-political individualism. I am happy to grant that individual problems often have individual solutions. But there are also collective problems that require collective solutions.
Moreover, self-help programs often boil down to becoming better adapted to the current world so that one can flourish in it. But what if the current world is unjust? Wouldn’t becoming better adapted to an unjust world be a bad thing? If so, then “self-help” is actually self-ruin, and the best way to help oneself is to channel one’s misery into overturning and replacing an unjust order. In such a context, telling Bucko to first clean his room is just an establishment deradicalization technique.
All these individualist ploys to dismiss or shame white grievances fail to grasp the real nature of the current system, which is simply anti-white. That means that it is stacked against all of us, not just the whites you look down on. No accommodation to such a system is possible, because if the system continues, no whites will flourish in the end.
American politics has a strong element of farce. Leftists control the commanding heights of society: politics, academia, the media, even big business. Yet, they posture as outsiders and plucky rebels. Meanwhile, the Republicans occupy a subordinate position in the system, yet posture as the party of the plutocratic establishment, the party of the “winners” and “strivers.”
The farce is compounded when utterly marginalized pro-whites respond to the complaints of poor white people by gallantly defending the plutocrats who despise and deplatform them.
If complaining about our anti-white system prompts not solidarity but nineteenth-century advice to “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” (a physical impossibility, by the way), people will naturally doubt the seriousness and sincerity of our pro-white populism. It is an added irony that such quintessential “Boomer memes” are coming from the mouths of Millennials and Zoomers.
Many White Nationalists are ex-libertarians and conservatives, so it makes sense that such anti-populist attitudes linger on. But these ideas really need to be purged. White Nationalism seeks state power to make life easier for all white people. In our society, one will not have to struggle heroically to lead a normal life. And those who do struggle heroically will do so unburdened and unopposed and thus reap their full rewards. If you recoil from this vision, you might still be a Republican.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else 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. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- 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, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
40 comments
This was a well-written article, Greg, and I enjoyed it. Thank you.
The thoughts and sentiments expressed in this excellent article should be “motherhood” for the pro-White movement. In other words, when someone wants to say some things that we all agree with this article should be a likely source of ideas.
I recently heard about an article which covers the failure and decline of the “New Left” of the 60s and their gradual descent into “self help”. I can’t help but feel that the very same tendency has consumed vast swaths of the racial right. Especially in the wake of COVID hysteria.
Can you link it? Thanks!
Great article. Many good ideas. Its theme is the same as in Jim Goad’s recent article, “Snobs vs Slobs” (Sept 14).
“No tax-cuts for the rich” should be the slogan for all White nationalists. It is important that we know our enemy. The plutocrats are our biggest enemy.
American politics is certainly farcical, more than ever before. This is true with other White countries as well.
The rich having generally seceded from any loyalty to their own people is one of the hallmarks of the age. But while it’s fine to eschew tax cuts for the rich (99% of the time that is a leftist slogan, however, often uttered by nonwhites who want to steal yet more white money, or government parasites – who also are disproportionately nonwhite – who want to further loot the productive private sector, which is disproportionately white), let’s keep white nationalism associated with pro-capitalist, pro-growth economic populism, and never socialism (if that makes me into a “Republican”, which in fact I am, along with tens of millions of other whites who are the ONLY realistic pool from which large numbers of future American white nationalists will be drawn, good!). I believe that socialism is an unqualified bad that would have negative effects even in an all-white ethnostate. But in a multiracial context where, moreover, as Dr. Johnson correctly notes, the “commanding heights” of society are all controlled by antiwhites, socialism can never be anything more than an acceleration of white economic dispossession (fortunately, the majority of non-leftist white Americans seems to understand this).
Given the racial treason of the white rich as a class, the proper WN economic policy is what I call “free market populism”, a policy which combines support for free enterprise with a specific type of redistributionary populism.
This position is not economically illiterate (like most populism). It recognizes the technical superiority of free markets over central state economic planning. It also understands that real liberty is directly tied to the inviolability of private property rights, and that such inviolability is more important to persons and groups lacking political and cultural power. Finally, it implicitly acknowledges that a disproportionate amount of the real work of society is performed by whites in the private sector, and that populist-capitalist policies produce jobs for these people and increase their total wealth, whereas Big Government policies favor the politically connected, as well as parasitical, who are rarely prowhite.
Therefore, free market populists favor the capitalist economy, and in fact want to make it much more capitalist via reductions in or elimination of most government social spending (at least that which mostly benefits nonwhites, or, yes, genuinely parasitical whites, of whom there are many), comprehensive economic deregulation (except wrt immigration, where we need much MORE regulation, more strictly enforced), and maximal privatization of existing government entities wherever feasible (preferably with the monies raised thereby used for National Debt reduction, or perhaps to shore up the finances of Social Security and Medicare – two social programs which, for some decades still to come, disproportionately benefit whites).
OTOH, free market populists are populist in terms of how they wish to rearrange the tax burden. In brief, while socialists seek to expand the size of government, while eliminating or asserting severe control over the private economy, populists are perfectly comfortable with a small and limited government, but they want the rich to pay for a much larger share of its costs. This is my position. I’m a strong capitalist who would like to abolish most of the Federal Government, which I think is ethically, civically, and economically unjustifiable; deeply antiwhite (and anti-Christian and anti-conservative); and blatantly unconstitutional. But wrt the remaining necessary or desired level of government, I want the liberal, unpatriotic and often antiwhite rich to pay for a lot more of it.
I do think white populists need to think seriously about limiting the ability of wealth to influence politics. Machiavelli’s Discourses provide much food for thought on this matter.
Thus I was delighted that John P. McCormack, who has written books on Schmitt and Machiavelli, devoted his book Machiavellian Democracy to this question.
One particularly striking suggestion is to induce the wealthy to divest from politics by giving them a choice: no tax on income above a certain level in exchange for losing their rights to participate in politics. They would have human rights and retain citizenship but give up civil rights.
Honestly, I would extend this offer to everyone, regardless of income. Those who prefer to opt out of politics to pursue money really have no business in politics in the first place.
This would restrict the franchise to people who have a strong enough sense of civic responsibility that they would actually pay more into the system to take part in it.
This would produce the same effect as Heinlein’s Starship Troopers scheme of distinguishing between citizens who do military service and civilians who do not.
This will never even happen. So many people are wealthy precisely because of politics. They have no incentive to shake things up unless it involves strangling the underclasses, along with up-and-comers, like Obamacare was designed to do by forcing savers to purchase low-quality yet costly insurance as a write-off in their prime.
So many leaders in this movement have somehow not given up on liberal democracy. I’m not sure how you still take it seriously after the last few years. I no longer have any LOLberg delusions about reforming it like with ‘only white propertied men or married household vote.’ It would just turn into a latifundia like Argentina or create even more disenfranchised incels by making women even greater kingmakers.
We have only one card to play individually, which also rendezvouses collectively: unilateral withdrawal.
We tend to do this osmotically rather than conspiratorially because it is a reflexive, apolitical default to in-group preference: white-flight. We move out of the neighborhood, pull our kids from public school, relocate our small businesses from the cities etc.
This has theoretically taken on many hypotheticals and what-ifs. What if men (MGTOW) collectively withdrew from women as a protest? Great idea on paper, but we know now that it is women who do the selecting/deselecting etc entirely, so it is just a megalomaniac cope for incels to pretend they control their own destiny and that of women/society. An even more interesting idea that was popularized by Trump, but borrowed from Hillary: what if whites refused to accept election results?
What happens after that? It has always been assumed by leftists that rightists will keep on buttressing the system even when they do not get their way. They simply cannot comprehend the civic attrition happening by osmosis as a result. White men suddenly are opting not to enlist, volunteer, enroll etc. This is leading to increasingly illiberal, undemocratic consensuses by previously superstitious and vigilant people.
If only we could harness this and use it as a reflexive nullification in juries, boardrooms, classrooms, work ethic etc like our enemy does. If we had this looming threat like striking unionists, leftists/nonwhites would constantly dread this sword of Damocles dangling above every last anti-white machination. They would know there is an equal (or disproportionate) reaction to every anti-white motion.
Why should I (we) farm this land if the produce mostly goes to gluttonous nonwhites? Why should I (we) drive this truck? Why should I (we) plumb, electrify, paint, construct, treat, engineer, collect, clean, serve, study etc if it benefits nonwhites? Why should we agree to be a loyal opposition if we don’t get our way?
America is all-profit all the time now, never turning away customers, when before it was more concerned with quality by not allowing nonwhites into their business or covenant. It gives me hope that Europe has bouncers turning away many clientele because they don’t like how they look regardless of profit. They could easily be translated someday back to what America had throughout its history.
Why do we need a tax burden at all? The plain reality is that printing money for investment in social harmony is investment. Also, your opposition to ‘socialism’ is, in effect, opposition to a racialized economy of any kind. But then you posture as though you might support such an economy.
The idea that manipulating taxation isn’t ‘socialism’ needs to be examined for its inconsistency. When any value other than self-interested pursuit of profit is applied to the economy, you have ‘socialism’ to some degree or another.
What ‘capitalists’ want is socialism for them but ‘market discipline’ for everyone else. The entire pro-capitalist stance is little more than a child at their birthday demanding to have their cake and eat everyone else’s, too.
The place to start with a pro-White economic system is that it has to be pro-White. History has shown time and again that virtually any economic system can limp along extracting value from labor and the environment providing for the material needs of ‘society’ . There’s no upside to pursuing an economic system that can in any way adversely affect the acquisition – or maintenance – of White solidarity.
I don’t know exactly what kind of economy will do that. My inclination is to look to Calhoun’s inclusion of industrial and profession ‘community groups’ as a way to reinforce the values of collective action while providing employment opportunities and social value.
If you wish to interfere with the rampant and unfettered exploitation of labor and the environment and the free exercise of wealth to engineer society to permit even more exploitation, then you are not a capitalist.
As a Calhounian democrat, I question whether ‘one size fits all’ even for an economy. There’s no reason that different industrial or labor groupings cannot have their own money and that different regional economies cannot have their exchange rates between them.
The goal of ‘economic efficiency’ emerges from the exact same well of thought as ‘we’re all one race’.
Maybe economic diversity would be a better expression of White creativity and discipline.
An excellent article.
In the early 20th century, fraternal organisations were much more common than today. These organisations variously advocated for personal improvement, social solidarity, economic reform or political change.
Australian examples include groups like the Rechabites, the Hibernian Order and the Australian Natives Association. Closely associated to these fraternities were mutual or cooperative societies, like the Friendly Society pharmacies – and trade unions.
As capitalism becomes increasingly global – and degenerate – in nature, there’s an opportunity for white peoples to revitalise the idea of fraternities for (1) social support and in-group solidarity, (2) practical economic assistance, through the development of mutual enterprises, and (3) increased political awareness.
Fraternal and mutual organisations can start small and build over time. They don’t require regime change to get going. They can provide practical assistance to those disaffected by the current economic system – while building political awareness and cadre.
For Australian readers, an encouraging development is the re-establishment of the Australian Natives Association. The ANA uniquely combines social support, personal development and political activism.
Those interested should reach out..
https://ausnatives.org/
https://www.fraternalsecrets.org/
Thanks for this. It has been said that many gravitate to places such as this after suffering some disappointment, sometimes in the relationship realm, sometimes financial, scholastic, etc. In those moments we can feel the appeal of some socialism, as this gives a break to many “privileged” groups. But as you scour through history, there haven’t been many successful enduringly socialist civilizations. The impetus should go against corruption.
White populations are currently experiencing a painful bottleneck that will result in either our race becoming extinct through miscegenation and sterility or the survival of various ethnocentric fragments of our race who have strong commitments to their tribal in-group. These fragments will likely consist of highly fertile, religious separatist groups that do not engage with the mainstream of American political and social life. These groups are in but not of the states that they inhabit. Existing examples include Fundamentalist Mormon sects (who still believe in Brigham Young’s teachings regarding the sinfulness of miscegenation) and the Amish (whose physical isolation prevents miscegenation). These new religious movements will need to be non-Christian in ideology because Christians devoted to the universalist faith have few or no intellectual resources to resist miscegenation. Excluding sects following Christian Identity (which is the epitome of historical illiteracy), Christian churches unanimously hold that it is a sin to oppose miscegenation and a good to commit it.
Many attempts have been made by the White Nationalist movement to create a religious body with the purpose of preserving our genetic heritage. All have largely failed. Stephen McNallen’s Asatru Folk Assembly may be an exemplar of the strategy that we need to employ. Whites will become a minority in North America. We will need to adapt to this reality and our ensuing loss of political power by using other non-violent, legal means to create communities that promote flourishing. When the political means of change have become futile, we must look towards what essentially is a religious path towards community building. William Pierce understood and tried this with Cosmotheism but failed. We need to learn from these failures and to build a religious organization that will enable us to live with whites even though we are among a horde of non-whites.
We have become strangers, even refugees, in our own homelands. We must adjust. A defensive religious vehicle as opposed to an aggressive non-violent reform or revolutionary political vehicle is much a more realistic path given the fact that we are being and will be further dispossessed. We need to outbreed our enemies (because non-defensive violence against them is harmful to our cause.)
Accordingly, the big response necessary for white survival is not to engage with or to commit our scarce resources to the puppet show of American politics. Rather, it is to form flesh-and-blood, tight-knit religious tribes that operate within the system to achieve ends that the system opposes. Revolution is not feasible. A populist mass-politics approach to our problem will fail, especially when White people are divided against each other on religious, class, and worldview lines, political solidarity is fleeting, and technological change has created a series of subculture. We live in an ecosystem of warring tribes, not the homogeneous nation-state. When creating the later is unfeasible, we must create neo-tribes to survive in the changing ecosystem
This was a profound comment. I’ve had thoughts like this too, particularly that if white nationalism became significant, it would lead to a sort of convergent evolution with Judaism. Still that would be better than nothing, so some sort of cosmotheism or neo odinism
Christian religious sects are universalistic and thus will convert and breed with non-whites. Non-universalistic religions might be a better vehicle.
But there is a deeper problem here. I don’t find it consoling to think that the only white people on the planet 200 years from now will be religious sects (existing at the sufferance of the non-whites who rule the planet), whereas the great peoples of Europe will be extinct.
I can identify with the Amish simply as white, but not much beyond that. Name a great Amish composer or novelist. Would the Amish keep alive the languages and cultures of other Europeans? Do they have Amish universities?
This is why speaking solely in terms of biological whiteness is so dangerous. It leads to the idea that white people are fungible and nothing would be lost if the Amish inherited the earth.
Nobody should feel complacent about the prospect of most European ethnic groups disappearing. Thus we should expect that the most farsighted and patriotic members of each European people will seek to save their own people.
This naturally leads to contesting power in each European state or the creation of new European states. This requires national populist politics.
I know you think this is all in vain. But your preferred way forward is basically to resign ourselves to the extinction of whole European nations.
I agree. This sounds like resignation. It is way too early for that. We are passing through an event horizon that is going to be a huge wake up call for our people. A vision of triumph will lead to triumph, but a vision of defeat and despair will lead to defeat.
I loved the emphasis on not just being white, but being a people of great accomplishment. The anti-whites have succeeded in selling humans as interchangeable lumps of flesh. The case that we are worth preserving is not to be found merely in genes and skin tone, it is to be found in our architecture, legal genius, The Well Tempered Clavier, our military prowess, our staggering inventive genius … …
You’re mistaken about the ‘bottle-neck’ affecting Whites only. It’s virtually every population except sub-Saharan Africans and even their not reproducing at the same rate as they were. The causes of the decline in population growth vary by race. For example, the Chinese are not replicating themselves. This is a result of the ‘one child’ policy and the inability to effectively reverse it.
Also, you’re wrong about religious sectarians being any more ‘in-group oriented’ than the average White. Most Whites don’t miscengate. Most Whites don’t want significant race-mixing at all. Hence, ‘white flight’, a phenomenon that has been going on for almost 100 years now.
You assume that ‘religion’ consists solely in the form of belief in one or another supernatural phenomenon. Those are just expressions of the real, underlying ‘religion’ which is always racial feeling. As long as this racial feeling is in place, the expression of that feeling in terms of supernatural beliefs are largely redundant, a nice-to-have.
The only ‘religion’ Whites need is a positive unconditional regard for their own racial kind.
I say we need to figure out how to do better than that. During the Victorian era, the White population peaked out at around 40% of the world population, and I say that sounds like a fine goal to get back to. On the other hand, if things get far worse than they are now and we’re reduced to remnants here and there, then this means losing control over our destiny and ending up like the Druze or the Kurds.
Thus it is harder for older and more prosperous whites to relate to the challenges of Millennials and Zoomers.
Is it really harder? As a Gen X-er with two grown up kids, I can entirely relate to the problems of young whites today, and these problems are easy to understand. My guess is most parents also understand the problems even if they won’t say it out loud, but look for individualistic solutions.
A great summary of what the dimwitted self-appointed “movement leaders” get wrong about things, especially the half-baked idea that it’s all about attitude and that outside forces couldn’t possibly play a role.
Thanks Jim. It was inspired by the current debate.
We’re going on what, 40+ years of Reagan Republican tax cuts for the rich? It’s time to recognize the perpetual tax cut experiment has failed, as well as recognize that the heavy taxation experiment 1940’s-1980’s was successful. During that era, the high taxes on the wealthy pushed the executives to distribute wages more evenly. The rich used to live Warren Buffett-style, in the same neighborhoods as regular folks, instead of the walled fortresses they hide in nowadays…
It’s even more obvious when you just contemplate human nature for a few moments. People instinctively seek to perpetually grow their personal wealth, and when it comes to sharing it, they will always favor their clan, and nobody else. We can easily confirm this by looking at recent American history (the Gilded Age) as well as European / medieval history.
The scummiest aspect of our two-party system is that we are economically screwed either way. It’s either the Republican “don’t complain about low wages, maggot, just work harder!”, or the Democrat “we promise new jobs, but for now, immigration, LGBTQ and BLM are more important!”
For all those who feel that instinctive twinge (I feel it too) of “If I make a bunch of money, I should be able to keep all of it!”, I ask: how’s that working out for you? And how about your children?
In all likelihood, someone in your family is having trouble making it these days…
Part of our politics must also be providing solutions. I think the biggest area is in offering K-12 education services and materials and community building for families and our youth. We must give our future the knowledge of what they are fighting for and the intellectual means to carry on the fight. Our people, parents and grandparents, can at the same time be won over by us having been a huge help to them in safe guarding and enriching their children.
There is an ever increasing number of states where the money now follows the child. There is a cadre of more states where those political victories seem likely. What can we do to help push those victories over the line? For those that have won and those that will likely win, do we have ready-made curriculum, teachers, tutors and community programs (summer programs for learning hunting, fishing, farming, history …), for the kids that utilize our resources?
We must move from catching people who drift from the system after high school and college to properly educating our children outside of the anti-white school system.
This is quite relevant to Mark Gullick’s new fundraiser, above.
Excellent. Thank you Greg.
This is a wonderful article. I think you made a great point about what the system offers. The system offers copes. The way you articulated this and the point about conforming to a sick system was brilliant.
I am going to name a name that came to mind when reading this. I recently saw Ed Dutton interviewed by Jared Taylor and appear at the Skandza forum. He comports himself poorly. I also think there is a Pied Piper aspect to this eutopian idea that the good genes and the bad genes will just sort themselves out. It is arrogant, and quite honestly it sounds like the negroid strategy. The negroid relies on its best with fast twitch muscle fiber making it in sports, and using pity and guilt for accruing political power and money.
European peoples created extremely intricate institutions that enabled its outliers in intelligence, martial prowess, political arts, science … … to rise to the top. As importantly, our institutions marshalled the virtue of all of our people. Our averge Joe’s work ethic, cooperation, self-discipline, temperance … … allowed our best people to marshall resources not toward dealing with rampant crime and deviance but to the rapid advancement of the entire society. The entire regime on the whole took the raw materials of nature and cultivated them with wisdom and great intentionality. The eugenicist crowd ignores all of this. Like our homelands, our genetic gifts, can be squandered by hubris that blinds us to the comprehensive stewardship and cultivation of our gifts that is what really led our civilizations from the Greeks to the Romans to the Germanic peoples to build the most advanced civilizations the world has ever seen.
Look at Dutton’s posture at the Skandza forum. He sits slouched with his feet crossed out before him and his hands crossed behind his head. With Mr. Taylor he is surly and interrupting and appears loutish and uncouth. He and his ideas may have some value, but we can’t put unlikable people as the face of our movement. Moreover, people know even intuitively that genetics alone don’t make for a flourishing people and civilization any more than the rabble of merchant’s spreadsheets and rigged calculus making GDP go up does.
We must present a vision and we must be likable. We must offer something to everyone except criminals and degenerates – who when we were a great people we punished with little or no mercy. Sitting around and arrogantly talking about genes and believing that when we are a tiny minority of only the most select that we’ll rise again is foolhardy, and quite frankly it is the strongest argument against the self-anointed genetically superior that can be made. Nature doesn’t confer its benefits on who happens to be born. Its benefits are claimed by those whose actions prove them worthy. We will reclaim our homelands and our civilizational heights when our actions prove us worthy of them.
Great article.
Dutton is actually a very popular advocate for ideas that align with ours.
He and AltHype are the most respectable people making these gene sorting points.
But most of the problems facing whites are due to bad memes not bad genes, and none of these problems–genetic or memetic–will be solved without us first presenting better memes than the ones dominating our societies today.
My main objection to eugenics talk in the context of this piece is using it merely as a way to signal one’s superiority. The deeper problem is that such talk usually accompanies political passivity (we feel impotent politically so let’s let historical processes like evolution do our work for us) and is implicitly anti-intellectual.
Agreed. I do think that spiteful mutancy is not purely genetic. A child who is pandered to where the adult subverts his own authority over the child is going to be spiteful no matter its genetic makeup.
It was Plato I think who observed of democracy:
“Those who obey rules it reviles as willing slaves and men of nought, but it commends and honors in public and private rulers who resemble subjects and subjects who are like rulers… The father habitually tries to resemble the child and is afraid of his sons, and the son likens himself to the father and feels no awe or fear of his parents… And the resident alien feels himself equal to the citizen and the citizen to him, and the foreigner likewise… The teacher in such case fawns upon the pupils, and the pupils pay no heed to the teacher or to their overseers either. And, in general, the young ape their elders and vie with them in speech and action, while the old, accommodating themselves to the young, are full of pleasantry and graciousness, imitating the young for fear they may be thought disagreeable and authoritative.”
It is the order, or well, disorder as it were, and not the genetics that is the heart of our problem. We are here to restore order – the good and proper order.
Very young White man:
“How do I get out of this mess?”
Older White man:
“I know the answer (or at least I think I do), but I’m not telling you. Meanwhile I’ll sit here, pick my nose and eat my own bogies! Go forth and multiply, loser!”
“We must present a vision and we must be likable.”
There are too many lance corporals with visions only for themselves and who don’t want to be likable.
I don’t see self help and politics as a mutually exclusive dichotomy even though it tends to be cast that way in online debate.
I agree with Dr. Johnson’s position here despite how I am highly successful. A good argument to persuade those who fall into the “bootstraps” mentality is to point out that we successful people still have to work way more than we should have to and still get much less that we deserve. We should have been able to achieve the same amount of success with less effort or reaped even more rewards. I had over a 4.0 gpa in high school but did not receive a single cent of scholarship money which was not from a generic scholarship- all because I was not a Shaniqua or had time to volunteer because my time and energy went into academics, athletics, and working because I’m not a trust fund baby. 2/3 of scholarships at my high school were diversity based, the other 1/3 volunteering based. I did not forget or forgive that.
As is so often the case, Dr. Johnson is willing to take on important issues and give them a healthy, productive ‘frame’ from which to explore them.
In the 50s and 60s, most all of the dominant political ‘blocs’ commanding attention today – non-Whites, women, homosexuals – all started with ‘consciousness raising’. Which blends politics and self-help at the same time. This is where the phrase ‘the personal is the political’ first gained wide-spread usage.
Lately, I’ve been reading about the history of non-racial, largely White, ‘populist’ movements. The most recent is the evolution of ‘Alcoholics Anonymous’. I want to suggest that AA provides a model where ‘self-help’ results in political clout without it being sought at all. As AA grew in numbers, both the economic and political class took notice.
Now, pro-White ‘consciousness raising’ isn’t going to be treated the same way a the ‘consciousness-raising’ associated with AA, but the development and growth of AA do suggest ways in which a ‘populist’ entity can self-organize, sustain itself and impact politics and economics.
AA points out how ‘self-help’ is inherently ‘other help’ when people share the same problem.
And ‘other help’ is essential to political growth.
What do people here think of Handsome Truth? I am not trying to derail or cause a fight here, I genuinely want to know. He’s going down the politics route, but in a direct and zany way that recalls the glory days of TRS, only without the libertarian misanthropy.
My reading of national liberation movements (because let’s face it, that is what we are about here) led me to the conclusion that provoking the enemy into vicious overreaction against innocent whites, and using that for propaganda purposes, is the fastest way to achieve racial consciousness and solidarity. Or at least begin to set up a clear friend/enemy distinction, which will lead to the same over a much shorter timeline than simply waiting on events.
I am not as sanguine about how much time we have as GJ seems to be. And I simply do not see the value that others (not as CC) seem to in wasting time on debates with Straussian rumpswabs about natural rights theory, or spending another decade on AmRen conferences presided over by yesterday men who seem to think they can win a war by refusing to name the enemy.
Which brings me back to “HT”. By simply yelling at jews in the jewiest part of Florida, he has singlehandedly pushed the Governor of Florida to fly to Palestine to sign a bill restricting the speech of his own citizens. Talk about heightening the internal contradictions of the antiwhite system. And his online approach is simple and effective: pretend to be gay as a a means of lulling his always younger interlocutors, determine if they are vaxxed as a way to reach common ground, and then break character and get them to read from the same four or five flyers that he and his crew have been dropping all over Florida.
I’m just not seeing the downside to this. It’s not pretty, but it seems to be effective. I trust the people at CC to be smarter, and see both farther and further. So what do you make of this?
I’m done blaming Boomers. It was fun for a while, but these are our parents and grandparents. The 2020 ‘pandemic’ and ‘election’ really ‘woke’ them up to much of what we whippersnappers have known for years. Plus, the Boomers are a utility when it comes to certain professions with no replacement for entire industries that we see now that they are retiring en masse…and they seem to be the only people that actually care about anything or anybody (but unfortunately not the future).
You can’t look at an untimely demise or feminism as dysgenic/eugenic because by and large most victims of it have already reproduced. Suicide is historically a middle aged predilection, addiction is historically a partying lifestyle, and feminism is so universal now that all women are de facto feminists even if they claim not to be or even want to be since they have extra rights/privileges regardless if they use it.
‘Self-help’ is a scam popularized by well-meaning grifter Tony Robbins. It is purposely open-ended with a perpetual ‘and now what?’ The work is never finished because it is a distraction meant to trap the collective within individualism. Michelangelo likely did not have a clean room as he lay on his back for years with paint under his fingernails stylizing the Sistine Chapel. Has he cleaned his room obsessively Rome may have ended up with a Jackson Pollack ‘masterpiece’ instead.
Another high IQ piece from Greg Johnson. Don’t ever stop.
BTW I think content like this should be republished on Counter Currents as well
https://www.amren.com/videos/2023/09/dries-van-langenhove-now-is-the-time-to-act/
Thanks. I will ask Jared about that. You aren’t the first person to recommend it. It is a great speech.
I looked for a speech of his in front of a crowd as a candidate for CC. Here is what I found from this man in whose European chest beats the heart of a lion:
https://odysee.com/@Guben14:0/Dries-van-Langenhove-Speech-at-the-March-against-Marrakesh–English-Subtitles-:8
We need more nationalist activists like Dries and less of the roman saluting, swastika flag wielding activism.
This guy sets such a good example of how to make a real difference.
Anon wrote:
Not to be argumentative here, but who is doing that?
“Heilgate,” when milquetoast Spencer ended a speech with “Hail Trump! Hail our people!” ─ was much ado about nothing. I don’t think Richard Spencer did, but a few people in the audience like Mike Enoch then flashed Roman salutes. I would have too.
Spencer lost credibility when Antifa and BLM was successfully able to block him from speaking on college campuses (in spite of his trust fund).
The Hon. Jared Taylor is able to do that on a limited basis by not mentioning the JQ or the Holocaust, but at an extremely high financial cost to pay for college security and to underwrite liability.
In my opinion, the Big-H is unavoidable because it is the one plank of Thoughtcrime that you really can be prosecuted for in most advanced countries ─ and professionally lynched for in the United States, even though the First Amendment is still the law of the land. Either freedom-of-speech and association is important for White people or it isn’t.
I watched some stuff about Dries Van Langenhove, and it was indeed impressive.
I don’t agree with him when he says that the Roman Catholic Church floats all boats and that the lack of piety is the cause of all our problems in Belgium. The RC Church is a massive source of liberationist theology and race-mixing, and outright cultural Marxism, and it is definitely NOT any solution in a political sense for White people.
But I certainly do support the right of White people to practice the faith of their choosing, and for as long as they wish ─ as long as my rights as a non-Believer are respected. It is hard to go wrong with a true crusader like Léon Degrelle, a brave man who wore his faith and his politics on his sleeve.
In any case, waving a Swastika was an effective strategy in 1960s America to split from the quagmire of Kosher Conservatism and to break out of the corporate media blackout.
Plus, George Lincoln Rockwell was a WWII veteran who had actually walked the walk and could credibly take the plunge and admit that “we were horribly wrong.” In speech after speech in a suit and tie as a paid speaker on college campuses before his assassination, Commander Rockwell reiterated that “the war was not in our National interests, nor was it for the benefit of the White man.”
While it still existed, I watched as much video as I could of the 2017 “unrest” in Charlottesville when intrepid patriots protested against the removal of the statue of the venerable General Robert E. Lee.
Optics will always be important for propaganda. The worst Charlottesville “optics” that I saw was not the Krinklejammers on display, and at least one ill-advised Swastika flag flying, but when an obese White man with a grayish beard (but probably too young to be a Boomer) had his T-shirt ripped off by the BLM/Antifa.
Rather than stand there as a spectacle of “Trump’s America” or of Skinheads, Nazis, Bikers, Rednecks, Punks, etc., I would have preferred that some comrades conspicuously rescue him and get our guy into a new T-shirt from one of the nearby tourist shops, pronto.
Anyway, I am not a mouthpiece for any kind of Grug or Punk contingent, but IRL activism does have to project a kind of edgy yet very, very-disciplined approach. That is why military veterans make the best Stormtroopers.
In any case, White Nationalists effectively not being able to speak on American college campuses is unacceptable.
🙂
[629 words]
Scott asked: “Not to be argumentative here, but who is doing that?”
Well, thankfully not too many people. The majority of the Active Clubs don’t do it. Patriot Front, NJP etc don’t do it. But there are people like the nationalist group in Australia who do it, and it is extremely self marginalising. It makes it hard for anyone to give subtle support to them. And it makes it very easy for the enemy to destroy their credibility.
In response to your posting below; which Australian group are you talking about?
Politics vs. self help? A great contribution.
IMHO, we need both.
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.