Counter-Currents is a publication I admire because of the leadership of Dr. Greg Johnson and its coterie of dazzling writers. As a black libertarian who appreciates nationalism of any sort, but with no affinity for nationalism, some might think that I am unfit to pen this column, but if you want anything done, you must do it yourself. Although I am not an American, I have been following the dissident Right for years. As a student, I read American Renaissance, The Occidental Observer, and The Unz Review. In fact, I started my podcast because mainstream YouTubers were reluctant to interview people such as Jim Goad and Greg Johnson.
Both were affable guests, and the latter is always willing to put me in contact with other dissidents when I ask. He also ensures that I am paid on time. Editors on the dissident Right have been remarkably receptive to my work; some have even promoted my content in international outlets. Dissidents seem to be reasonable, so I can’t comprehend why they continuously prop up fools or individuals who oppose White Nationalism. People such as Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones add nothing to the movement. They have some clout, but the truth is that quality people don’t take them seriously. None of these men have a coherent worldview beyond making noise or trolling. Yet, some White Nationalists, the dissident Right, and even some readers of Counter-Currents think that Nick Fuentes can save the movement. This writer is an anti-feminist; but not even vile anti-feminists want to hear Nick Fuentes degrade women. Although Fuentes can mobilize unstable young men on the Internet, he will never be able to galvanize serious people with influence.
Alex Jones is widely popular, but his followers are idiots. Jones proves Mencken’s theory that you never lose by underestimating the intelligence of Americans. Fuentes and Jones are entertainers in the business of building their empires, but they are not thought leaders promoting an intellectual movement. Their job is to parrot incredulous ideas in order to satisfy Americans’ insatiable appetite for garbage. Neither are they interested in red-pilling their followers. Those who listen to Alex Jones don’t care about anything serious. If he were to red-pill them, it would only result in them growing bored.
Nick’s followers might be a little smarter, but they are primarily emasculated guys who salivate over his hysteria. They are men who want to be engaged in a movement, but just as they are unable to get a woman, they are too lazy to do real work. They assume that shouting on Twitter/X or normalizing the incel cult will catapult them to the corridors of power, even though most people simply think that they are losers. Mainstream personalities who are not radical cannot sway people to the dissident Right.
White Nationalists want a larger outlet for their ideas, and this goal is not insurmountable if they employ the right strategy. White Nationalism isn’t palatable to many today, but the human biodiversity (HDB) project is gaining credibility. In order for it to succeed, White Nationalists should rebrand themselves as human biodiversity advocates, and when their new publications acquire some esteem, they must infiltrate the mainstream with dissident ideas. Saying that you are a White Nationalist is a losing strategy, since people don’t want to be associated with a movement they equate with hate. But one can be a human biodiversity advocate without being a White Nationalist.
Such advocates should also delineate the differences between White Nationalism and white supremacy. People keep conflating these ideas, but they are distinct ideologies. White supremacists believe that whites are superior and would prefer to rule over non-whites. White Nationalists, on the other hand, envision homelands for white people. They are tribalists who prefer to be around their own people because they value the cohesion of homogeneous societies. If White Nationalists would articulate their positions with greater clarity, then the stigma surrounding it would be removed.
Without recruiting smart people to write for their new HBD publications, this goal will never be achieved, however. If they succeed in employing the right people — those who can explain the idiocy of those who condemn White Nationalists as racists while revering the Black Nationalist Marcus Garvey — then the movement will gain some ground. People are becoming more receptive to discussing racial differences in intelligence and other controversial topics, and thus White Nationalists can bring their movement into the mainstream by rebranding themselves as something else and then getting people to affirm the logic of white identity politics.
This is a better strategy than expecting loudmouths to red-pill people into appreciating white identity politics. White Nationalists can continue to delude themselves, but figures such as Candace Owens, Dave Chappelle, and Fuentes won’t red-pill their followers.
It would be natural for you to wonder why I encourage white self-consciousness, and the answer is simple. Westerners have built the most dynamic societies in history, and they have developed the world’s most significant innovations and philosophies. They also created the bourgeois society which I love. Liberal humanitarianism led to disasters, but desire of white people to improve the world led to the dissolution of slavery and other abhorrent practices.
East Asians are smart, but they are lower in openness and individualism, so they will not create the liberal societies in which most people want to live. Chinese science is still not on par with the West, and the country still struggles to convert research into innovation.
The West has become emasculated and hostile to its own culture, and emasculated people don’t build great societies. If the West fails, civilization is doomed, because most peoples lack a progress-enhancing culture. Changing the culture is not impossible, but culture also correlates with genes — and the most important trait of the West is individualism. Like IQ, it is a robust predictor of institutional quality and growth, and although the research into it is in its infancy, individualism is genetic.
It is primarily the collectivism of non-Western cultures that explains why the project of exporting capitalism to the developing world has been largely unsuccessful. Markets work better in individualistic countries, and pro-market institutions are thus more successful in those countries. East Asians are rich, but they are collectivist. But they are also higher in long-term orientation, so this compensates for the deficits of their collectivism, plus they tend to be intelligent.
African countries are less intelligent, lower in long-term orientation, and are not time-oriented, which is why it has been so hard for them to modernize. It is impossible to build wealth without capital formation, and impulsive people don’t accumulate capital. Outside of the West and East Asia, the typical country is not livable for those who aren’t part of the elite. I will admit the world has gotten richer and incomes are actually converging, but it will take the rest of the world a long time to catch up with the West and East Asia.
As for black Americans, they are quite an unfortunate bunch. Because whites are so low in ethnocentrism, they defer to black demands. Other races are more tribal, and as the white population declines, we will see a corresponding decline in policies aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion. Non-whites understand the politics of race well, so the displacement of whites from positions of power will then be followed by the decline of blacks in important professions.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
On Why Pickup Artists are Superior to the Tradcon Manosphere
What’s With the Egos on These Negroes?
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha, Capítulo 26: Los Nacionalistas Blancos y la “Política Dominante”
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 574: James Tucker on George Grant and Nationalism
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha, Capítulo 25: Primero, no hagas Daño
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 573: Keith Woods Responds to Academic Agent on Ideology vs. Power
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha, Capítulo 24: La Psicología de la Apostasía
The Worst Week Yet: February 18-24, 2024