117 words / 2:17:28
Fróði Midjord hosted and moderated an online debate between Greg Johnson and Jared Taylor on Guide to Kulchur last weekend on the topic of “Is It Too Late to Save White America?” The debate was held in response to the fact that many White Nationalists were shocked when Jared Taylor published the video “What Is Our Goal?” a few weeks ago, in which he made statements such as “it’s over” and “I do not believe that [the United States] can ever again become a home for white people.” One of those who objected to Taylor’s dark predictions was Greg Johnson, who published a reply at Counter-Currents: “Is America Doomed?“ The debate which followed can be viewed below.
22 comments
Thank you very much for this discussion, Greg. Both you and Jared Taylor made interesting points, and I highly recommend to anyone.
I agree with your point that we’re seeing some success with convincing whites that they need advocacy as whites, in this world of identity politics. At the rate things are going, with mass migration, political corruption, cultural breakdown, and especially more “exposure to Diversity,” I think more American whites will steadily become convinced that whites need explicit defense. We can’t take that for granted, but things do seem to be moving in that direction.
It’s easy to get discouraged in this upside-down world, but I think it’s still a matter of running the race as the tortoise rather than the hare.
Colonialism: Europe goes to Africa for wealth.
Globalism: Africa goes to Europe for welfare.
A third option:
Large Western organizations exist on the international market to assist governments with technology, investment, logistics, and consulting for the benefit of improving African nations (or any third world country) with the purpose of making them more appealing places to remain and live.
These organizations could be for profit or non-profit, with the advantage that they won’t reposess existing ports, rails, or airfields by any means.
We don’t need to make the Third World a better place to live if we just prevent them from coming here and force them to go back.
It isn’t really our business to improve those people. Beyond that, if we were to lift them up, wouldn’t we have to do that permanently? Africa was gifted a lot of infrastructure by departing colonial powers. Much of that has fallen into ruin.
What I had in mind was to give progressive whites a means to pursue their goals with their own resources if governments became nationalist and all the foreign aid was cancelled, but balkanization wasn’t an option.
I was trying to point out that these people could be helped without coming here. Market solutions aren’t popular on either side but it would be something.
The presence of progressive Whites in African nations would be an avenue for those pretending to help but really just pursuing power. Those groups would then have all the wealth of Africa and would use that to compete with and perhaps dominate isolated White ethnostates.
Yeah, agree with GJ, the origin of their problems is genetic. To attempt to uplift them is bailing an ocean. The best way to help them would be to implement some sort of population control to relax population pressures in the third world, which is the main driving force of African immigration to Europe(cf. Sailer’s scariest graph in the world) and Central American migration to the US. They will continue those fecund trends in our countries and swamp us with low iq mouths to feed as well. “We will swallow you up!” Camp of the Saints. But they never will adjust their breeding because they have a will to power and a Darwinian imperative to maximize their genetic footprint. They’re never going to say to themselves,” hey we’re dumb, we need to stop reproducing and bring in some Europeans to run things..”. You already have to have a certain iq level to have that degree of personal insight, which most likely they fall below.
The theory that we should go for the maximum conceivable reward and expect to get a bit less is not well founded.
What is logically possible, that is what can be imagined without self-contradiction, is not what is politically possible. Effective political practice has to deal with a narrower range of goals that must conform to the means available to attain them.
Goals in politics (or politics with an admixture of other means) aren’t all the same and attainable by the same paths, varying only by whether the payoff you get will be more or less. It’s more like picking between a long, rocky, and high road that will lead to a castle and a low, short and swampy road that leads to a shack. Whichever road you pick you have to abandon the other goal for the time being. If you pick the road to the shack when you could have made it to the castle you have made a mistake and you will get less than you should have. If you pick the road to the castle when the fodder you have available, the condition of your horses, and the difficulty of the passage mean that that path is too hard then you don’t get a bit less than what you wanted, rather you lose all your effort for nothing.
Jared Taylor is like a man who has gone up the hard and high road for a long time and, watching the condition of the horses going down and seeing the road ahead from a more advanced position, has concluded that if there is to be a success at all, even a partial one, the party must turn around and try to get to the shack.
Jared Taylor may be wrong (I don’t think he is) but he’s not foolish to think like that. Sometimes the only thing that can save an expedition from turning into a complete disaster is choosing the lesser goal soon enough.
I don’t think your analogy works, because right now, the path both Jared and I must take is exactly the same: propaganda, agitation, community building. Whether we think big or small, we must convince white people that white identity politics is necessary, inevitable, and moral. If enough people are convinced, we can get everything. If fewer people are convinced, we must settle for less. If we convince more, we can get more.
The only way that those paths diverge is if the think-small and think-big camps devote their propaganda and agitation to fighting against each other.
I don’t think it is realistic to believe that we can create Orania-style enclaves and trust ZOG to leave us alone.
Greg introduced the distinction between logical (I think he called it metaphysical possibility) and physical possibility. Saving America as a white country is both logically and physically possible; that is, there is no violation of the laws of logic or laws of nature involved with such a supposition. Doing so may be highly unlikely–no one challenges that. We are struggling against the odds. People have prevailed against the odds many times in history. But likelihood (probability) is a matter of degree. He also spoke of our knowledge of future contingents, a notion discussed by Aristotle in the Categories. Statements about the future may obey the law of bivalence; that is, they have a truth value of T or F. We just don’t know which. Aristotle’s example was ‘the sea battle tomorrow’. Greg argued, as well, that we have to make the same arguments–for the legitimacy of white interests–whether we aim to restore the entire country or a part of it. It is better to aim high (go for the whole enchilada), since we’ll likely end up with less than we strive for. The best way to ensure we get part of it is to go after the whole. There is also something unseemly, it seems to me, in asking nonwhites for “set asides.” I think that Greg made the better case for his position. I admire those who aim high!
Sometimes the philosophy Ph.D. shows.
Greg’s vision is optimistic about saving America as our homeland and cleansing it of the racial aliens, but he also a big fan of Calexit, which would mean losing part of that homeland. CC has also hosted writers who support Red State secession and no commenters who agree with Jared have been blocked. So I’d say he has a vision, but he is also politically realist enough that if, Godwilling, there were a real Red State secession possibility, I’d bet on him supporting it.
A point that wasn’t brought up in the discussion: the near certainty of self-deportation when an anti-immigration president takes power. There was a lot of self-deportation after Trump was elected. If an administration announced a no-tolerance policy for border crossing, many would leave. This mitigates the moral squeamishness problem that Taylor made so much of.
Much more than that needs to be done wrt illegal immigration, but also, it could be. The key point is to impose penalties of some kind(s) on the trespassers as well as employers of alien labor. A national law should be passed allowing for the seizure of (US-based) bank accounts and cash on the person, as well as ‘personalty’ (personal property, like smartphones, cars, etc), belonging to illegals. Also, remittances should be criminalized and confiscated (over doubtless Western Union objections). And, of course, national E-verify legislation must be passed mandating employers determine lawful citizenship status prior to hiring, along with very heavy fines imposed for corporate violators.
Do all this, and then watch the self-deportation fireworks.
Hoo-rah. Yes, make it so painful that they self-deport.
Probly
Greg Johnson makes the very good point that we have to oppose the idea that group self-assertion is good for every group except Whites, for whom it is taboo. Whether we aim at saving the whole of America as a national homeland for Whites or whether we aim at the survival and the flourishing of our race in North America with or without the existing U.S. of A., that is a useful task.
Another good point Greg Johnson makes is that we don’t have to “burn our boats” by attacking symbols of America that White Americans love. That would not help us in any way and would only be counterprodictive.
Even though that’s true, ultimately we have to know what goal we are aiming for. The right answer will affect all sorts of decisions, including decisions we are not even aware we are making, and it will affect future decisions we could not have expected that we would suddenly have to make in reaction to some event. Being radically confused about what you are aiming at is bad.
Absolutely. This is why I people like Nick Fuentes are such a danger. Fuentes is just the most recent in a long line of people who think white advocates should brand themselves as “Christian.” This is foolish, because Christianity is a universalistic, majority non-white religion. By embracing the Christian label, Fuentes repulses white non-Christians but opens his ranks to all manner of non-whites. Beyond that, Fuentes has such an affinity with non-whites that he has alliances with non-white Muslims, probably because they are “based” reactionaries and anti-Jewish. Of course, being anti-Jewish is also an ecumenical, multiracial crusade. So Fuentes is drawn to that. This is all identity politics in the end, but Fuentes is mixed race and Catholic, so whatever it is, it is not white identity politics and cannot lead to a white homeland.
I fully agree and I have nothing to add.
This was a wonderful discussion. I listened to it twice. I do agree with most of the points made.
If we had the power to control the borders and to advocate for White interests without shame, then much could be done whether it was with the entire country or with an ethnostate portion of it.
However, the thing with balkanization is that it leaves us with no power, and we have powerful enemies that would not hesitate to “Waco” any community that dares to define its citizenship in racial terms. I am not sure what the answer is short of “neighborhood nuclear superiority.”
If we do not have the power to secure borders in states like Arizona or Texas that have actively tried to do so for many decades, then I am not sure if it would be any easier if the country were broken up into pieces-parts.
I would also caution against underestimating the embedded nature of the enemy in Europe that would not hesitate to poison the well even if the United States of Zog ever convincingly collapsed somehow. They already enforce laws against criticizing Jews and Antifa there.
Just because the masses in former Communist states in Eastern Europe are not as morally degenerate as the ones in the West are does not mean that this can’t or won’t change in short order with or without Uncle Samuel and NATO. The Black Lesbian Orthodox Bishops are coming ─ no matter how high you can hoist the Holy Cross. Really, this debate has been going on since before the Berlin Wall came down.
If people are waiting for the American collapse to signal their freedom, I think they are going to be waiting for a very long time.
I noticed that Mr. Midjord did not want to open up the can of worms regarding the Christian question. I agree that this is a diversion that we do not need.
As long as Christians can accept Whites advocating for their own interests ─ whether this is racist or not ─ then it should not be a problem. In any case, filling the pews is not going to bring our political salvation.
As has been pointed out, every other race ─ including the Jews ─ does this kind of naked racial advocacy. It is not immoral for people to advocate for their racial interests. It is only immoral if Whites don’t advocate for their own interests.
Mr. Taylor also touched on the Jewish Question. I agree that some dissidents go crazy looking for the Joo in the Waldo puzzle.
This easily borders on crackpot conspiracy theories and lazy scholarship. The JQ must be on the table, but it is not the sine qua non of everything in the world.
Even if one is a good “anti-Semite” and does their catechism and prayers, this is useless to us just the same UNLESS one understands the racial aspect.
So the JQ must at least be on the table for debate. Anybody who thinks that accepting Jewish money is going to save a struggling Movement is deluded. Acceptance and Dependance are too close for comfort.
Also, note well. Once a Racial Nationalist movement accepts Jews into its leadership scheme it fails almost by definition. History has shown this pattern now for decades and decades.
Mr. Taylor does not seem to be countersignalling “anti-Semites” specifically as far as I can tell. I don’t see anything wrong with a policy that does not underscore the JQ exclusively. We don’t need to hate Jews, but we do need to at least be aware of the so-called Jewish Question. And we should not become financially dependent upon anyone.
I agree that there is no point in bringing back Paragraph 175 laws.
My main objection to these was that they were rarely enforced, so what’s the point?
I do think that Gay Marriage should not have become the law of the land without plebiscites, but there are other kettles of fish to cook. I was mildly supportive of domestic partnerships as long as they were not sex-specific. But these things can be worked out.
To enforce some of the fundamentalist moral codes would require too much Big Brother in the bedroom and everywhere else in my opinion, and I don’t think that benefits anyone. I’m not a Libertarian but laws have to reflect that some people are grown ups and have a right to privacy.
I don’t support anti-Adultery laws either. Look in any military publication and any time a base commander is cashiered it is always over the general’s mistress. He could have divorced the wife and married the mistress to avoid a breach of the UCMJ, but then who would pay the old lady’s portion of the health benefits and military pension? I’m not a fan of extra-marital relations and divorce ─ and not being nice to each other ─ but let’s leave the Kriminal Polizei and standard issue blackjacks to solving actual hard crimes. There is no shortage of rope, and there are no shortages of traitors.
The current high rate of divorce has nothing to do with no-fault divorce laws. All that would be gained by going back to the old puritanical system is that it forces a toxic relationship and “marriage” to last longer and to become even more toxic. Each side by definition then has to “weaponize” against the other. My parents have been married for over sixty years and they both came from broken homes. I think I have a pretty good perspective on this. I have four sisters, and two have been divorced; one was a pretty nasty situation.
Moral sloganeering is not going to make relationships better in any case. Besides, how did Covenant Marriages work out?
Well, a few years back when Slick Willy was the Chief and the nation longed for an ex-alcoholic somebody like Junior Bush, whose favorite philosopher was a guy named Jesus Christ, a few states ─ i.e, Arizona, Arkansas, and Lousiana ─ effectively made it the law that couples could opt into a sort of fault-based divorce system ─ a Covenant Marriage, if you will. Marriages are eternal sacraments if we say so, right? How romantic.
Well, the fact is that in mostly Mormon and Catholic Arizona only about 0.25 percent of couples ever went for the Covenant Marriage option.
In mostly-Catholic Louisiana, those choosing the Covenant Marriage option were less than 1 percent.
And in Arkansas, the exact numbers are not too clear ─ not that I’m saying that their family trees are not branching or anything like that ─ but the mostly Southern Baptists in the Natural State rarely (meaning less than 1 percent) chose a Covenant Marriage.
I am no fan of gender-Marxism, as I call it ─ a kind of class-warfare where the man is always at fault ─ but more modern family laws are not why marriages are in trouble in this country.
The same with abortion, birth control, lack of prayer in the schools, and women driving school buses and fighter jets. Christian Conservatives want to die on these hills but they will not bat an eyelash if Suzie Q. Ozark marries Rastus M’Benga Kang as long as he gets baptized first. Mom and Dad will even overlook a black eye or two (for the sake of the kids).
In my opinion, we do need to make race-mixing illegal again, and at the very least revoke citizenship for race-offenders ─ the right to vote, to serve on juries, etc. And no legal system can work if the jury pool isn’t even above average intelligence.
So, in reality, the White birth rate is low ─ but not because we have lost the Lord, but because family formation has somehow been rendered nearly impossible.
Effectively the White birthrate has already been incentivized somehow to be as low as possible. This is true to some extent everywhere in the Western world.
In the United States, educations are more expensive than ever ─ and more worthless than ever. Jobs have flown overseas seeking lower labor costs, and higher-end domestic positions have been taken by H1B immigrants like Sanjay Rohit. Are there any medical doctors left in the country whose native language is not Hindi? I seldom see any.
Home ownership for Americans is almost unobtainable. According to some recent financial surveys which you can easily Google, it takes an annual income of almost 74 thousand dollars just to rent a one-bedroom apartment in California. In New York state, it is over 69 thousand. West Virginia is the cheapest at over 27 thousand.
The income needed for a single person to live modestly in the United States now averages 45 thousand dollars. Arizona is $ 48,677 and Hawaii and California tie for the highest at over 57 thousand.
Even in Idaho where the minimum wage is $ 7.25 per hour, the minimum income a single person needs just to get by according to these studies is given as $44,366.
And for a family of four you are going to need two working spouses and maybe some kind of gig on the side. It is going to take some real discipline to fit that third (replacement demographic) child in.
It is clear that the USA needs a good dose of economic nationalism, secured borders, and a non-Interventionist foreign policy. Why are we sending billions and billions of tax-payer dollars to Israel and Ukraine, I wonder?
These problems can all be solved rationally.
I don’t quite agree with Mr. Taylor that the problem with White people is that they are just too nice. They are indeed badly misled, however. And this is no accident.
There are alien forces ─ traitors ─ in control. Their agenda is not ours, and they must be brought to account. This is nothing new. George Lincoln Rockwell used the analogy of “ship wreckers” some sixty years ago. This kind of subversion has gone on at least since the end of World War II.
Today almost all of the professors and college administrators are Marxists but we eschew McCarthyism, the JQ, and White advocacy itself as the greatest of evils.
A return to Law and Order would go a long way towards righting the ship.
🙂
Fixing the marriage problem – that is, bringing the divorce rate down to a level where the cost/benefit analysis of marriage is somewhat better than that of a round of Russian Roulette – should be easy. First, reform the laws so that divorce doesn’t mean the man automatically loses half of everything he ever worked for, and also owes a monthly allowance (“alimony”) long after his ex voluntarily terminated the relationship. Second, go after bottom-feeder lawyers who profiteer from breaking up marriages and use unethical practices.
I always suspected gay marriage was dreamed up by divorce lawyers to create a whole new lucrative field of gay divorce law.
Straight marriage terminates: The man has to give all his property to the ex-wife.
Gay marriage terminates: The ex-husbands keep all their own property because there are no ex-wives to which they must surrender it.
Lesbian marriage terminates: The ex-wives trade all their property.
(Yes, I’m trying to be witty here.)
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.