Counter-Currents
4,833 words
Earlier in 2024, Counter-Currents conducted the first ever internal poll of the movement with 540 respondents. This is the first in a series of reports detailing the findings, some of which will be published, others which will be reserved only for select movement leaders. The purpose of this report is to identify what types of people are most open to our ideas, how our ideas spread, what tactics work best on different types of people, and what are the most common barriers which need to be surmounted. Ideally, these results will facilitate the radicalization of specific individuals, as red-pillers will be able tailor their approach to match the characteristics of their targets.
It is likely that we will expand this poll to other mailing lists which may yield different results.
Key takeaways are summarized at the end of this report.
- Red Pill Trends
To study how people learn about our ideas, or become “red pilled” in internet language, we divided respondents into three general categories based on how long it took them to become red pilled: Immediately, Months, and Years. Respondents were divided almost evenly into thirds.
| 61a. From your first serious consideration of pro-white ideas, how much time did it take for you to fully accept pro-white ideas? | ||
| ALL | % | |
| Immediately | 181 | 33.5% |
| Months | 167 | 30.9% |
| Years | 192 | 35.6% |
| Total | 540 | |
A. Economics
Fewer respondents were upper middle class while growing up (for their childhood, they were allowed to select multiple options between poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy due to how one’s socio-economic status can change over 18 years).
| 3. Parents’ income/economic class while you were a child | ||
| Total % | Immediate | |
| Poor | 11.9% | 11.6% |
| Lower Middle Class | 58.3% | 62.4% |
| Upper Middle Class | 39.3% | 32.0% |
| Wealthy | 1.9% | 2.8% |
For current economic class, slightly more respondents in the Years category are upper middle class at 49.2% compared to an average of 44.6% (for current economic class they were allowed to select only one option which best reflects their status at this time).
| 61a. From your first serious consideration of pro-white ideas, how much time did it take for you to fully accept pro-white ideas? | |||||
| % All | Poor | Lower Middle Class | Upper Middle Class | Wealthy | |
| Immediately | 33.5% | 35.0% | 34.5% | 31.3% | 50.0% |
| Months | 30.9% | 28.3% | 33.2% | 29.6% | 27.8% |
| Years | 35.6% | 36.7% | 32.3% | 39.2% | 22.2% |
This suggests that being upper middle class correlates with lower radicalization, but only slightly.
Interestingly, out of the 18 respondents who identified as being currently wealthy, half were red pilled immediately at 50%, while only 22.2% were red pilled over a matter of years. While these findings have less predictive value due to the small sample size of only 18 respondents, they are suggestive that the wealthy are good targets for radicalization.
B. Miscellaneous Characteristics
Currently living in a rural area correlated with a slight increase in immediately becoming red pilled while a suburban environment correlated with a slight increase in taking years to become red pilled compared to the poll baseline. It should be noted that a substantially higher number of respondents currently live in a rural area compared to the national average.
| 15. Would you describe your surroundings as: | |||||
| % US as of 2016 (all races) | Poll % | Immediate | Months | Years | |
| Urban | 31% | 26.6% | 27.1% | 25.3% | 27.2% |
| Suburban | 55% | 50.4% | 45.9% | 51.2% | 53.9% |
| Rural | 14% | 23.0% | 27.1% | 23.5% | 18.8% |
Most respondents were Nordic or Celtic. Celtic and Central European respondents had a moderate tendency to be red pilled within months rather than years or immediately, while Mediterranean respondents had a strong tendency to be red pilled immediately rather than in months or years. However, the smaller number of Central European and Mediterranean respondents lowers the predictive value of their respective findings.
| 22. How would you describe your subracial identity? | ||||
| % Poll | Immediate | Months | Years | |
| Nordic | 39.5% | 42.0% | 37.1% | 39.1% |
| Celtic | 25.8% | 25.4% | 30.2% | 22.6% |
| Mediterranean | 9.3% | 13.0% | 6.9% | 7.5% |
| Slavic | 4.7% | 3.6% | 2.6% | 7.5% |
| Baltic | 1.8% | 1.4% | 1.7% | 2.3% |
| Central European | 9.6% | 7.2% | 12.9% | 9.0% |
| Other | 9.3% | 7.2% | 8.6% | 12.0% |
82.6% of our respondents experienced a two-parent household while growing up. For comparison, 71% of all Americans had a two-parent household, not accounting for race.[1]
| 27. Your family growing up (check all that apply): | ||||
| % Total | Immediate | Months | Years | |
| Two parent household | 82.6% | 79.4% | 90.2% | 79.6% |
| Single parent | 8.0% | 9.4% | 7.3% | 7.3% |
| Divorced parents | 18.1% | 17.2% | 15.2% | 21.5% |
| Foster home | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.5% |
| Adoptive parents | 1.3% | 1.7% | 1.2% | 1.0% |
Growing up in a two-parent household correlated with a stronger chance of being red pilled within months, while having divorced parents correlated with taking years to become red pilled.
No other major socio-economic deviations were found.
C. Previous Political Identification
The following are respondent’s previous political identifications, broken down by how quickly they were red pilled, age, and socio-economic status:
| 55. What was your last political identification before your present one? | |||||
| % All | Immediately | Months | Years | ||
| Anarchist | 3.0% | 1.7% | 3.3% | 3.0% | |
| Alt-Right | 6.1% | 6.6% | 6.9% | 6.1% | |
| Communist or socialist | 3.3% | 2.2% | 3.7% | 3.3% | |
| Dark Enlightenment (NRx) | 2.6% | 1.1% | 2.9% | 2.6% | |
| Green | 2.2% | 1.7% | 2.5% | 2.2% | |
| Mainstream Conservative | 19.1% | 16.6% | 21.4% | 19.1% | |
| Paleo-Conservative | 13.9% | 15.5% | 15.6% | 13.9% | |
| Liberal | 7.8% | 8.3% | 8.7% | 7.8% | |
| Libertarian | 21.0% | 18.8% | 23.5% | 21.0% | |
| Populist | 4.6% | 5.5% | 5.2% | 4.6% | |
| White Nationalist | 5.6% | 8.3% | 6.2% | 5.6% | |
| Far-Right: Fascist, National Socialist, authoritarian | 6.9% | 9.4% | 0.0% | 6.9% | |
| Other | 3.7% | 4.4% | 0.0% | 3.7% | |
| 55. What was your last political identification before your present one? | |||||
| % All | Zoomer | Young Millennial | Old Millennial | ||
| Anarchist | 3.0% | 6.5% | 5.9% | 4.8% | |
| Alt-Right | 6.1% | 3.2% | 5.9% | 6.3% | |
| Communist or socialist | 3.3% | 12.9% | 5.9% | 1.6% | |
| Dark Enlightenment (NRx) | 2.6% | 3.2% | 5.0% | 4.0% | |
| Green | 2.2% | 0.0% | 2.0% | 0.8% | |
| Mainstream Conservative | 19.1% | 12.9% | 12.9% | 19.0% | |
| Paleo-Conservative | 13.9% | 16.1% | 6.9% | 12.7% | |
| Liberal | 7.8% | 0.0% | 3.0% | 7.9% | |
| Libertarian | 21.0% | 19.4% | 23.8% | 23.8% | |
| Populist | 4.6% | 6.5% | 6.9% | 3.2% | |
| White Nationalist | 5.6% | 3.2% | 7.9% | 4.0% | |
| Far-Right: Fascist, National Socialist, authoritarian | 6.9% | 12.9% | 8.9% | 6.3% | |
| Other | 3.7% | 3.2% | 5.0% | 5.6% | |
| 55. What was your last political identification before your present one? | |||||
| % All | Poor | Lower Mid Class | Upper Mid Class | Wealthy | |
| Anarchist | 3.0% | 8.3% | 2.7% | 1.7% | 5.9% |
| Alt-Right | 6.1% | 5.0% | 5.9% | 5.4% | 23.5% |
| Communist or socialist | 3.3% | 5.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | 0.0% |
| Dark Enlightenment (NRx) | 2.6% | 6.7% | 2.3% | 2.1% | 0.0% |
| Green | 2.2% | 3.3% | 2.7% | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Mainstream Conservative | 19.1% | 15.0% | 16.9% | 22.1% | 23.5% |
| Paleo-Conservative | 13.9% | 8.3% | 12.8% | 17.1% | 5.9% |
| Liberal | 7.8% | 10.0% | 8.2% | 6.7% | 11.8% |
| Libertarian | 21.0% | 16.7% | 19.6% | 24.2% | 5.9% |
| Populist | 4.6% | 6.7% | 3.7% | 5.4% | 0.0% |
| White Nationalist | 5.6% | 3.3% | 7.3% | 2.9% | 23.5% |
| Far-Right: Fascist, National Socialist, authoritarian | 6.9% | 10.0% | 8.2% | 5.4% | 0.0% |
| Other | 3.7% | 1.7% | 6.4% | 2.1% | 0.0% |
Among zoomers, fewer are coming to our politics from mainstream conservatism, slightly more are already “far right,” and there has been a surprising uptick in those coming from communism and socialism but with a precipitous drop off in former generic liberals. Libertarianism remains a common previous political identification. This challenges the assumption that the old “libertarian to Alt Right” pipeline has completely dried up. While we only had 31 zoomer respondents, there results are still suggestive.
Surprisingly few wealthy respondents were formerly libertarian and none were formerly “far right” while many were formerly Alt Right or White Nationalist. Poor respondents were slightly more likely to be former anarchists or NRx, though they were still few in number. Poor respondents were also slightly less likely to have been mainstream conservative, and much less likely to have been paleo-conservative. The upper middle class had the highest number of former mainstream conservatives, paleo-conservatives, and libertarians.
D. Intelligence and Personality
We also categorized respondents by IQ if they had taken an IQ test, or by an analogous test score using percentiles if they had taken a test which correlates with intelligence. We broke respondents into several categories: Average (IQ 100-114), Above Average (115-129), Moderately Gifted (130-144) and Highly Gifted (145 plus). For reference, the average IQ of our test takers was 130, which is two standard deviations above the average of 100.
| 61a. From your first serious consideration of pro-white ideas, how much time did it take for you to fully accept pro-white ideas? | |||||
| IQ | |||||
| % All | Average | Above Average | Moderately Gifted | Highly Gifted | |
| Immediately | 33.5% | 51.6% | 27.2% | 27.5% | 37.3% |
| Months | 30.9% | 22.6% | 35.2% | 34.9% | 17.6% |
| Years | 35.6% | 25.8% | 37.6% | 37.6% | 45.1% |
Those with average intelligence were much more likely to be red pilled immediately. Those who were above average or moderately gifted were slightly less likely to be red-pilled immediately but with most of that drop being explained by a slight rise in the number who were red pilled over months. Those who were highly gifted were significantly more likely to be red pilled over years and significantly less over months with a slight increase in the immediately category. However, only 31 of our respondents were of average intelligence, and only 51 were highly gifted so their results have less predictive value.
A major gap in our poll findings are the characteristics of individuals with IQs under 100. This is a problem because a significant slice of the general public is in the 85-100 IQ range.
The OCEAN or “Big Five” test measures Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The average US score for each category is 50. The average score of all poll respondents for Openness was 80.9, 62.8 for Conscientiousness, 44.3 for Extraversion, 52.5 for Agreeableness, and 49.5 for Neuroticism.
This strongly suggests that people who are highly open to experience as defined by “a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience” should be targeted.[2]
Additionally, those who were red pilled immediately had a slightly lower-than-average neurotic score of 46.7, compared to a slightly higher score of 53.7 for those who took years. This implies that low neuroticism slightly correlates with learning about our ideas.
On the Myers-Briggs test, disproportionately more respondents had (T) Thinking combined with Intuitive (N) traits versus (F) Feeling and Observant (S) traits. INTJs, INTPs, and ENTJs were vastly over-represented compared to the general population, and ENTPs were over twice as common among our respondents than the general population.
| 71. What is your Myers-Briggs personality type? | |||
| % Poll | % General Population | ||
| INTJ | Architect | 46.3% | 2.1% |
| INTP | Logician | 18.5% | 3.3% |
| ENTJ | Commander | 10.7% | 1.8% |
| ENTP | Debater | 6.7% | 3.2% |
| INFJ | Advocate | 0.0% | 1.5% |
| INFP | Mediator | 3.0% | 4.4% |
| ENFJ | Protagonist | 1.7% | 2.5% |
| ENFP | Campaigner | 0.9% | 8.1% |
| ISTJ | Logistician | 0.0% | 11.6% |
| ISFJ | Defender | 1.5% | 13.8% |
| ESTJ | Executive | 2.0% | 8.7% |
| ESFJ | Consul | 0.9% | 12.3% |
| ISTP | Virtuoso | 5.4% | 5.4% |
| ISFP | Adventurer | 0.7% | 8.8% |
| ESTP | Entrepreneur | 1.5% | 4.3% |
| ESFP | Entertainer | 0.2% | 8.5% |
People whose personalities combine thinking over feeling combined with intuition over observation are prime targets for radicalization.[3] These types tend to be highly competent people, and especially the INTJs. However, this strength is also a weakness because the fact that our personality rates are so different from the general populace may hinder effective outreach. One possible solution to this shortcoming is focus groups.
There was surprisingly little variation in Myers-Briggs personality type distribution across the different data sets which were analyzed.
Respondents who have seriously doubted or discarded pro-white ideas were significantly more likely to have taken years to become red pilled.
| 61a. From your first serious consideration of pro-white ideas, how much time did it take for you to fully accept pro-white ideas? | ||
| 67. Once you became pro-white, did you ever seriously doubt or discard pro-white ideas? | ||
| % All | Yes to Question 67 | |
| Immediately | 33.5% | 18.0% |
| Months | 30.9% | 26.0% |
| Years | 35.6% | 56.0% |
This emphasizes the need to focus on people who can be red pilled immediately or relatively soon rather than years, because those who take a long time are prone to reverting to their previous positions anyways.
Those who had seriously doubted our ideas had an average score of 55.5 out of 100 on the Conscientiousness part of the OCEAN personality test. While this was above the national US average of 50, it was also below the poll average of 62.8.
E. Religion
79.1% of our respondents had a Christian upbringing with hardly any variation across the red pill categories of Immediately, Months, and Years. However, only 41.4% currently identify as Christian. For comparison, 63-65% of US citizens are Christian.
9.7% of respondents had a religious primary education and this number dipped to 3.6% of those who were red pilled over a matter of months (a 62.9% decrease). Despite a small sample size, this suggests that formal Christian religiosity correlates with either being very open to or very resistant to our ideas with less of a middle ground. Thus, people with a more formal religious upbringing should be targeted for radicalization but attempts to red pill them should be abandoned if progress is not forthcoming.
| 18a. What are your current religious beliefs?: | ||||
| ALL | Immediate | Months | Years | |
| Atheist/agnostic | 32.3% | 30.6% | 34.8% | 31.9% |
| Christian | 41.4% | 41.1% | 39.0% | 44.0% |
| Traditionalist/perennialist | 10.4% | 10.6% | 11.0% | 9.9% |
| Jewish | 0.2% | 0.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Muslim (Sunni) | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Muslim (Shia) | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| New Age | 1.3% | 1.1% | 2.4% | 0.5% |
| Hindu | 1.5% | 0.6% | 1.8% | 2.1% |
| Buddhist | 3.5% | 2.8% | 3.7% | 4.2% |
| Thelemite | 0.7% | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.0% |
| Pagan (Asatru) | 12.5% | 13.9% | 14.0% | 9.9% |
| Pagan (Greco-Roman) | 3.9% | 5.6% | 2.4% | 3.7% |
| Pagan (other) | 7.1% | 8.9% | 9.1% | 3.7% |
| Wiccan | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Other | 16.4% | 17.8% | 15.9% | 15.7% |
Respondents who are currently some form of pagan were more likely to be red pilled immediately or within months, and less likely to take years to red pill. However, this did not hold true for traditionalists/perennialists, who had very little variation in their red pill times.
Different Christian denominations had different red pill trends:
| Current Denomination | ALL Christians | Immediate | Months | Years |
| Catholic | 32.4% | 35.1% | 21.9% | 38.1% |
| Orthodox | 10.4% | 8.1% | 14.1% | 9.5% |
| Lutheran | 6.3% | 8.1% | 6.3% | 4.8% |
| Anglican/Episcopalian | 9.5% | 9.5% | 7.8% | 10.7% |
| Presbyterian/Reformed | 6.8% | 4.1% | 12.5% | 4.8% |
| Methodist | 1.8% | 0.0% | 4.7% | 1.2% |
| Baptist | 7.2% | 6.8% | 6.3% | 8.3% |
| Non-denominational | 14.0% | 16.2% | 14.1% | 11.9% |
| Mormon | 1.8% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 3.6% |
| Anabaptist | 0.9% | 2.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Swedenborgian | 0.9% | 2.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Christian Science | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Pentecostal | 0.5% | 1.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Unitarian | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Congregationalist | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Church of Christ | 0.5% | 1.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Disciples of Christ | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nazarene | 0.5% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% |
| Seventh Day Adventist | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jehovah’s Witness | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Quaker | 0.5% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% |
| Other | 10.8% | 13.5% | 12.5% | 7.1% |
Catholics (who were the most numerous at 32.4% of Christian respondents) tended to have become red pilled either immediately or within years. A similar but less pronounced trend was seen among Anglicans/Episcopalians. The opposite was true for Orthodox, Presbytrian/Reformed, and Methodist respondents who were more likely to have been red pilled within months rather than immediately or within years. Non-denominational respondents tended slightly towards being red pilled immediately or within months versus years.
Interestingly, 38.5% of Zoomers identified as Catholic and 30.8% as Orthodox. While zoomer respondents were few in number, this is suggestive of a shift towards Catholicism and Orthodoxy among the youth in our ranks.
Unlike whether respondents had a formal religious schooling, the intensity of respondents’ current religious beliefs had only a minimal correlation with how long it took them to become red pilled. Intense religious beliefs correlated with a tiny increase in taking years to red pill, while weak religious beliefs correlated with a tiny increase in being red pilled immediately. That this difference was so slight should dispel the notion that Christianity is incompatible with ethno-nationalism, at least in practice.
| 19. How would you rate the intensity of your religious beliefs or disbelief? | ||||
| Total % | Immediate | Months | Years | |
| Weak | 18.6% | 20.4% | 17.5% | 17.8% |
| Moderate | 48.5% | 45.3% | 50.6% | 49.7% |
| Intense | 26.4% | 24.3% | 25.9% | 28.8% |
| Don’t know | 6.5% | 9.9% | 6.0% | 3.7% |
F. Exposure to Diversity
We asked respondents how much diversity they were exposed to growing up. They could answer none, a little, some, or a lot:
| 42. Were you exposed to substantial racial diversity growing up? | ||||
| % All | Immediately | Months | Years | |
| None | 18.6% | 18.8% | 21.0% | 16.4% |
| A little | 36.5% | 29.3% | 41.3% | 39.2% |
| Some | 22.3% | 26.5% | 16.2% | 23.8% |
| A lot | 22.5% | 25.4% | 21.6% | 20.6% |
| 61a. From your first serious consideration of pro-white ideas, how much time did it take for you to fully accept pro-white ideas? | |||||
| Racial Diversity Growing Up | |||||
| % All | None | A Little | Some | A Lot | |
| Immediately | 33.5% | 34.0% | 27.0% | 40.0% | 38.0% |
| Months | 30.9% | 35.0% | 35.2% | 22.5% | 29.8% |
| Years | 35.6% | 31.0% | 37.8% | 37.5% | 32.2% |
Significantly more people who were exposed to “a little” diversity took months or years to red pill rather than immediately, and significantly more people who were exposed to “some” diversity were red pilled immediately rather than over the course of months or years. However, while those who were exposed to “a lot” of diversity were more likely to be red pilled immediately rather than months or years, that disparity was less pronounced than the “some” category.
This suggests that while reality can certainly radicalize people there are diminishing returns, and at some point, even a reversal. While vast amounts of diversity can certainly radicalize some whites, others may become hopeless, or even assimilate into and identify with non-white culture (the rapper Eminem comes to mind). This undermines the accelerationist standpoint that we can win through losing because worsening conditions will radicalize people for us.
- Red Pill Paths
A. Spokesmen, Platforms, and Media
The most common pro-white spokesman respondents encountered was Jared Taylor at about 20% (note: this does not account for alternate spellings, titles, etc. Future polls will direct respondents to use first name plus last name whenever applicable). The second most common was David Duke at 8.9%.
Jared Taylor was the spokesman most respondents said was the most influential pro-white spokesman they had encountered at 29.5%. The second was Greg Johnson at 14% (it should be emphasized that future polls of other mailing lists may yield different results).
24.1% of respondents reported that American Renaissance (combined with “AmRen”) was the first pro-white platform they had encountered. 9.3% said Counter-Currents, 8.8% Stormfront, and 4.7% VDare.
17.1% rated American Renaissance as the most influential pro-white platform they had encountered, as did 32.6% for Counter-Currents.
When we asked respondents to rate who they thought was the single first, second, and third most influential movement spokesman, they overwhelmingly selected Jared Taylor. 36.1% said that Jared Taylor was the most effective, 16.7% second most effective, and 8.2% third most effective. The respective numbers for Greg Johnson were 14.2%, 18.3%, and 8.9%.
These facts show the importance of unbanning Jared Taylor on X, formerly known as Twitter, and a campaign to pressure Elon Musk to unban him ought to be organized.
We also explored through what channels people became red pilled:
| 59a. Where did you first hear about pro-white ideas? | ||||
| % All | Immediately | Months | Years | |
| Mainstream (Left) media | 5.6% | 3.3% | 4.8% | 8.3% |
| Mainstream Conservative media | 2.8% | 0.6% | 4.2% | 3.6% |
| Fox News | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Tucker Carlson | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5% |
| X/Twitter | 2.2% | 2.2% | 3.0% | 1.6% |
| Facebook or Instagram | 1.5% | 1.1% | 1.8% | 1.6% |
| YouTube or other video sharing platforms | 13.7% | 8.3% | 20.4% | 13.0% |
| Online discussion forums | 14.3% | 14.9% | 13.2% | 14.6% |
| Video/computer gaming | 0.4% | 0.6% | 0.0% | 0.5% |
| Alternative News media (e.g., Infowars, One America News Network) | 4.1% | 3.9% | 3.0% | 5.2% |
| “Alt-Right” or White Nationalist media (Amren, Counter-Currents, VDare) | 25.0% | 26.0% | 23.4% | 25.5% |
| Friends and family | 14.6% | 15.5% | 16.2% | 12.5% |
| Other | 15.6% | 23.8% | 9.6% | 13.0% |
| 59a. Where did you first hear about pro-white ideas? | ||||
| % All | Zoomer | Young Millennials | Old Millennials | |
| Mainstream (Left) media | 5.6% | 9.7% | 5.0% | 5.5% |
| Mainstream Conservative media | 2.8% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 3.1% |
| Fox News | 0.2% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| Tucker Carlson | 0.2% | 3.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| X/Twitter | 2.2% | 3.2% | 1.0% | 5.5% |
| Facebook or Instagram | 1.5% | 3.2% | 5.0% | 0.8% |
| YouTube or other video sharing platforms | 13.7% | 32.3% | 21.8% | 15.7% |
| Online discussion forums | 14.3% | 12.9% | 24.8% | 17.3% |
| Video/computer gaming | 0.4% | 3.2% | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| Alternative News media (e.g., Infowars, One America News Network) | 4.1% | 0.0% | 3.0% | 4.7% |
| “Alt-Right” or White Nationalist media (Amren, Counter-Currents, VDare) | 25.0% | 3.2% | 15.8% | 20.5% |
| Friends and family | 14.6% | 25.8% | 8.9% | 15.7% |
| Other | 15.6% | 3.2% | 11.9% | 11.0% |
A quarter of all respondents first heard about our ideas directly from our sources. However, there was a precipitous drop off in young people first hearing about our ideas through our sources with 20.5% of older Millennials, 15.8% of young Millennials, and only 3.2% of Zoomers selecting this option. This strongly suggests that we have both mastered spreading our ideas through other vectors and that we need to keep those vectors open.
Fewer people who were red pilled immediately at 8.3% heard about our ideas through YouTube and other video platforms, compared to more people who were red pilled over months at 20.4%. For comparison, the poll average for YouTube, etc. was 13.7%. Significantly more people who were red pilled immediately first heard about our ideas through the “Other” category at 23.8% (books, history, music, propaganda, and old school figures were common answers in the “Other” category).
Age cohorts had the greatest variation in answers. Youth correlated strongly with hearing about our ideas through YouTube and other video sharing platforms with 21.8% of Young Millennials and 32.3% of Zoomers selecting this answer, compared to a poll average of 13.7%. There was also a large spike in Young Millennials first hearing about our ideas via online discussion forums at 24.8%.
Almost twice as many Zoomers first heard about our ideas through Mainstream Leftist sources at 9.7%, almost double the poll average of 5.6%. This suggests that there may be some truth to the notion that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and that the media has tarnished their credibility through constant lying.
Over a quarter of Zoomers at 25.8% first heard about our ideas through friends and family, versus a poll average of 14.6%. This shows that red pilling people in real life is an effective form of activism. That this large spike among Zoomers followed a dip among young Millennials at 8.9% suggests that the movement was an extremely online phenomenon when young Millennials dominated it during the Alt Right era, and that it is now becoming more real life. This should also challenge the assumption that Zoomers are “terminally online.”
Additionally, 33.3% of wealthy respondents first heard about our ideas through friends and family. When combined with how 50% of wealthy respondents became red pilled immediately, this means that the movement should focus on networking with wealthy individuals so that they can be courted through in real life interactions.
- Barriers and Resistance
We asked respondents what were their major reservations and objections to our ideas and they could select multiple options. Top results were fear of social disapproval/ostracism at 31.6%, not all non-whites are like that (frequently abbreviated as NAXALT in online discourse) at 28.2%, and toxic/unappealing people at 24.5%. Respondents on average had 3.6 objections.
There were significant variations by age:
| 60a. What, if any, were your major reservations or objections regarding pro-white ideas? (check all that apply) | ||||
| % All | Zoomers | Young Millennials | Old Millennials | |
| Not true | 5.4% | 6.5% | 10.3% | 8.3% |
| Too mean | 15.9% | 9.7% | 34.0% | 17.5% |
| Too extreme | 17.9% | 9.7% | 28.9% | 20.8% |
| All men are created equal. | 17.3% | 22.6% | 23.7% | 20.8% |
| Not all non-whites are like that. | 28.2% | 25.8% | 28.9% | 31.7% |
| I am an individualist. I don’t see groups. | 21.3% | 19.4% | 29.9% | 23.3% |
| Values and culture are more important than a common race. | 19.7% | 12.9% | 29.9% | 17.5% |
| Association with violence and totalitarianism | 18.7% | 22.6% | 24.7% | 22.5% |
| Holocaust | 10.1% | 3.2% | 11.3% | 15.8% |
| Diversity is our strength. | 2.0% | 0.0% | 4.1% | 1.7% |
| Fear of social disapproval/ostracism | 31.6% | 38.7% | 30.9% | 32.5% |
| Won’t work/not practical | 15.7% | 16.1% | 17.5% | 15.0% |
| Too late | 12.7% | 6.5% | 11.3% | 11.7% |
| Non-white friends or family | 11.9% | 9.7% | 17.5% | 13.3% |
| Toxic /unappealing people | 24.5% | 16.1% | 27.8% | 31.7% |
| Immoral | 9.1% | 9.7% | 17.5% | 8.3% |
| Low class | 15.5% | 9.7% | 17.5% | 23.3% |
| Too populist | 2.6% | 3.2% | 2.1% | 7.5% |
| Too elitist | 2.6% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% |
| Too statist | 5.2% | 3.2% | 7.2% | 8.3% |
| Too Right-wing | 6.0% | 9.7% | 6.2% | 5.0% |
| Too socialist | 2.6% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 5.0% |
| Too theoretical | 4.2% | 3.2% | 3.1% | 4.2% |
| Too weird/cultish/anti-social | 16.9% | 9.7% | 26.8% | 16.7% |
| Religious objections | 5.8% | 6.5% | 7.2% | 4.2% |
| Anti-American | 4.2% | 6.5% | 9.3% | 3.3% |
| Too depressing | 7.8% | 9.7% | 12.4% | 11.7% |
| Too hard to admit one is wrong | 6.6% | 19.4% | 12.4% | 3.3% |
| Race is not real. | 3.4% | 3.2% | 6.2% | 5.8% |
| Too invested in the current system | 5.4% | 3.2% | 7.2% | 3.3% |
| Other | 10.5% | 3.2% | 12.4% | 6.7% |
Zoomers had an average of 3.2 objections, young millennials 4.8, and old millennials 4.0.
Over a third of young millennials at 34% answered “too mean” which was over twice the poll average of 15.9%. However, only 9.7% of zoomers selected this option. This might be explained in part by either the toxicity of the previous Alt Right era, or that people have become desensitized to such concerns due to polarization and the left trading the velvet glove for a mailed fist. There was a similar trend with the option of “too extreme” “values and culture are more important than a common race” “toxic/unappealing people” and “too weird/cultish/antisocial.”
Only 3.2% of zoomers listed the Holocaust versus 10.1% of all respondents. This corroborates other findings that the Holocaust is losing its potency as a guilt trip, and especially among the youth.
More zoomers listed fear of social disapproval/ostracism at 38.7% compared to the poll average of 31.6%. Additionally, 6.5% of zoomers listed “too late” which is about half the poll average of 12.7%, most likely because they have no choice but to face the future. In a stark contrast, only 6.6% of all respondents and 3.3% of older millennials said “too hard to admit one is wrong” but this spiked to 12.4% of young millennials and 19.4% of zoomers.
Poor respondents had on average 3.9 objections, lower middle class 3.5, upper middle class 3.7, and wealthy respondents 3.1.
| 60a. What, if any, were your major reservations or objections regarding pro-white ideas? (check all that apply) | |||||
| % | Poor | LMC | UMC | Wealthy | |
| Not true | 5.4% | 7.3% | 5.7% | 5.0% | 0.0% |
| Too mean | 15.9% | 21.8% | 14.8% | 15.9% | 12.5% |
| Too extreme | 17.9% | 14.5% | 18.7% | 19.1% | 6.3% |
| All men are created equal. | 17.3% | 16.4% | 17.7% | 18.2% | 6.3% |
| Not all non-whites are like that. | 28.2% | 16.4% | 28.7% | 31.8% | 18.8% |
| I am an individualist. I don’t see groups. | 21.3% | 12.7% | 22.0% | 22.7% | 25.0% |
| Values and culture are more important than a common race. | 19.7% | 12.7% | 22.5% | 18.6% | 18.8% |
| Association with violence and totalitarianism | 18.7% | 27.3% | 17.7% | 18.6% | 6.3% |
| Holocaust | 10.1% | 9.1% | 9.1% | 11.8% | 6.3% |
| Diversity is our strength. | 2.0% | 7.3% | 1.9% | 0.9% | 0.0% |
| Fear of social disapproval/ostracism | 31.6% | 27.3% | 25.4% | 38.2% | 31.3% |
| Won’t work/not practical | 15.7% | 18.2% | 15.3% | 14.5% | 25.0% |
| Too late | 12.7% | 14.5% | 12.9% | 11.4% | 18.8% |
| Non-white friends or family | 11.9% | 12.7% | 10.0% | 13.6% | 12.5% |
| Toxic /unappealing people | 24.5% | 29.1% | 22.0% | 25.0% | 37.5% |
| Immoral | 9.1% | 16.4% | 8.6% | 7.7% | 12.5% |
| Low class | 15.5% | 18.2% | 12.9% | 17.3% | 12.5% |
| Too populist | 2.6% | 3.6% | 2.4% | 2.7% | 0.0% |
| Too elitist | 2.6% | 5.5% | 3.3% | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Too statist | 5.2% | 7.3% | 4.3% | 5.9% | 0.0% |
| Too Right-wing | 6.0% | 5.5% | 7.2% | 5.5% | 0.0% |
| Too socialist | 2.6% | 0.0% | 1.4% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| Too theoretical | 4.2% | 5.5% | 5.3% | 2.7% | 6.3% |
| Too weird/cultish/anti-social | 16.9% | 21.8% | 17.2% | 16.8% | 0.0% |
| Religious objections | 5.8% | 10.9% | 5.7% | 4.5% | 6.3% |
| Anti-American | 4.2% | 5.5% | 1.9% | 6.4% | 0.0% |
| Too depressing | 7.8% | 12.7% | 6.7% | 7.7% | 6.3% |
| Too hard to admit one is wrong | 6.6% | 9.1% | 6.2% | 6.4% | 6.3% |
| Race is not real. | 3.4% | 7.3% | 3.8% | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| Too invested in the current system | 5.4% | 7.3% | 4.8% | 5.0% | 12.5% |
| Other | 10.5% | 3.6% | 13.4% | 8.6% | 25.0% |
The top objection for the wealthy was toxic/unappealing people at 37.5%, which was much higher than the poll average of 24.5%. 25% of wealthy respondents also selected “won’t work/not practical.” Thus, to attract rogue elites we should focus on proposing concrete, workable solutions—which just so happens to be the focus of The Homeland Institute. The movement has also made great strides in curtailing toxic people and behaviors, and should continue to do so.
For the upper middle class, the top objection was social disapproval/ostracism at 38.2% versus a poll average of 31.6%, and among the lower middle class the top reason was NAXALT at 28.7%. The top reason for poor respondents was toxic/unappealing people at 29.1%, closely followed by association with violence and totalitarianism at 27.3% which was significantly higher than the poll average of 18.7%.
In regard to exposure to diversity growing up, those who had none had 2.8 objections on average, a little 3.9, some 3.6, and a lot 3.8. This further buttresses the aforementioned-findings that too much exposure to diversity has diminishing returns and even a slight reversal past a certain point.
| 60a. What, if any, were your major reservations or objections regarding pro-white ideas? (check all that apply) | |||||
| % All | None | A Little | Some | A Lot | |
| Not true | 5.4% | 4.3% | 5.5% | 2.8% | 8.5% |
| Too mean | 15.9% | 13.0% | 14.8% | 13.1% | 22.2% |
| Too extreme | 17.9% | 14.1% | 21.9% | 19.6% | 12.8% |
| All men are created equal. | 17.3% | 10.9% | 20.2% | 17.8% | 17.9% |
| Not all non-whites are like that. | 28.2% | 25.0% | 27.3% | 34.6% | 26.5% |
| I am an individualist. I don’t see groups. | 21.3% | 21.7% | 24.0% | 16.8% | 20.5% |
| Values and culture are more important than a common race. | 19.7% | 18.5% | 25.1% | 16.8% | 14.5% |
| Association with violence and totalitarianism | 18.7% | 16.3% | 19.1% | 19.6% | 18.8% |
| Holocaust | 10.1% | 12.0% | 9.3% | 9.3% | 11.1% |
| Diversity is our strength. | 2.0% | 0.0% | 2.7% | 1.9% | 2.6% |
| Fear of social disapproval/ostracism | 31.6% | 21.7% | 36.1% | 32.7% | 29.9% |
| Won’t work/not practical | 15.7% | 13.0% | 19.1% | 15.0% | 13.7% |
| Too late | 12.7% | 10.9% | 14.2% | 12.1% | 12.8% |
| Non-white friends or family | 11.9% | 6.5% | 10.4% | 14.0% | 17.1% |
| Toxic /unappealing people | 24.5% | 22.8% | 25.1% | 16.8% | 31.6% |
| Immoral | 9.1% | 3.3% | 12.0% | 7.5% | 11.1% |
| Low class | 15.5% | 8.7% | 19.7% | 15.0% | 15.4% |
| Too populist | 2.6% | 1.1% | 2.7% | 1.9% | 4.3% |
| Too elitist | 2.6% | 2.2% | 4.4% | 0.9% | 1.7% |
| Too statist | 5.2% | 3.3% | 4.4% | 7.5% | 6.0% |
| Too Right-wing | 6.0% | 5.4% | 8.2% | 6.5% | 2.6% |
| Too socialist | 2.6% | 2.2% | 3.3% | 3.7% | 0.9% |
| Too theoretical | 4.2% | 2.2% | 4.9% | 4.7% | 4.3% |
| Too weird/cultish/anti-social | 16.9% | 13.0% | 14.8% | 20.6% | 19.7% |
| Religious objections | 5.8% | 5.4% | 8.7% | 3.7% | 3.4% |
| Anti-American | 4.2% | 3.3% | 2.7% | 5.6% | 6.0% |
| Too depressing | 7.8% | 4.3% | 9.8% | 9.3% | 5.1% |
| Too hard to admit one is wrong | 6.6% | 5.4% | 5.5% | 4.7% | 11.1% |
| Race is not real. | 3.4% | 3.3% | 3.8% | 1.9% | 3.4% |
| Too invested in the current system | 5.4% | 1.1% | 6.0% | 7.5% | 6.0% |
| Other | 10.5% | 9.8% | 7.7% | 12.1% | 14.5% |
For those who had no diversity growing up the top objection was NAXALT at 25% followed closely by fear of social disapproval and “I am an individualist. I don’t see groups” at 21.7%. For those with a little diversity, the top objection was social disapproval at 36.1%. For those with some diversity, the top objection was NAXALT at 34.6%. For those with a lot, the top objection was toxic/unappealing people at 31.6% which was closely followed by fear of social disapproval at 29.9%.
Regarding IQ, those of average intelligence had 4 objections on average, above average 3.7, moderately gifted 3.6, and highly gifted 4. There is an interesting paradox in despite having more objections on average, respondents with average intelligence were significantly more likely to be red pilled immediately.
| 60a. What, if any, were your major reservations or objections regarding pro-white ideas? (check all that apply) | |||||
| % All | Average | AA | M Gifted | H Gifted | |
| Not true | 5.4% | 3.6% | 7.0% | 4.9% | 6.3% |
| Too mean | 15.9% | 7.1% | 13.0% | 19.0% | 16.7% |
| Too extreme | 17.9% | 14.3% | 20.0% | 16.9% | 20.8% |
| All men are created equal. | 17.3% | 32.1% | 17.4% | 12.0% | 16.7% |
| Not all non-whites are like that. | 28.2% | 50.0% | 30.4% | 27.5% | 29.2% |
| I am an individualist. I don’t see groups. | 21.3% | 39.3% | 14.8% | 22.5% | 22.9% |
| Values and culture are more important than a common race. | 19.7% | 32.1% | 17.4% | 19.0% | 16.7% |
| Association with violence and totalitarianism | 18.7% | 17.9% | 20.9% | 16.9% | 20.8% |
| Holocaust | 10.1% | 10.7% | 13.0% | 7.7% | 12.5% |
| Diversity is our strength. | 2.0% | 3.6% | 3.5% | 0.0% | 2.1% |
| Fear of social disapproval/ostracism | 31.6% | 39.3% | 19.1% | 38.7% | 31.3% |
| Won’t work/not practical | 15.7% | 10.7% | 17.4% | 15.5% | 16.7% |
| Too late | 12.7% | 7.1% | 12.2% | 9.9% | 25.0% |
| Non-white friends or family | 11.9% | 14.3% | 15.7% | 14.8% | 4.2% |
| Toxic /unappealing people | 24.5% | 25.0% | 20.9% | 29.6% | 35.4% |
| Immoral | 9.1% | 0.0% | 13.9% | 6.3% | 10.4% |
| Low class | 15.5% | 14.3% | 13.0% | 20.4% | 20.8% |
| Too populist | 2.6% | 0.0% | 1.7% | 2.8% | 6.3% |
| Too elitist | 2.6% | 3.6% | 2.6% | 3.5% | 0.0% |
| Too statist | 5.2% | 3.6% | 4.3% | 7.0% | 6.3% |
| Too Right-wing | 6.0% | 3.6% | 7.8% | 2.8% | 6.3% |
| Too socialist | 2.6% | 0.0% | 2.6% | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Too theoretical | 4.2% | 3.6% | 5.2% | 5.6% | 2.1% |
| Too weird/cultish/anti-social | 16.9% | 14.3% | 18.3% | 14.1% | 29.2% |
| Religious objections | 5.8% | 3.6% | 7.0% | 3.5% | 8.3% |
| Anti-American | 4.2% | 7.1% | 6.1% | 3.5% | 4.2% |
| Too depressing | 7.8% | 7.1% | 12.2% | 8.5% | 2.1% |
| Too hard to admit one is wrong | 6.6% | 10.7% | 8.7% | 4.2% | 12.5% |
| Race is not real. | 3.4% | 7.1% | 3.5% | 2.8% | 4.2% |
| Too invested in the current system | 5.4% | 10.7% | 4.3% | 4.2% | 6.3% |
| Other | 10.5% | 7.1% | 11.3% | 9.9% | 8.3% |
The top objection for those of average intelligence was NAXALT at a staggering 50%, compared to a poll average of 28.2%, followed by “I am an individualist. I don’t see groups” and fear of social disapproval, each at 39.3%.
For respondents of above average IQ the top objection was NAXALT at 30.4%, and for the moderately gifted, social disapproval at 38.7%.
For the highly gifted, the top objection was toxic/unappealing people at 35.4%, followed by fear of social disapproval at 31.3%, NAXALT at 29.2%, and too weird/cultish/antisocial at 29.2%. Interestingly, 25% of the highly gifted answered “too late” which was almost twice the poll rate of 12.7%.
Christians and atheists/agnostics both had an average number of 3.6 objections. However, there was some difference in their type of objections:
| 60a. What, if any, were your major reservations or objections regarding pro-white ideas? (check all that apply) | |||
| % All | Christian | Atheist/agnostic | |
| Not true | 5.4% | 2.9% | 7.0% |
| Too mean | 15.9% | 13.7% | 10.9% |
| Too extreme | 17.9% | 18.9% | 19.5% |
| All men are created equal. | 17.3% | 23.4% | 11.7% |
| Not all non-whites are like that. | 28.2% | 33.1% | 18.0% |
| I am an individualist. I don’t see groups. | 21.3% | 20.6% | 25.8% |
| Values and culture are more important than a common race. | 19.7% | 22.3% | 19.5% |
| Association with violence and totalitarianism | 18.7% | 15.4% | 24.2% |
| Holocaust | 10.1% | 10.3% | 8.6% |
| Diversity is our strength. | 2.0% | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Fear of social disapproval/ostracism | 31.6% | 36.6% | 27.3% |
| Won’t work/not practical | 15.7% | 18.9% | 16.41% |
| Too late | 12.7% | 14.9% | 15.63% |
| Non-white friends or family | 11.9% | 9.1% | 11.72% |
| Toxic /unappealing people | 24.5% | 22.3% | 28.9% |
| Immoral | 9.1% | 10.3% | 9.4% |
| Low class | 15.5% | 14.3% | 14.8% |
| Too populist | 2.6% | 0.6% | 5.5% |
| Too elitist | 2.6% | 2.9% | 1.6% |
| Too statist | 5.2% | 3.4% | 7.0% |
| Too Right-wing | 6.0% | 2.9% | 9.4% |
| Too socialist | 2.6% | 2.3% | 4.7% |
| Too theoretical | 4.2% | 5.1% | 5.5% |
| Too weird/cultish/anti-social | 16.9% | 16.6% | 17.2% |
| Religious objections | 5.8% | 8.0% | 3.1% |
| Anti-American | 4.2% | 4.6% | 3.1% |
| Too depressing | 7.8% | 5.7% | 11.7% |
| Too hard to admit one is wrong | 6.6% | 5.1% | 7.0% |
| Race is not real. | 3.4% | 2.9% | 1.6% |
| Too invested in the current system | 5.4% | 7.4% | 5.5% |
| Other | 10.5% | 7.4% | 6.3% |
Those who were red pilled immediately had on average 2.6 objections, within months 3.4 objections, and within years 4.7 objections:
| 60a. What, if any, were your major reservations or objections regarding pro-white ideas? (check all that apply) | ||||
| % All | Immediately | Months | Years | |
| Not true | 5.4% | 3.2% | 5.7% | 6.9% |
| Too mean | 15.9% | 11.7% | 17.6% | 18.0% |
| Too extreme | 17.9% | 8.4% | 17.0% | 26.5% |
| All men are created equal. | 17.3% | 7.8% | 15.7% | 26.5% |
| Not all non-whites are like that. | 28.2% | 19.5% | 25.8% | 37.6% |
| I am an individualist. I don’t see groups. | 21.3% | 13.6% | 20.8% | 28.0% |
| Values and culture are more important than a common race. | 19.7% | 7.8% | 22.0% | 27.5% |
| Association with violence and totalitarianism | 18.7% | 11.0% | 18.2% | 25.4% |
| Holocaust | 10.1% | 8.4% | 8.8% | 12.7% |
| Diversity is our strength. | 2.0% | 0.0% | 2.5% | 3.2% |
| Fear of social disapproval/ostracism | 31.6% | 28.6% | 28.9% | 36.5% |
| Won’t work/not practical | 15.7% | 13.0% | 18.2% | 15.9% |
| Too late | 12.7% | 17.5% | 9.4% | 11.6% |
| Non-white friends or family | 11.9% | 10.4% | 8.2% | 16.4% |
| Toxic /unappealing people | 24.5% | 20.1% | 20.8% | 31.2% |
| Immoral | 9.1% | 5.2% | 8.8% | 12.7% |
| Low class | 15.5% | 10.4% | 10.7% | 23.8% |
| Too populist | 2.6% | 0.6% | 2.5% | 4.2% |
| Too elitist | 2.6% | 1.9% | 3.1% | 2.6% |
| Too statist | 5.2% | 2.6% | 6.3% | 6.3% |
| Too Right-wing | 6.0% | 2.6% | 6.3% | 8.5% |
| Too socialist | 2.6% | 3.9% | 1.9% | 2.1% |
| Too theoretical | 4.2% | 4.5% | 3.1% | 4.8% |
| Too weird/cultish/anti-social | 16.9% | 13.6% | 13.2% | 22.8% |
| Religious objections | 5.8% | 2.6% | 8.8% | 5.8% |
| Anti-American | 4.2% | 1.9% | 4.4% | 5.8% |
| Too depressing | 7.8% | 6.5% | 7.5% | 9.0% |
| Too hard to admit one is wrong | 6.6% | 1.3% | 6.3% | 11.1% |
| Race is not real. | 3.4% | 1.9% | 0.6% | 6.9% |
| Too invested in the current system | 5.4% | 4.5% | 3.8% | 7.4% |
| Other | 10.5% | 15.6% | 9.4% | 7.4% |
For those who were red pilled immediately, fear of social disapproval remained high as the top objection at 28.6%, only slightly less than the poll average. Social disapproval was also the top objection for those who took months at 28.6%, closely followed by NAXALT at 25.8%. Among those who took years, NAXALT was the highest at 37.6%, followed by social disapproval at 36.5%.
- Conclusion
Key takeaways:
- Half of wealthy respondents became red pilled immediately, and a third of them first heard about pro-white ideas through friends and family. Wealthy people are more likely to object to pro-white ideas on the grounds that they are impractical.
- Zoomers are more likely to have first contact with our ideas through video sharing platforms or through friends and family. Zoomers are much less likely to first hear about our ideas directly from our sources.
- Mediterranean respondents were the most likely to be red pilled immediately.
- As of now, among zoomers the number of former libertarians is not significantly lower. This may challenge the assumption that the old “libertarian to Alt Right” pipeline has completely dried up. There were fewer former mainstream conservatives and generic liberals among zoomers, however.
- Slightly over half of respondents of average intelligence (IQ 100-114) were red pilled immediately despite having more objections on average. That NAXALT (not all non-whites are like that) was the top objection among respondents of average intelligence suggests that countering NAXALT would yield the best results in radicalizing the general public.
- On the Myers-Briggs test, disproportionately more respondents had (T) Thinking combined with Intuitive (N) traits versus (F) Feeling and Observant (S) traits.
- On the OCEAN test, respondents were significantly more Open, somewhat more Conscientious, and slightly more Introverted than the general population.
- Jared Taylor and American Renaissance were highly rated as both respondents’ first exposure to pro-white ideas and as the most effective in spreading those ideas. Thus, a campaign to restore Jared Taylor’s X/Twitter account should be a priority.
- Christianity does not interfere with people becoming red pilled. However, there are different red pill trends across Christian denominations, and Christians tend to have different objections than Atheists/agnostics.
- Exposure to diversity while growing up tends to correlate with radicalization, but past a certain point there are diminishing returns and even a slight reversal.
- The top three barriers to our ideas overall were fear of social disapproval/ostracism, NAXALT, and toxic/unappealing people.
[1] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-resurgence-of-the-two-parent-family
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
[3] For a description of these traits see https://www.16personalities.com/articles/nature-thinking-vs-feeling and https://www.16personalities.com/articles/mind-intuitive-vs-observant
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
41 comments
This is excellent data and the suggestions based on it make sense and should be taken seriously.
I would caution against identifying “Celtic” automatically as Irish. It might mean that but it also might mean Scottish, Spanish, or something else. This category tells us less than we might hope.
These are self-identifications, with all the fuzzy boundaries one would expect.
Also Welsh.
🙂
Also Bretons in western France. See, I know things you guys don’t!
I would guess the Irish and western welsh are the most pure Celtic in genotype. They tend to be the most fiesty and ethnocentric whites.
Fascinating research, thank you for taking the time to gather it! I have seen multiple smaller, informal surveys in the past that align quite closely with many of these findings. It is exciting to see a survey as robust as this come out on the topic.
Going forward, I would like to see this survey expand further if possible. Counter Currents is a fairly high-brow-appealing enterprise, and as such it attracts to itself a potentially different subset of Nationalists than, say, podcast edu-tainment like Blackpilled or Randbot, and still different from Activists like from WLM or Patriot Front.
I believe expanding your survey to these groups and noting the distinctions between the sources of the survey-takers in this manner will unearth even more vital data in regards to different routes and sub-population psychographics, as well as give you plenty of more respondents. A personal criteria I am interested in is the major differences of origin and mentality of those who actively join efforts to push these ideas versus those who idly accept those ideas but do not take overt action regarding them. Anyone is nice to have along, but activists in particular are gold and the process that compelled them to become so a secret worth delving into.
Our goal is to survey as many different mailing lists as possible to get larger and more representative responses.
The biggest population is found around the peak of the bell curve, so we also need to find ways of polling below average and average whites in large numbers, since we must convert them as well.
Consider talking to Andrew Anglin. Expert opinion isn’t survey evidence but it’s better than nothing.
When I saw that Counter-Currents readers identified as having an average IQ around 130 I thought that if Andrew Anglin saw survey data saying that about his readers he would consider it a big failure on his part. He would start simplifying and shortening his articles, and he would generally get back into focus his own chosen audience, which is further down the bell curve and more numerous.
Andrew Anglin knows his job as a pro-White propagandist. He has picked a slice of the potential pro-White audience and he’s serving that audience tirelessly and with concentration. He has thought about what does and doesn’t work for his readers. If he can’t help you, who would know better?
At least ask him what documents he has looked at in deciding his communication strategies. The same documents might help you. Or if he looked for certain classes of potentially helpful documents and found that they don’t exist, that might help you too.
Disagree. The only “expert opinion” available there is how best to poison the well.
That is exactly why White Nationalism and the Hard Right went off the track to the runaway ramp over forty years ago and where it has (mostly) floundered evcr since.
🙂
Fascinating info and analysis.
The more than average Agreeableness figures on the OCEAN model surprised me, since it takes a willingness to be Disagreeable to become pro-White. In my therapy practice, I have come to consider Hyper Agreeableness as a cultural pathology of Whites.
As for patterns of thinking, yes, the NAXALT is observably the most recurrent and resistant mode. A huge part of our our post WW2 conditioning has been to make us reflexively hostile to “stereotyping” (when in reality stereotypes are only upsetting because they are accurate!). NAXALT is often a defensive emotional strategy to keep distance from the socially unacceptable truth that it is suicidal to eat candy from a dish where Not All the pieces are poisoned.
Ninety-five percent of people (my experience) cannot distinguish between general statements and universal ones. Finding a way to combat NAXALT would require addressing both the cognitive flaw and the underlying emotional conditioning.
Great work, David.
With regard to NAXALT:
I find it’s helpful to get a White person using NAXALT to recognize is that NAXALT is an observation, not an argument. So, one line of inquiry is to ask them why they think NAXALT implies anything about whether or not Whites should take their own side when there’s a conflict between White interests and non-White interest.
Second, I use the jelly-bean jar analogy:
Imagine a jar of one-hundred black jelly-beans. One of those jelly-bean has an undetectable fast-acting poison. How many jelly-beans are you willing to eat from this jar?
This can help get the victim of NAXALT to understand that it doesn’t matter if ‘not all X’ are ‘like that’. It only matters that at least one X is like that if the adverse result of encountering the ‘some X are like that‘ is severe enough.
Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests makes the case conclusively that a nation is an extended family and that each member of the nation has a genetic interest in the furtherance of other lineages within his own nation in preference to those of invaders (“immigrants”), the more so if those invaders are genetically distant from himself. Of course the nations of Northern and Western Europe are very closely related and still quite closely related to people in the South-East.
In Australia we have “successful” multi-culturalism with relatively “model” low-crime minorities. White people are disappearing just as fast as anywhere else.
Interestingly, the last thing I was looking at here was the sneak preview of the results you posted back in May.
Just wondering – what specifically qualifies as “Traditionalist/perennialist”? Is that like very “Paleo” Paganism, Deism with extra sparkle, or something else?
Finally, what’s the overall statistical margin of error?
Traditionalism/perennialism refers to the ideas associated with Evola and Guenon.
Interesting for sure, but where in the world did you find these 540 respondents? It’s difficult for me to believe that very many of them are actual members of a serious real-world pro-White cause.
I don’t use the term “red pill” (or any of the other colored pills) but have assumed that it is a euphemism for a White person suddenly becoming racially responsible.
In circles I’ve travelled for almost four decades nearly everyone is familiar with the name William Pierce — everyone — yet none of these 540 respondents appear to be familiar with either his name or his body of work for our race. That seems more dubious than current polling of likely voters for presumptive presidential candidates where Emhoff/Walz are running neck-and-neck with Trump/Vance. 50% of those polled prefer Emhoff/Walz. Who believes that? White America needs a lot more red pills — a lot more!
My takeaway is that the majority of respondents need some serious radicalizing. Believing that Our Cause must have a non-Semitic spiritual foundation, it was edifying to see that 0% of poll respondents are Christian Scientists, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists; no Muslims — either Sunni or Shia, and only a couple of Jews. It’s surprising to see 0% Christian Identists among all of those other belief systems when so many identify as such.
Since I’ve been a Cosmotheist, the philosophy/ideology, or religion, if you prefer, that William Pierce founded, I suppose I got lumped in with “other.” I see I have much work to do.
I think you are one of the people who filled out the poll, Will.
Greg Johnson: August 9, 2024 I think you are one of the people who filled out the poll, Will.
—
I did. The results of the poll said I was the “Commander” type.
OK. Being that type may qualify me to lead the National Alliance, a difficult undertaking that from what I can observe after ten years in the job other personality types might find crushing.
The results of this poll tell me that among the respondents there isn’t much prospect of consensus for strict racial separation — a primary interest of mine since that is a necessary requirement for preservation of our unique gene pool.
The wide range of religious beliefs claimed by respondents reveal to me the problem we face. Our people do need to be radicalized and like Robert Mathews said, “ten men, one beat; one hundred men, one beat’ then thousand men, one beat.” Was he wrong? I think not.
I appreciate Counter-Currents allowing my somewhat radical voice to be counted.
I sort of assumed that you would advocate for ‘radicalizing’ Concerned Whites rather than accepting that militancy is off-putting to many Concerned Whites and causes them to ‘bounce off’ the movement rather than ‘look further’.
But the evidence suggests that demanding ‘militancy’ simply doesn’t work as an effective movement tool It may works as a recruiting tool for individual organizations, but in the 40+ years of militant ‘all-in or all-out’ White Nationalism, where are the ‘big wins’ for White people? I see none.
The demand for ‘leaders’ is generally limited. More than anything, what our people want is ‘a way’ of being ‘pro-White’ that allows them to contribute tat their level of commitment and to regulate their expose to the downsides of being part of a counter-culture.
For White youth, ‘pro-White’ has to be come the new ‘hip’.
For Working Whites, ‘pro-White’ has to be something they can do by picking and choosing their sources of information and how they respond to anti-White propaganda emotionally and economically.
For Movement Whites, ‘pro-White’ has to mean ‘Whites caring about Whites because they are White and no other reason’ and our goal cannot simply be elaborating how great Whites are (or how weak Whites are). We have to both present and represent a pro-White ethos that is rich enough to allow even a small bite of it to be intoxicating to a Concerned White while still being nutritious to grizzled veterans of the War on Whites.
Eventually, every Concerned White – at any given time – is going to find their ‘level’ within movement and it is not our place to determine what their trajectory in the movement is. Being ‘casually pro-White’ will benefit the White race just as much as being ‘militantly pro-White’. In the end, a White being’pro-White’ in any way at all contributes to a better future for Whites.
60a. What, if any, were your major reservations or objections regarding pro-white ideas? (check all that apply)
@David. You have done one hell of a job, sorting out these countless variables and groups & trying to figure how they all connect.
However, re question 60a, I found it odd that “anti-woman/woman-hater attitude” isn’t mentioned as a possible objection. I see this attitude expressed all over the place but it was not offered in your poll. I encountered this years ago and felt discouraged, but comments by men without such attitude is what kept me around and hoping for the best.
A case of a few bad apples or something really bred in the bone of white identitarianism? Women not knowing their place as the cause of just about everything bad in the world should not be stuck under “Other” IMO if indeed anyone listed this at all.
This is a good point. Maybe we can work it into future iterations of the poll.
I would tend to agree that the general pro-White movement needs to start making better inroads with women of all stripes. No White women, no White people. Maybe there needs to be some outreach by women, for women from a pro-White standpoint, as they’ll get the message across better than what could be perceived as a man barking orders at them.
My own pro-White girlfriend faced a considerable amount of hassle from movement people, in spite of holding similar views and being well spoken, because she’s a woman and because of how she chooses to dress, tattoos, etc. All the superficial garbage that these gatekeepers of purity get hung up on while missing the forest for the trees.
This brings me back to HamburgerToday’s point of- who will be the self-appointed ones telling us, according to their own arbitrary, idealized criteria, that we’re not worthy of being able to fight for our own race and exist within a society of our own people? This seems to be a permanent stumbling block, though I will agree that there’s a certain degree of nuance that needs to be employed i.e. filtering out the mentally unstable, junkies, etc.
Much to the chagrin of some, White societies throughout time have not been robotic bug cultures ala east Asia, and I believe that that’s one of it’s most important features. However, and I preach to the choir, that can only be preserved in a functional way in a monoracial society.
The top three barriers to our ideas overall were fear of social disapproval/ostracism, NAXALT, and toxic/unappealing people.
Social Disapproval: We don’t have the power determine the level of social disapproval that comes with openly advocating for ‘pro-White’ view. However, we do have the ability to give ‘Concerned Whites’ advice on ‘How to be Pro-White and Keep Your Job’. In other words, we can work up a list of ‘pro-White’ activities that have a kind of ‘sliding scale’ of overtness to allow a Concerned White at the periphery of the pro-White movement to see how they can contribute to furthering the interests of Whites without endangering their social standing. We need to make it clear that being ‘militant’ isn’t the only way to be pro-White. 50 million White people who are simply aware of Negro Worship and anti-White jewry is going to have a beneficial effect on changing the culture. And that’s true if all this awareness does is cause them to avoid participating in anti-White culture and limit their support for anti-White economic actors.
NAXALT is the easiest to counter because it’s built on both a logical and political fallacy. If ‘not all X’ are ‘like that’ then it means that ‘some X’ are ‘like that’ and how many X that are ‘like that’ is an acceptable number of X to be ‘like that’. In other words, how does the nice Negro lady you know compensate the rest of us for the Negro rape, murder and theft? If a ‘Concerned White’ wants to live around non-Whites, why does that entail Whites who don’t want to live around non-Whites have to do so?
Toxic/Unappealing People: This is the one thing we have the most control over, that is the least subject to the whims of our enemies and doesn’t even require that we argue for our position. All it requires is that we grow up and realize that (a) we are far too often abrasive in the expression of our view, (b) the pursuit of ‘more militant than thou’ alienates a lot of people and (c) we take our disagreements too seriously and allow them to escalate into rancor.
My prediction is that the movement is not likely to ‘take’ to the idea that such ‘inner work’ on our behavior is a priority.
Which is why our side only advances because our enemies make themselves so very, very odious.
I might put Militant and Toxic into different categories. Militancy is not necessarily bad, and in the vanguard is an essential element. (I am not saying that everybody or anybody at this juncture has to wear uniforms or even be clean-cut. But decent people usually clean up quite decently.)
“Toxic,” however, must be purged. Not all White people are even worth saving, and some like the assassin of GLR can’t be saved, and it was folly to try.
All serious activists should pass a basic criminal background check. If the local credit union would not bond them, then why should you?
Maybe not. Populism is only possible in a high-trust society where toxicity and degeneracy is the rare exception. For lack of a better word, “White Trash” are not convinced; they are either led properly or conscripted for labor after being deloused. Degenerates, and those with the “optics” of edgy-degenerates, are not the source of political power and will only sabotage a movement. Bigly. But many (most) can be saved when we have at least a shot at power.
🙂
We are both pro-White and our dispute is about the best way to be ‘pro-White’. However, my view is that the best way to be ‘pro-White’ even for the vanguard is to be ‘ecumenical’ and embrace all Whites, including those you think are not worth saving and those you describe as ‘White Trash’. You bring up GLR but you don’t seem to recognize that GLR’s rather flamboyant and confrontational – in short militant – approach didn’t work. Worse yet, it put pro-White activism on the fringes for two generations.
It’s possible you and I have different ideas of what ‘militant’ means, but to me its defined by a kind of ‘my way or the highway’ mentality. Maybe you don’t see it that way. But when you say some of our people are not worth saving or you describe them as ‘trash’, it makes me think I’m right.
Militancy is toxic. Like many ‘toxic’ substances, it can have healing applications when applied in controlled manner.
When I see someone saying that some of our people are not worth saving or are ‘trash’, I think to myself ‘Do I want this person to have the power to decide whether I’m worth saving or whether I’m ‘trash’ or not?’. Usually I conclude ‘No’. And that’s why I think ‘militancy’ is bad for the movement as a whole. There may be segments of the White population that find ‘militancy’ attractive but the last 70 years of abject failure to advance the cause of White racial consciousness via ‘militancy’ suggests that segment is very small in comparison to the Whites who I describe as ‘concerned’ and who are looking for a ‘movement’ that can effectively understand and respond to their concerns.
Yours is a very Christian approach HT.
Except I don’t believe in the Trinity … or Jesus as a savior … or original sin … or salvation through the saving grace of Jesus.
But I see what you’re getting at.
I am not sure that we have that much of a dispute, but I am extremely suspicious of efforts to recruit from the Left, or using Jewish fundraisers, etc. I am anti-American enough as it is, but I find it very dissonant coming from foreigners waxing poetic.
Also, I disagree that GLR tactics set anything back. Rockwell’s tactics were necessary for the times when the media blackout was total ─ and near the time of his death he had changed the American Nazi Party into the National Socialist White People’s Party, which was intended to be like a White Civil Rights and political advocacy organization.
The KKK was crushed by the 1970s too, even when their main offense was to have some Whites-only family barbecues. We wish that we could have that today. I think David Duke had the right idea blow-drying his hair and wearing a suit instead of a pointed hood. But no one person is going to win this racial war.
I subscribed to NSWPP publications from the late 1970s and occasionally sent generous contributions until they lost their way by the mid 1980s after moving to Milwaukee and becoming the “New Order,” which was mostly about esoteric Savitri Devi and esoteric Adolf. They also tended to (somewhat) endorse the ideas that National Socialism was really a Left Wing movement, which I disagreed with. I used to consider myself a Progressive racial-nationalist, but the P-word is probably too far gone now.
Also, I generally dislike esoteric philosophies and prefer History and the Scientific Method grounded by good evidence, good historiographic craft, and good logical arguments. I try to be a decent person, but no specific cosmological theory makes me a “good” person.
I also broadly disproved of the “Turner Diaries” style of ultra-violence shenanigans, which completely violated Rockwell’s philosophies on “Legal, Psychological, and Political Warfare.” Rockwell championed the Constitution, just not either the deification of it or the Founding Fathers. I have probably listened to every Rockwell speech ever recorded on magnetic tape.
There is no way on God’s Green Earth, for example, that anybody who understood jack about Rockwell would have approved the assassination of a very obnoxious Jewish talk-radio host in Denver in 1984. When Rockwell lived, he used to best these guys in public debate all the time. I used to listen to the Denver guy’s shows from time to time while in college in Idaho, and he was quite vile in my opinion. But gunning him down with an illegally-modified Mac-10 in his home garage is exactly the wrong approach ─ an approach that exactly plays into the hands of the enemy.
My criticism of Rockwell here was that in building his cadre, he tended to be a bit too fatherly with his recruits, believing that he could save every lost degenerate soul. This ultimately got him killed by one of his own supporters.
Most people in fact are killed by people that they know, such as family members ─ not that these people are more dangerous than strangers, or even distant enemies ─ but simply because you have more contact in life with these people, so the probabilities for ALL manner of things stack up.
I am not trying to say that GLR was to blame for his own murder, of course. But it was a security error in his small and underfunded organization. I have talked personally with some of Rockwell’s comrades, now deceased, and this is where my opinion comes from.
At some time in the 1980s, the “Movement” vanguard went from clean-cut to “working class” (i.e., tatted up skinheads) and the idea was that the lower classes would be less inhibited in taking the fight to the enemy somehow than Hitler’s lower-middle-class and veterans’ movement was in Germany. But a fetishization of the “working-class” and punkitude only demonstrates that the some did not really understand Rockwell’s philosophies.
Rockwell understood the mentality of police and the FBI much better than today’s activists do, although the Feds then had a more whiolesome focus than they do today, of course.
Back in the 1960s, the problem for the Movement was Kosher Conservatism led by William F. Buckley and why it was wrong and ultimately denervating. Rockwell was the first to figure out this problem and his judgement remains sound. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” will not work for the Right, or anybody who respects, Race and Nationalism, for reasons that Rockwell articulated, e.g., that Conservatives were trying to conserve what was already gone. A Jiu-Jitsu wrestler wins by throwing his bigger opponent off balance, not by expending greater strength.
Today some White Nationalists with poor understanding of history are convinced that the only salvation is some kind of pre-Vatican II Christian revival where Joos are responsible for everything from one’s opiate misuse to an unemployed miner’s alcoholism, and so on ─ plus the complete eschewal of American Nationalism since 1776. I am an advocate of radical reform but not of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I might support balkanization if it had better than a snowball’s chance in hell and allowed isolated White Communities to flourish, but that is not my first preference. We did not lose because we were weak and not grug enough.
I am pretty close to a free-speech fundamentalist, but we have to proactively protect our rights under the law. We throw that away at our own peril. That is why some protesters who beat cops at J6 are getting twenty years in the poky when they could have been part of great things if they had better leadership (or any leadership).
Our guys don’t even pretend to have these kinds of rights in many European countries today. From catching a few interviews, Mark Collett seems to understand this as well, while some other edgy podcast warriors are calling for more rioting instead of mustering disciplined ranks of “articulate marching.”
Also, it is no panacea, but I will keep my guns, thank you. Even in the “Turner Diaries,” the straw that broke the camel’s back was gun confiscation ─ directed at our guys or rural Whites, of course. The System is never going to disarm Rastus in the inner-city. Libtards truly believe that firearms are sentient beings and that White people are the ones committing the crimes.
Holocaust Revisionist Germar Rudolf once complained in a missive that the Thoughtcrimes regime of the modern Bundestablishment (the FRG) was “imposed” from without somehow, presumably by Uncle Satan (the USA).
This is not wrong ─ but I complained that it was no longer 1945 and that this ignored the many German Kommunisten and fellow-travelers like Ms. Merkel who were active in everything, including importing racial aliens. Mr. Rudolf has been able to publish in the United States (albeit with considerable hardship) what would have seen him imprisoned as a Thoughtcriminal in the Fatherland.
And while, like the late German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel, he has had difficultly in applying for citizenship in his new country, Rudolf does now have legal U.S. residency and is no longer in danger of being deported to a Thoughtcrimes regime to be further punished for publishing Wrongthink.
How does a simple scientist with an “unfashionable tolerance” for Right Wing views end up as an exile and an enemy of the current regime, “the freest of all the Germanies”? As the Frankfurt School noted, exteme tolerance is no vice UNLESS it allows Nazis to speak. So apparently, the Truth itself is gauged with a rubber ruler, at least on key planks in Democracies.
I’m no Libertarian. My parents voted for George Wallace and Gen. LeMay in 1968, and I have observed American politics ever since. I paid close attention to Watergate and Vietnam. I am a bit of an Isolationist, a maverick, and a skeptic by nature, and I am pretty close to a free-speech fundamentalist. In his 1947 “F-scale” or Fascist personality test, I am what Ted Adorno would call “Disciplined but Tolerant; a true American.” This does not mean that I would not be willing to gas traitors or deal with subversives and degenerates, however.
Anyway, it is deceptively easy for Europeans to blame all White problems on America or Americans. We are all in it together as a Race. I am pretty much the opposite of an Accelerationist.
And when I use the term “White Trash,” I do not do so lightly. Most of my ancestors were Pioneers who had hard lives and were not anywhere close to rich.
But I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the junkie. And from personal experience ─ like the guy who was already on probation for drugs and with his junkie girlfriend’s car ran me over in the crosswalk because they did not see that the light was red when I was riding my bicycle home from the University. I was lucky but it profoundly changed my life.
Still, the only reason that I asked the judge to lock him up (which happened) was because he actually skipped and did not return for his sentencing court date. I had to personally track him down and facilitate his extradition from another state. Needless to say, I delivered a different letter and speech to the judge at the sentencing than the one that I would have.
I’m not really a moral purist but some things in our society need to be purged. I also understand working-class problems pretty well, and White downward mobility in the last fifty or sixty years. I am no genius and hardly someone of means.
A Movement “vanguard” is not a Church that is dedicated to saving lost souls. It has to purge unclean elements that cannot be saved.
This may not be the most important message, but that is what my takeaway is after being a White Nationalist supporter and sympathizer for longer than most in the Online community have been alive. I study History and do pick-and-shovel work with metadata. I am not really a Movement guy. I have been to meetings with (fellow former licensed Broadcasting Engineer) Kevin Alfred Strom speaking where the main focus of the event in reality was swilling suds and sporting dumb tattoos. And the only girls at these WN events were the musical group Prussian Blue and their Mom (nice lady). Some of these guys are a treasure that I would be willing to share a foxhole with. Some not so much.
These are my observations.
🙂
I’m not talking about ‘recruiting’. I’m talking about a mind-set that prepares a fertile soil in which Concerned Whites moving in our direction can find sustenance and put down roots. White Nationalism as the ‘thing’ that binds all Whites to one another, as our ‘religion’. Every White person should be able to see themselves being a part of White Identity and embracing the goal of Whites ruling White lands in the interest of Whites. Every White person.
[W]hile reality can certainly radicalize people there are diminishing returns, and at some point, even a reversal. While vast amounts of diversity can certainly radicalize some whites, others may become hopeless, or even assimilate into and identify with non-white culture….
I don’t see how you reached this conclusion from the data.
However, it does point to something that people in the movement need to think about in their communications. Being overly optimistic does our people no good. But its also clear that we need to make sure that we’re not selling hopelessness.
While movement participants shouldn’t be selling false hope (‘We’re winning!’), we also shouldn’t be wallowing in despair and constantly presenting worst-case scenarios.
Maybe it will take a thousand years for every White to take their owns side. Maybe not. But to a movement dedicated to preserving a people, a thousand years is ‘just a little while’.
What our people need to know is that (a) they need to care about themselves as Whites and (b) that there is a bunch of people out there in something called ‘the pro-White movement’ that also care about them, even if we are not (yet) able to ride to their rescue for ‘diversity’.
Hamburger Today to WW: August 10, 2024 I sort of assumed that you would advocate for ‘radicalizing’ Concerned Whites rather than accepting that militancy is off-putting to many Concerned Whites and causes them to ‘bounce off’ the movement rather than ‘look further’.
You assume correctly, HT. “Concerned Whites,” as you describe them, constitute a minority of our people. That percentage is sure to increase as the situation worsens. I can overlook those who are offput by militancy. I’ll leave them to you to radicalize. Good luck with that.
But for now, the sub-group within that minority of Concerned Whites who will truly become racially responsible and commit to becoming determined activists for Our Cause is a small minority within that minority — perhaps just 2% of our people, at most.
I wouldn’t know the percentage of respondents to the poll who are already sufficiently radicalized, but I’m guessing it’s not very high. Still, most are probably already Concerned Whites and more subject to radicalizing that are the majority of Whites who are basically still sleepwalking through life.
Militancy won’t be so off-putting to Concerned Whites as racial tensions continue to heighten, Witness the riots by White Brits recently over the 17-year-old Rwandan monster in their midst who stabbed to death three sub-teen White girls. The so-called “melting pot” in the UK has boiled over despite Draconian “race/hate” laws calculated to keep Whitey down under threat of prison. See: “Pressure Cooker Britain: Turning Up the Heat” at nationalvanguard.org
We are both pro-White so our disagreement is on the best way to be ‘pro-White’.
‘Concerned Whites’ are ordinary White people who have become uneasy about the direction of the country in which they live. You can look at any poll for the last 30 years – and by looking at the right questions on immigration, crime and the economy – find that what I call Concerned Whites are hardly a minority. Part of the job of the movement is to give these ‘Concerned Whites’ a pro-White racial justification for their uneasiness and direct that uneasiness toward a pro-White racial consciousness.
So, to my mind, Concerned Whites are those who are in the process of gravitating toward some kind of resistance to the current order. I believe our job is to construct a movement that is viable as a new center of gravity for these Concerned White Folks. Our job is to offer them a way of viewing the world that amounts to pro-White racial consciousness even if they do not realize that is what is occurring.
As for recent events in Ireland and Britain, I wish my Old World relations the very best in trying to resist, but a series of violent conflicts isn’t sufficient to create a sustainable movement, even if they were successful in getting the current governments of Ireland and Britain to ‘change their ways’. Our enemies are more than willing to temporarily dissemble to defuse the situation and allow the momentum of the protesters to dissipate. But we both know the anti-White ruling class is not going to ‘change their spots’.
Lastly, I’d like to point out that the last 70 years of reliance on ‘determined activists’ hasn’t accomplished much for the ordinary White person.
Within a relatively-closed system, a 1% change for the better in 50% of the components will far more significantly improve system performance than a 100% change in 1%.
My approach is to seek Small Change In The Many rather than a Massive Improvement Of The Few (‘radicalization’).
In order for this to work, the movement needs to be perceived as more open to ‘concerned Whites’ who haven’t made up their mind about racial separatism and need to feel White Nationalism offers a way for them (and not just the radicals).
Random question here: on the subject of religion/faith, was any consideration given to what faith a person was raised in as a child, as opposed to the faith they are now? I took the survey but I don’t remember if that question was asked. I’m wondering if there is any statistical significance with regards to lapsed Catholics vs. lapsed Protestants, etc.
I was somewhat confused by that as well and how I should answer.
I come from a long line of Mormon Pioneers, and about three-quarters of my family is currently LDS. They tended to be race-realist until very modern times when they got the idea that the world was going to convert in the Latter-Days and not just baptize some opportunists from Third World countries. When I was a teenager in the 1970s, I began doubting Christianity in general and espcially its racial egalitarianism and global missionary work.
And by the time I had been partially educated at BYU and determined that I was an Atheist/Agnostic, I formally had them remove my name from their Church records. I do not regret it, although I expected to get disowned (which never happened). There are quite a lot of LDS whom I studied History with in Idaho and Arizona. They were often progressive-minded but resisted the now-dominant academic Marxism.
The LDS Church puts great emphasis on family, and their family sizes are substantial by modern White standards, even though the women are nearly as well-educated as the men.
I support White people being Christians if that is what their consciences dictate.
But I lean towards the school of thought that Religion was always somewhat subversive for White people ─ long before the Dark Ages, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment.
Nobody loved burning heretics at the stake more than Saint Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor of his King Henry VIII while the latter was Defender of the Faith. Sir Thomas occasionally wore a fashionable Hair Shirt but was mildly a theological liberal ─ the 1516 author of the progressive (but unintentionally dystopian) novel Utopia ─ who ultimately lost his own head on the block for siding with the corrupt Pope over the unseemly royal divorce.
Christians often fall prey to their own zealotry, but they are not unique. Some four-centuries after his execution, the “Man For All Seasons” (man of unwavering conscience) was canonized in 1935 during a time of unusual global hysteria.
🙂
Hamburger Today: August 11, 2024 We are both pro-White and our dispute is about the best way to be ‘pro-White’. However, my view is that the best way to be ‘pro-White’ even for the vanguard is to be ‘ecumenical’ and embrace all Whites, including those you think are not worth saving and those you describe as ‘White Trash’.
—
I’m not sure if you are responding to something I said, or not. It may be, but I have never used the term “White Trash” to describe our people, even trashy ones.
The National Alliance is recognized as a vanguard, or leading element in the forefront of a cause, as compared to those you value — which is not a word I use, so looked it up. They’re all yours:
ec·u·men·i·cal ˌ
1.) a: of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation
2.): worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
—
You bring up GLR but you don’t seem to recognize that GLR’s rather flamboyant and confrontational – in short militant – approach didn’t work. Worse yet, it put pro-White activism on the fringes for two generations.
—
There was no “pro-White activism” until Commander Rockwell came on the scene in 1958 and began to expose Jewish perfidy. If you care to learn about him, order Dr. Dalton’s new edition of his last long-out-of-print book, just released last month: “White Power by George Lincoln Rockwell” at cosmotheistchurch.org ($25 plus p&h).
—
It’s possible you and I have different ideas of what ‘militant’ means, but to me its defined by a kind of ‘my way or the highway’ mentality. Maybe you don’t see it that way… Militancy is toxic… I think ‘militancy’ is bad for the movement as a whole…
—
That’s your opinion, Hamburger. Stick with radicalizing ecumenicals and leave the vanguard to those of us who have a sober understanding of militancy. I found this definition:
Militant also implies a fighting disposition but suggests not self-seeking but devotion to a cause, movement, or principle.
So, a militant vanguard, based on the Leadership Principle, as advocated by Messers. Hitler, Rockwell and Pierce, is a sound approach for organizing our racial resistance, whether you understand it or not.
No offense, HT, but judging by your criticism it is doubtful that you will ever be vanguard material. That is OK. It’s not for everyone. Those interested can read this and judge for themselves whether or not it is “toxic”: What is the National Alliance? | National Alliance (natall.com)
I was using ‘ecumenical’ in the older sense as provided in definition (2). Christian ecumenism piggy-backs on that older, pre-Christian understanding of the word.
I’m militantly ecumenical.
As for ‘vanguard’, I use it in the older sense of ‘advancing before (the main body of the organization or army)’ which implies preparing the way for what comes after.
While I may not be your idea of ‘vanguard’, I’m happy to be my idea of being part of the ‘vanguard’.
Hamburger Today: August 12, 2024 I was using ‘ecumenical’ in the older sense as provided in definition (2). Christian ecumenism piggy-backs on that older, pre-Christian understanding of the word.
I’m militantly ecumenical.
As for ‘vanguard’, I use it in the older sense of ‘advancing before (the main body of the organization or army)’ which implies preparing the way for what comes after…
—
I see. You’re both ecumenical in the older, pre-Christian sense of the word, and are in the vanguard in the older sense of that word also — as in the forward element of a military operation. That should clarify for the Concerned Whites what you’re imparting to them.
Did you read What is the National Alliance? | National Alliance (natall.com)? I expect you didn’t. It’s a reasonable soft sell to concerned Whites who are looking for a long term solution to what they see happening to their world, originally written by Dr. William Pierce. It does not come off as militant, so will probably not appeal to a militant ecumenical as yourself.
I am familiar with NA and have read ‘What is the National Alliance?’ and consider ‘uncompromising’ as the key word in that text.
The text also makes clear that NA does not view itself as just another ‘White rights group’ because of its ‘uncompromising’ nature.
It is this ‘uncompromising’ nature that strikes me as ‘militant’, and I’d be surprised if you disagreed with that association.
I don’t think that NA should compromise on what the membership thinks is important.
But my view is that our task is different from what Dr. Pierce focused on.
In having a differing view, I’m not throwing shade on Dr. Pierce’s accomplishments or thought-processes.
I just think he saw the solution to the problem as being of rationality and I do not.
I see the solution to the problem being one of affect, of making ‘Whites caring about Whites because they are White (and no other reason)’ the baseline response of all Whites to other Whites.
Everything we know about Whites tells us what Whties want to be close to one another and to live in a ‘White way’.
Even (especially) anti-White Whites live in extremely White zip-codes.
My position is that this emotional and unconscious ‘gravitation’ of Whites toward Whites is the foundation upon which the salvation of the White race must be built.
And to do so, we must be ecumenical, to be open to all Whites – even anti-Whites – as ‘fellow Whites’.
The course I am suggesting is genuinely ‘radical’ in that it strikes at what I perceive as the root (radic) of how it is that our enemies have managed to keep us at each other’s throats despite the fact that every White is threatened by our enemy’s strategy and – however it might seem otherwise – every White is suffering from that strategy.
Anti-Whites are just as concerned about what’s coming for them as the most hardened NA soldier.
We, truly, are all in this boat together.
Whites are being physically, politically and economically displaced.
But that displacement started with Whites killing Whites when there was no need.
It started with Whites hardening their hearts to one another deep in our history.
But that was back in the vigorous youth of our people. I think we’re all ready to make peace with one another in the interest of survival.
And to make peace last among us, we need an ethos that reaches down deep into the White heart to construct a new, White way of deep affection for Whiteness that will last many thousands of years.
And any White, anywhere, under any circumstances can start work on building this White Love future just by working within themselves.
They don’t need an organization to do it.
They just need to do the ‘inner work’ to draw to the surface their already-existing preferences for ‘living while White’.
Antipodean: August 12, 2024 Yours is a very Christian approach HT.
—
Very!
That will serve HT well as he attempts to radicalize all those concerned White ecumenicals to racial responsibility.
However, only 41.4% [of respondents] currently identify as Christian. For comparison, 63-65% of US citizens are Christian…
At least since the advent of Christianity, and quute possibly for much longer, we have had a liberal concern for the ‘deserving poor’ and until very recently, especially among men, a hard-headed belief in ‘virtue’. We cannot survive without the latter and we would not be ourselves absent the former. Of course who the deserving are and what they deserve are thr great questions in a world in which humans are increasingly taking a back seat to technology.
WW: However, only 41.4% [of respondents] currently identify as Christian. For comparison, 63-65% of US citizens are Christian…
—
Not sure what Antipodean means when he tells Hamburger Today that his approach to radicalizing our people is very Christian, but to me it means it is a silly, half-baked approach.
Why not, instead, try to radicalize the 58.6% of nominally pro-White C-C poll respondents who do not identify with the Jew-spawned creed — or for that matter try to radicalize the 35-37% of alleged U.S. citizens, who still claim to believe in Jehovah, with his ecumenical approach?
Hamburger Today: August 12, 2024 I don’t believe in the Trinity … or Jesus as a savior … or original sin … or salvation through the saving grace of Jesus.
—
Finally, something we can agree on, HT. Except I believe the burden is on believers in Jesus to prove the alleged “King of the Jews” ever actually lived, not on the skeptic to prove the negative.
Our exchange has run its course. Let’s drop it. You have me thoroughly discombobulated, when yesterday you say, “Militancy is toxic,” yet today say, “I’m militantly ecumenical.”
Hamburger Today: August 13, 2024 I am familiar with NA and have read ‘What is the National Alliance?’ and consider ‘uncompromising’ as the key word in that text.
The text also makes clear that NA does not view itself as just another ‘White rights group’ because of its ‘uncompromising’ nature.
It is this ‘uncompromising’ nature that strikes me as ‘militant’, and I’d be surprised if you disagreed with that association.
I don’t think that NA should compromise on what the membership thinks is important.
But my view is that our task is different from what Dr. Pierce focused on….
—
Thanks, HT. I’m not going to keep going around and around with you, splitting hairs over different definitions of words.
Uncompromising in the context of NA’s strict ideology, simply means to not loosen the organization’s fundamental standards. Period. Other groups, unnamed, have different standards that in my view are already compromised. When you speak of our task who exactly are our? Where are your standards where I can compare them to our Alliances? Who is your leader? Surely you have a leader of your task.
Those of us who are married know that we must compromise on little things every day to “keep the peace.” My wife understands and appreciates that I hold an uncompromising hard line on NA’s sound fundamental principles.
What are the standards of our nation’s leaders, all of those Republicans and Democrats? Have they compromised on leadership of America’s founding stock? What is their ideology and program for preserving the White race? They have none. They are compromised as politicians.
When you say our task, who in Hell are you talking about? Is that the greater “big tent” White nationalist movement? The alt-right? Maybe you can point me to a document similar to “What is the National Alliance?” like “Our Task – What is it? Will Jew-controlled Establishment leaders — all those Democrat and GOP politicians — call your task militant? Of course they will if you address the JQ and call for strict racial separation of eligible Whites from ineligibles and non-Whites.
Let us end this back and forth now, Hamburger. Enough. Others may gain a better understanding of the Alliance in this that I wrote to our members seven years ago, quoting guidance from our Founder: “Vow Not to Compromise” at nationalvanguard.org. I said;
DR. PIERCE WARNED Alliance members several times in the last few months prior to his death to stay clear of the “movement,” or at least to keep our Alliance a safe arm’s distance from it. In the January, 2002 National Alliance BULLETIN he wrote these words:
There are members who still have a fixation on something called the “movement” rather than on the Alliance. These “movement”-oriented members see the Alliance not as unique and irreplaceable, but merely as one organization among many, all working toward the same goal….
If you have Paywall 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.