Counter-Currents
1,365 words 
If there were a non-white group that had high IQ and could perfectly assimilate to the United States, should White Nationalists still oppose this group becoming the majority? Besides the arguments about race and IQ, the negative effects of diversity, or the claim that whites have the best political views, is there a reason to preserve the existence of a white majority in this country? Drawing on arguments originally put forth by Jared Taylor, I will argue that White Nationalists should oppose this kind of demographic transformation because living in such a society, regardless of the merits of the non-white group in question, would feel deeply alienating. Consequently, there is a reason to champion the continued existence of a white majority in the United States that does not depend on claims about IQ, the harms of diversity on social cohesion, or the superior political views of white people.
Civic Nationalism
It’s an almost universally accepted moral principle that we ought to judge people not on the basis of their race, but by the content of their character. Thus, when it comes down to deciding what kind of immigrants we want to permit to the United States, people are more concerned with what kind of values these immigrants have and whether or not they will be able to assimilate into American society. Values, and not race, is what should define a nation. This political philosophy has come to be called civic nationalism, which is the view according to which, other things being equal, the only thing that matters when it comes to building a society is that everyone in that society share the same values.
The meme above illustrates this line of thought. Civic nationalism finds a great deal of support on the right, where we see pictures all the time of a “based black dude in a Trump hat,” polling data on how Hispanic men are voting republican, or how great Thomas Sowell is as an intellectual thinker on the right. More recently, we have seen Trump turn his back on the white working class by flip-flopping on H-1B visas that hire non-white immigrants over native-born whites. For many on the right, all they have seemed to care about is the economy and the promotion of workers starve conservatism.
White Nationalism
Many arguments for White Nationalism have not said much in response to what we should think about a high IQ non-white group becoming the majority. When it has been brought up, usually in the context of East Asian immigration, White Nationalists will object to this group’s presence because by and large they vote for the democratic party. But let us put these sorts of issues aside and imagine that this group could perfectly assimilate to our culture. Indeed, let us suppose that, due to some virus that infected East Asian populations, they developed psychologies that were identical to those of American whites such as having the same beliefs, attitudes, values, and personality as them.
Would there be reasonable grounds to object to this kind of demographic transformation? For me personally, this would be objectionable because I would not feel like I belong in such a society. It would feel alienating living around others who look different than me. Moreover, I find the physical traits of whites to be the most attractive and, for this reason, would prefer the company of those I find appealing. When we look at white people’s behavior today, it is clear that many of them share my preference to be around members of their own race. That is why, for example, when a neighborhood becomes majority non-white, white people leave. This phenomenon is so common that that it has come to be known as “white flight.” Even babies share this same race desire. It can be debated whether this is environmentally or genetically caused. But either way, people generally prefer the company of those they grew up around and were raised by. Most of the time people are attracted to things they have familiarity with. It is often easier to have spontaneous or instinctive feelings of comfort and safety around other people who roughly match you in your physical appearance such as having a fair skin tone, blonde hair or light eyes. We also see this in the dating world where we can see that someone’s intelligence, personality, and character do not account for much if we do not find this person to be physically attractive. We still would not want to date this person, and it is difficult to see why someone’s discriminatory dating preferences are different than someone’s discriminatory racial preferences. For this reason, there is a plausible basis to object to the presence of a majority non-white group in the United States, regardless of their character and ability.
Here is a thought experiment to motivate this line of reasoning:
Robots – Suppose that intelligent robots became the majority in the United States. When you walk down the street or go to the store, most of the individuals that you see and interact with are robots. Your coworkers are robots, and they have taken over the government and other important institutions. Although this society is safe and the culture that whites created continues to survive, robots have become the dominant group, controlling everything.
Would this sort of society be desirable? My intuition is that it would not be. This is not because I fear that the robots would enslave or exterminate us, but rather because such a society would feel uncomfortable and alien to me. When I have presented this thought experiment to others, I have not had one person say that they think a majority robot society would be desirable. People are tribal and want to be around others they perceive to be like themselves. This might be realized in different ways for people. Some view their in-group on the basis of religion, political ideology, language, or nationality. But for White Nationalists, at least in terms of how the nation ought to be defined, it is in terms of race.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
William Pierce explains this line of thought well in one of the speeches he gave:
A white future for America is much more than a material thing; it is much more than safe streets and clean cities and a lower crime rate; it is much more than a huge reduction in taxes for the support of welfare queens; it is much more than a more efficient and productive workforce and an end to the injustice of affirmative action. It is more than all these things: it is a spiritual thing, this feeling that one’s neighbors are one’s kin; this looking on white faces and feeling a genuine sense of brotherhood that rises from the heart–not the strained sense that one ought to feel brotherly when one looks on alien faces… (Robert S. Griffin, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce, pp. 388-389)
Someone might object to the intelligent robot case as not being analogous to East Asian demographic transformation because it is impossible for robots to be conscious. Therefore, no relationships or interactions with them could be meaningful. However, suppose that intelligent robots could be conscious. Even then, I still think people would have a natural sense of revulsion against them being the majority in society.
I want to make it clear, however, that my use of East Asians as an example case should not be viewed as an attack on East Asians. Indeed, when it comes to some socially valued traits, such as intelligence and law-abidingness, East Asians are superior to whites.
Despite what multiracialism would like us to be, many white people still prefer the company of members of their own race. Even if non-whites do not engage in behavior that whites find concerning, it still feels uncomfortable being a minority. My goal in this post has not been to convince people of White Nationalism. The purpose of this post has been to show that feelings of alienation provide a sufficient reason to reject race replacement for those of us who prefer the company and aesthetics of whites.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
35 comments
The counterargument, of course, is “Don’t be such a disgusting racist. I don’t feel alienated. Something is wrong with you.”
I don’t know if they’re really being honest, but let’s say they are. Then it’s irreconcilable differences…
A fairly high number of Whites genuinely don’t feel alienated as a minority. Even among the Whites who would feel alienated, there are still too many who think that feeling alienated is a flaw they need to spend a lifetime fixing.
Nobody else behaves this way.
It’s normal human behavior for people to have in-group preferences. Only one race gets browbeaten about it, of course. Even leftist NPCs find that they can’t get rid of it; Robin DiAngelo agonizes about this a lot. Trying to be “anti-racist” like that is fighting human nature, just as much as a prude who feels tremendous guilt and cognitive dissonance about getting horny.
Not exactly, Beau. Whites are by far the most outlier race, the group that produces the most openminded persons, and therefore, unsurprisingly, the most xenophiles. The races of man are not equal in any way, including in comparative levels of xenophobia. “Adam Mil” is restating what I’ve been saying for several decades: vast numbers of whites are evolutionary defectives (from a racial standpoint) whose genomes will ultimately get removed (via miscegenation as well as low fertility) from our collective white gene pool.
This is why the present moment is so important. Our race is passing through an evolutionary bottleneck. If enough of our genomes can survive, and we can maintain majority status across at least some territories, the future majority of whites will evolve (via miscegenationist “subtraction”) into white nationalists almost by default, even apart from racially positive internal psychological and ideological changes resulting from the constantly increasing level of objective external racial threat (our task is obviously to hasten this transformation via mass-education, such as is being done at CC and similar places).
As Jared Taylor said decades ago (and Wilmot Robertson decades before that), we’re in a race against time (or as Robertson elaborated, between the ripening harvest [of white consciousness] and the encroaching jungle [of nonwhite colonization, miscegenation, and passive conquest]).
I know we usually tend to think in terms of genes here, but this is something that’s conditioned. For example, my ideas about ethnocentrism are the polar opposite of those of my parents. I’m not adopted, so how did this happen? Their ideas, in turn, are much different than those of their ancestors.
Conditioning works. That’s why The System is pumping billions of dollars into propaganda. If it didn’t profoundly influence behavior, then why would they bother trying?
Being “enriched by mass immigration,” meaning being “replaced,” meaning being eradicated in the long run, feels had because it is bad.
We are descended from ancestors who did not accept the mass immigration of racial aliens, who felt bad about it, who opposed it. Groups who felt good about their dilution and replacement by racial aliens would have left little genetic trace.
We feel bad about mass immigration for the the same reason we feel bad about the idea of poisoning our children. People who felt comfortable and unprejudiced about ideas like these generally selected themselves out of being our ancestors.
There would have been no posterity for those who cheerfully agreed, “Into the cooking pot we go; neanderthals have high IQs you know!”
The argument from alienation, which means the argument from bad feelings, is true. There is nothing wrong with it, as far as it goes.
But the argument from alienation that stops there is relatively easy to dismiss for the kinds of people that recite, “I drink male tears!” or “It’s time for us Whites to suffer ‘White wounding’; a clever rabbi told me so.” So argue about justified bad feelings.
That picture is exactly what it is like to be white in New York and increasingly in Houston, Los Angeles, Sioux Falls SD … … It is a terrible feeling. It is growing in Quebec as well. It is also in your living room and your web search results. Everywhere are aliens who do not look like you who have replaced you. It is eery and disturbing.
Now for an anecdote that it isn’t just Whites. I was speaking with a friend who lives in a very affluent area. She has three children, 8 years apart. The photos of the oldest in high school to the lowest is astonishing. The area was once a mix of Ashkenazi, Greek, Italian, WASPs … … 8 years later, it is almost all Han. I could count on two hands the number of whites, (non-Asians), in the school.
Her daughter, Jewish girl, felt alienated and depressed all throughout school. There was not one boy she was attracted to. It has spread to the second high school in the town. My friend said that her friends, (Ashkenazi), has two daughters in high school and they are alienated and depressed because it is all Chinese. She doesn’t know where to send her daughters to school since they do not want to attend.
We know it is an own goal, and that the Jewish pleb has been betrayed by their elites, but this is true of any ethnic group. That photo of what life is already like in many US cities is horrible and every group that is becoming a minority like this is feeling tremendous anxiety.
All this to say that the quoted piece by Pierce is correct. It is spiritual. It is a matter of spiritual and psychological health that we and any other person be the dominant majority in our own land. Of course, South Africa is showing us the next logical step of being ruled over by a hostile majority that never evolved beyond savagery and primtivism. There are allies to our cause emerging. The issue is how to connect the voices that do agree on the fundamental issue.
The hour is very late.
I think many people don’t even know what they’re missing. The feeling of peace and comfort that comes from being surrounded in public by others similar to yourself can come as a real surprise; many people may have never felt it.
That’s what worries me – that the next generation won’t even resist because “diversity” is all they’ve ever known.
Even being in an an orderly & polite society which is racially homogenous albeit non-White, namely Japan, has a salutary effect on the psyche of many members of the dispossessed majority. Of course Japan is also gradually losing its own struggle against the Jewish/globalist programme.
I recently spent some time in Tokyo and I concur. Though they are not white, I felt a sense of peace I had never experienced before in such a large metropolis. I would have no concerns for my young children to ride the subway alone there. Upon returning home to NYC, the contrast was palpable. I have experienced this type of comfort on a smaller scale in many small white towns (and any ski mountain) throughout America and Europe but have yet to visit a large city that has a supermajority white population.
But let’s be clear: this is also because of the different types of nonwhites. Japanese are a great, and, today at least, civilized people (they weren’t so wonderful during WW2). The ‘peace’ you might feel in Japan is not due to their high level of racial homogeneity – you would not feel such peace in Nairobi or Lagos (or Baltimore) – but their behavior.
Excellent comment. Humans evolved tribally; applying this truth to the social and political world is the core insight of (ethno)nationalism. Different traditions of political philosophy posit different entities as the fundamental social unit. The socialist tradition is the most nonsensical; they place some undifferentiated thing called “humanity” as that unit. The classical liberal/libertarian tradition is a huge improvement, positing the atomized individual as the foundation of society (which at least has the advantage of corresponding to something really existent: each person has a will which uniquely controls only his own body). But humankind did not evolve as individual isolates.
The Christian tradition is stronger still, positing the family as the foundation of the social world. But did humans evolves merely as direct kinship units? No, homo sapiens evolved in extended kinship units, or “tribes”. Much of human history has been the story of these tribes being amalgamated into ever larger units of self-identification. But, I argue, there is a necessary endpoint to this process, and that is race. Race is the unbridgeable chasm – and this is especially true for genetically recessive whites. Sadly, speciation had not yet occurred by the time homo sapiens attained self-awareness, and thus miscegenation is possible (with enough self-conscious ethnostatist separation, we might be able to achieve future white speciation, such that miscegenation will literally become impossible for whites – a goal that should be included within the Ethnostate’s broader racial/population policies). For our race, such miscegenation is, of course, a collective death sentence.
White nationalism is hardly the endpoint of political philosophy, but it is certainly the starting point.
Of course. At the end of the day, the purpose of nationalism is not that we want countrymen who behave the same as us or have the same values as us, but that we want them to be the same as us. The civic nationalist mistakes the fringe benefits for the real thing.
Nice little article, pretty good restatement of the basics.
I support white nationalism because 1) I believe there is profound significance in maintaining a sense of continuity with the past, and this includes ethnic continuity and 2) our people need a place to call home.
I’m totally opposed to “IQ nationalism” (this just gets you technocrat abominations like Vivek) and I am likewise opposed to supremacist arguments for ethnonationalism, because the existence of a racial hierarchy is only relevant to the extent we define ourselves in relation to those we are not. In other words, it’s a negative statement of identity. We shouldn’t be defined merely by what we are not. Another word for that is the void. People do this because they are afraid of particularity and are trying to cling to universalism. They’re not content with being a particular people in a particular place at a particular time. They want to be absolute. It’s misguided.
And as for the IQ nationalists, I think it’s a form of cowardice. They are still stuck in a “racism is bad” paradigm so they are fervently searching for some empirical metric that will absolve them of the responsibility of simply declaring “I wish to live with my own people.”
This is a great essay, I’ve had similar thoughts but you’ve articulated it very succinctly.
I’m no evolutionary biologist, but it does seem to me that the kind of physical differentiation we see among the races would be highly likely to be accompanied by mental variation as well. We often hear race is only “skin deep” but if groups have been isolated long enough to develop different skin tones to adapt to different levels of sunlight, it seems pretty hard to believe they wouldn’t also develop mental mutations as well. Then when you look at the real world and see the different outcomes of these groups it would seem to confirm that intuition. Race deniers are arguing against both what seems intuitively plausible and what we actually can observe about the ways different races behave.
I still think it’s a useful thought experiment to imagine whether a multi-racial society would be desirable even if race deniers were right, and I agree with your conclusion.
The values vs ethnonationalism opposition is yet another scam. It’s true people gather together based on believing the same thing and common values. However, what do values mean, it means what you value. We value the survival of our race and share a lot in common with people that believe that also. Even a non white is welcome as an ally that believes that, but they’re so uncommon it’s a non issue. So yes, you can exclude people based on values. Conversely, whites that don’t value that are not really apart of the white race, because they’re so selfish they don’t belong to any people. They are right when they say whites don’t exist, from their point of view, because they’re not white.
Racism is taking your own side in Darwinian struggle.
Great article. If anything, the robot analogy doesn’t go far enough. If the robots were a supermajority in your city, should it be legal for you to live in another city without robots? Or should the army enforce integration at gunpoint?
Our friend American Krogan had a fantastic video against IQ nationalism : competance is a bad trait to have in an antagonist
Mr Taylor has an anecdote about ecologist preserving a particular dung beetle from extinction. I’ve read similar preservation efforts about the Scottish wild cat, and the barred owl in British Columbia – in those cases, even hybrids (with domestic cats and spotted owls, respectively) were culled for lack of “racial purity”. Notice the preservation efforts say nothing about “superiority” or “values”.
ArminiusMaximus: February 27, 2025 ...I was speaking with a friend who lives in a very affluent area…Her daughter, Jewish girl, felt alienated and depressed all throughout school… My friend said that her friends, (Ashkenazi), has two daughters in high school and they are alienated and depressed…
—
If you are serious about preservation of Whites, you might consider changing playgrounds and playmates. Alienation and depression will be unavoidable in your and your Jewish friend’s present circumstance.
—
All this to say that the quoted piece by Pierce is correct. It is spiritual. It is a matter of spiritual and psychological health that we and any other person be the dominant majority in our own land…
—
Mr. Miller is quoting from Dr. Griffin’s biography of Pierce, Chapter 27, “Pierce’s Vision.” Griffin says the chapter is Pierce’s own words, yet when he quotes Pierce as saying, “A white future is more than a material thing…” he doesn’t capitalize the word White. He’s quoting Pierce’s writing, in his comment following Rudyard Kipling”s great poem, “The Stranger,” so that’s odd since Pierce always capitalized the word White when referring to our race.
That may seem like nitpicking, but I just searched on the word White in Pierce’s piece on Kipling where he quotes “The Stranger”: Rudyard Kipling: White Man’s Poet | National Vanguard . White appears 11 times, capitalized each time.
When Pierce spoke or wrote about the necessity for our people to be “pure in spirit,” he was talking about the religion, Cosmotheism, that he founded for enlightened Whites — not a Semitic religion like Christianity. Griffin is a Christian, so perhaps he did not understand that. I cannot say why he would deliberately use lowercase white when Pierce, while writing, always capitalized the word when referring to our race — a positive standard.
That aside, when you wrote of Whites being the dominent majority in our own land, that suggests there would be some non-Whites in our own land. That’s not interpreting Pierce correctly; that is a compromise, a half-measure, since his vision is of a new White world will be one that is free of alien races that cannot make White babies and of their influence in our own land.
Like you say, the hour is late for accomplishing Pierce’s vision. It begins at the family and community level.
Any large numbers of non-whites is problematic, but a small amount of law-abiding, tax-paying non-whites who loves the West and who tries to assimilate is fine. As long as they’re not jewish i guess.
Not in European nations, they are not. Each European country should be its own racially exclusive ethnostate. To admit a single nonwhite into lawful residence (as opposed to a few being mere tourists or diplomatic personnel) in any European nation is to destroy that nation sooner or later. The Racial Principle – that this nation is white, and will remain so forever – must always be paramount for whites in a world where whites are vastly outnumbered, as well as maximally genetically recessive.
These white people who don’t feel alienated are deluding themselves. Right now non-whites are building numbers, once they realize that most whites are too cowardly to defend themselves and their own—the real fun will begin.
If civic nationalists really believe in what they claim to believe, then they would march onto the college campuses and tell the various non-white advocacy groups like BLM to dissolve themselves because it’s a big no-no to act along racial collective lines. Of course, the civ nats will not do this because they understand at some visceral level that they would be booted from the campus green, no questions asked.
For civic nationalism to work, as a minimum non-whites (“N”) would have to be prohibited from organizing along racial lines. That means no more minority student unions, no more campus ethnic studies departments, no more national associations for the advancement of BIPOC people, etc. Because as long as group “N” organizes along racial lines and group “W” does not organize, group “N” will hold the high hand.
Check of proof: White Americans stopped advocating for their own racial interests (since, say, in the 1960s) and since then other racial groups have doubled down on pushing their own racial interests: affirmative action, demands for reparations, the assault on “Whiteness,” the DEI regime, the iconoclasm, the 1619 Project, the 2020 (persons of) color revolution, the Great Replacement.
Check of proof: The current mayhem in the Republic of South Africa. White people ceased organizing along racial lines, blacks maintained their racial agitation, and muh civic nationalism has proven to be totally ineffective in dealing with farm seizures, discrimination (“BEE”), criminal attacks, ad etcetera.
In the long run, what counts are the proverbial boots on the ground which provide control of territory. You need the numbers but just as critically you need the ideology to justify that control. And civic nationalism is just not making the grade.
Of course, all that you write is correct. I have never been a civnat. I can see I was a “WN” even before I was cognizant of the term. However, absent accelerationist collapse, which I personally do not see (nor, selfishly perhaps, wish to see) on the horizon, we oppressed Whites must still work within the existing electoral framework. Doing so, civnat-ism is the best even a true WN can do (and actually get elected and do some real good for our people).
Imagine Trump or Vance were secret WNs. They wanted to prevent White extinction, and work to remove White oppression and promote White interests as much as possible. Isn’t civnat-ism the best they could advocate? That could get them elected, after which they could actually start eliminating the nonwhite “immivasion”, securing the border, deporting the aliens, attacking DEI, etc. If they became open WNs, they might raise a bit of racial consciousness for some persons, but I assert they would not get elected, and thus Whites would continue sinking into enslavement and extinction.
Our path forward is gradual radicalization: get a majority of our people to embrace American First civic nationalism; actually halt the Great Replacement; then move the goalposts further towards true ethnonationalism. Civic nationalism is a stepping stone, not a resting place.
Here is one more extremely important argument that must be added to the stack of reasons why White Nationalists should strongly OPPOSE this suicidal notion of supporting the invasion of allegedly ‘high IQ’ nations (India has an average of 95, per this website https://blogs.worldiqranking.com/whats-the-average-iq-score-in-india-state-wise-list-of-average-iq-score/ ) – and here it is:
White Europeans were either blessed (or cursed) with having the most beautiful and desirable females of any other species of human. This means that the 90 plus percent of the world’s male population who are NOT White are obsessed and consumed by their raw, savage and primitive animal lust to poach for themselves as many of our White females as possible.
And, these dark skinned immigrants are willing to snag White females and they don’t care if these “conquests” are voluntary or involuntary. Doubters should surf over to the FBI / Justice Department’s Crime Statistics website and spend some time examining the interracial rape and sexual assault crime statistics. Or, do a few hours of similar research about interracial rape statistics in nearly every one of the historic White nations in Europe. or even down in South Africa.
Granted, I will concede that the ‘involuntary’ conquests are most often committed by the darkies with lower IQs.
But, when we have darkies with higher IQs being imported – they more likely to take high paying, middle to upper middle class jobs away from White men and then we have to factor in the hypergamous disease that so many materialistic White women suffer from and that far too many of them will spread their legs for any darkie who has a fat bank account – and we have the perfect path to White racial extinction.
This is what Elon Musk wants to see happen when he advocates for importing H-1B scabs from India. This is a direct attack and a declaration of war that is intended to hinder and eventually destroy the formation of healthy, White marriages and families between White men and White women. From which the births of White children can only happen.
Elon Musk is an enemy of all White Europeans who do not wish to become extinct. And, what is his motivation for supporting White genocide? His greed and desire to replace Whites with H-1B scabs from India who he can pass less and pocket the difference.
This is a a very important comment, which then goes off the rails with Musk. All you say is true, but I sincerely doubt that is Elon’s intention. I think Greg Johnson has covered this elsewhere. Elon is simply a Team America guy, rather than any sort of WN. He thinks in terms of what can benefit America considered in a racially neutral way. I disagree that bringing in even highly skilled nonwhites is a net-positive for America in the deepest sense and over the longest term, but surely you can see how Musk might think so. It’s called “brain draining”, and it is net-positive from a strictly economic perspective. But as a prowhite, I have no interest in importing some new cognitive elite to lord it over future generations of my own people (indeed, don’t we in fact already suffer from rule by such a high-IQ hostile elite?).
Wrong. White Nationalists are not racialists. They are authoritarians. The racialism is the excuse.
I think if we had a private one on one conversation, I am pretty certain that I could disabuse you of that entirely incorrect conclusion.
Unless of course, you are immune to hard facts, hard evidence, and easily verifiable, genetically based, biologically certified and proven medical scientific facts.
White Nationalists are the farthest thing from being the “authoritarians” that you falsely accuse them of being. What we are, is a gradually increasing percentage of the White European race worldwide who are red pilled on the jewish agenda to genocide Whites wherever they may exist on this Earth and we are courageous enough to stand in opposition to being rendered extinct. Be that genocide be achieved by jews dragging White nations into endless wars that kill off our race, or by promoting abortions that prevent any White babies from being born, or by brainwashing White females with the mental disease of “feminism” and programming them to believe careers are more important than becoming mothers, or by promoting ‘no fault’ divorce laws that women can use to divorce rape endless numbers of White men, when those men did nothing to justify those divorces, or by pushing anti-heterosexual lifestyle behaviors on young and impressionable White youth in order to help reduce the birth of White babies.
And, then, let us not overlook the Grand Daddy of all White genocide tricks from the jewish White race hating playbook: The deliberate, malicious and now proven to have been premeditated manufacture of, and draconian agenda to snooker millions of jew clueless White numbskulls across the entire White Western world to roll up their sleeves and submit to having these deadly and often fatal experimental covid vaccines shoved into their bodies.
Think I am bullshitting? Take a bite out of this truth sandwich, Buttercup:
Here is a bit of interesting information:
CDC DIRECTOR: ROCHELLE WALENSKY (JEWISH) / MANDY COHEN (JEWISH)
CDC DEPUTY DIRECTOR: ANNE SCHUCHAT (JEWISH)
CHIEF OF STAFF: SHERI BERGER (JEWISH)
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER (MITCHELL WOLFE (JEWISH)
DIRECTOR WASHINGTON : JEFF RECZEK (JEWISH)
ANDY SLAVITT- COVID SENIOR ADVISER (JEWISH)
JEFF ZIENTS-COVID CZAR (JEWISH)
PFIZER CEO: ALBERT BOURLA (JEWISH)
MODERNA’S VACCINE CREATOR: TAL ZAKS (JEWISH)
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CEO: ALEX GORSKY (JEWISH)
ASTRAZENECA CEO: PASCAL SORIOT (JEWISH)
ASS SEC HEALTH:RACHEL LEVINE (JEWISH)
Looks like you have the mental disease of sperging out instead of checking yourself.
You might want to find a mirror, because I think your yarmulke needs to be adjusted.
You ain’t gonna make it calling people you can’t refute Jewish.
High IQ multiracial nationalism does not work when it take into account that the best and brightest among the nonwhites still favor the best interests of their own group. Vivek is an example of one of the best and brightest among the Indians but he is still in denial about the innate deficiencies of his own group and has nothing in common with white America. His desire for a multiracial society is really just a selfish and natural crave to advocate for his in-group. Asians and Jews despite their above average to high IQs on mass vote Democrats because they can’t identify with the struggles and values of Whites. The best and brightest among the non-whites want to gain political power and attain white collar jobs to cause a cultural shift that will favor their tribe. Even among Whites, the Founding Fathers never envisioned for America to be a pan-European society and wanted the country to maintain is WASP identity. Monolithic racial unity never existed throughout history when you take into account the inter ethnic and religious conflicts between each racial group. The only time Whites were unified was when we had a common enemies which were the Arabs and Turkish Muslims during the crusade who wanted to take over Europe. Europeans need to put aside their tribal and religious differences for now until the 3rd world invasion is stopped and the traitors among us are severely punished.
Excellent comment (but terrible pseudonym!). All nonwhites integrated among Whites constitute racial aggression against us. High IQ ones are even worse, long term, than low IQ ones (as long as the latter are relatively peaceful and lawful).
“Conversely, whites that don’t value that are not really apart of the white race, because they’re so selfish they don’t belong to any people. They are right when they say whites don’t exist, from their point of view, because they’re not white.” – Igor
That is so very well said, Igor! The above discussion (re IQ Nationalism vs White Nationalism) is good as a primer-type lesson. Even before my own “red-pilling”, though, it seemed absolutely instinctive to me that White people are hard-wired to feel safety around their own kind, and danger around racial strangers. No mystery there, whatsoever. Ah, but the problem of anti-White Whites. That’s been a tough one for me to square, because I find it so difficult to believe that anyone could be so self-destructive as to give validity to the tearing-down of their own racial identity. Not to mention, the validity of their own continued existence! Igor ties a nice bow on it with his concluding thought: best to just think of them as not White, at all. Because if the anti-White Whites have their own way, they won’t exist much longer anyway. Agreed, too, with one of the commenters above (Lord Shang?) who stated that we are currently going through an evolutionary bottleneck. Absolutely; and it’s going to be a necessarily merciless one, I do believe.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.