Counter-Currents
3,956 words
You can buy Greg Johnson’s It’s Okay to Be White here.
“Despite my disgust at the idea, I find myself strangely drawn to white supremacy. Why can that be?”
That question (slightly edited) was posed to me by a close friend. He is extremely accomplished, a retired scientist and professor, author of many books (no bestsellers, though), and is very astute and still writing in his eighties. He has one foot in race realism, having publicly discussed racial IQ differences, attacked DEI, and consistently pointed out that minority scholarship is frequently subpar. And yet, every time he gets too close to actual white identity or advocacy, he goes running back to the safety of the multicultural, colorblind meritocracy.
Here is a more polished, comprehensive version of my response.
***
My dear friend,
Such a question! Part of me wants to dismiss it with some lighthearted quip, as it is perhaps beyond my abilities. And who am I to go poking around in your psychology? But the other part of me is salivating at the thought of tackling it, as it is so rich a topic. So here goes:
First of all, I believe part of the reason why you find yourself in such a muddle over this matter is that you continue to use the preferred language of the left. I know that many of us on the right scoff at the postmodern left’s attempt to reduce reality to language since they so often seem ridiculous when doing so, but they in fact frequently wield language as an effective weapon. Why do you use the term “white supremacy” when there are other, less abrasive terms for pro-white sentiments? I don’t believe that is what you are drawn toward, that you believe whites are superior and therefore entitled to rule over others and use them however they wish. It immediately conjures all sorts of evils to most people, white, black, or brown: the denial of others’ rights, the misuse of their lives and bodies, the forced labor, the rape, the rope, the lash, the chain—all for the masters’ selfish comforts or psychological inadequacies. Mental images appear of the sad, downcast eyes of the enslaved, and the human heart naturally wishes to free and uplift them. Guilt can weigh heavily on us, and we seek to absolve ourselves of ancestors’ injustices. We may even take note that a select few of the enslaved have greater gifts than ourselves and realize that our supposed superiority and privileged lives may be built on a lie.
Surely you can see how this imposed guilt trip undermines our confidence as a people, how it can be used to manipulate us into siding against our own interests. I believe you have been conditioned to use the phrase “supremacy” when speaking of any pro-white sentiments because the term is so extreme, so at odds with our Western sense of fairness. Even a “fascist” such as I—or at least that is how you jokingly refer to me at times—rejects such supremacy as an immoral philosophy, not only for its intrinsic unfairness, but also because it corrupts and warps both superior and inferior. It is not who we are, or who we want to be, but how our antagonists wish us to appear.
There are other terms for being pro-white that are in accord with Western ethics, and I suspect that you really meant one of them. Very likely, you meant “identitarian,” which means that one accepts the ethnically pluralist society (albeit begrudgingly, given no other choice), but also demands equality for whites, the right of free association, the right to publicly promote white pride, and the right to advocate for white rights—all of which are currently denied to us tacitly if not explicitly. It is impossible to argue against the identitarian agenda when others are automatically granted these rights. Therefore, to the establishment, the harsher term supremacy is preferred to make all white advocacy seem “beyond the Pale.”
It may also be that you meant the middle level of white identity: white nationalism (or separatism), which is where I now find myself. This does not mean a desire to control others, as does supremacy, but merely that we wish to control our own space where we can deny access to others. It means full self-determination. That is the natural way to live; before modern travel and communication, most people lived only in proximity to those who were very much like them, and perhaps were even distant kin.
In the modern world, those barriers are easily surmounted, and we find ourselves surrounded by creatures very different from ourselves. Without a strong sense of identity, whites are at a disadvantage in pluralistic societies. This is largely because of our cooperative natures; we want everything to work smoothly, and we expect interactions to conform to a system of universal ethics, while others aggressively grasp for their own advantages without concern for the general good. So, in order to achieve our human potential—and even to continue our existence as whites—we need to be apart and free to create and build on our own terms.
Is this desire for separation is wrong? If you truly believe so, then explain to me why we must bear the responsibility to aid and uplift others even though including them in our society will likely have a detrimental effect on us? Is there a moral imperative that we must sacrifice ourselves for those who would not do the same for us? And explain without resorting to Judeo-Christian scriptures, which we both consider fiction (and I consider propaganda). The fact is that there is no such responsibility, no such imperative; the only natural responsibility is to those who will maintain and grow our genetic and cultural lines. The laws of genetics that underlie all life, and therefore all humanity, demand that we favor our own or perish. Should we deny ourselves a part of our nature that is so fundamental and so powerful? Especially while others do not? Exactly how do we benefit by being submerged into some larger mass with very different—and often more dominant—characteristics. The truth is that we do not benefit. We disappear.
If this imperative to increase our own kind is so deep in our nature, why do you so recoil from the idea? I know that you, as a biologist, accept life’s intrinsically competitive drives. So why in this case do you expect your own kind to cease competing in the struggle for life while others continue? Was victory too easy for us when we showed group unity? In the past, we conquered almost the entire world and imposed our will on the rest of mankind with impunity. I understand that you may find this to be wrong; I, too, wish our history were more one of separation rather than domination. Still, others are not our burden, but our competition. And our vanquished foes would gladly have done the same and worse to us were they capable. Separation is not conquest; it is the rejection of conquest and of imposing one’s will on others, as well as the defense of our own. How is it wrong, by any ethical standards? It is not wrong, of course.
If you were instead to use a phrase meaning our own right to determination through creating a society of our own, or one merely demanding our equality in a pluralistic society, different images than those induced by “supremacy” would emerge. They would likely be positive, founded on love of our own rather than hatred of others. They would include the innate desire to seek truth, justice, and beauty on our own terms. To live in accord with our natural drives to build, to explore, and to know, as are our ancestral customs. To maximize our potential without the weight of others pulling us down.
The multicultural, meritocratic, individualist society you cling to exists—and it is proving to be our downfall. Infrastructure crumbles and social pathologies spread even as technology advances. Look at the growing grey-brown masses; do you see a better future for whites? Then think of the opportunities lost while wasting money and effort on raising others to our level.
What holds you back from adjusting your beliefs to this reality? I know old dogs are not supposed to learn new tricks, and you and I without question qualify as a couple of “old dogs.” Still, even in your ninth decade you show a remarkable desire to explore and learn anew, but this one topic keeps you locked in a mindset that has been deliberately crafted to diminish our people.
But then there is much more than just the language problem pushing you to reject advocating for our rights. Modern Western civilization is based on some deep-seated but questionable foundations that also inhibit our identity. One is the belief—often expressed by you—that the individual should be the cornerstone of our legal and moral reasoning. This may be a higher hurdle than the language problem, more deeply engrained in the Anglo-American consciousness than the guilt of supremacy and not so easily disproven. Individuality as a basis for a legal and moral system has served our society well for centuries. Now its usefulness, at least in some cases, is waning. Consider that the principle rose to prominence at a time when there were no widely differing groups of men among us; diversity meant a Yorkshireman in London (or in extreme cases, a—gasp—Frenchie). Think of the problems that don’t exist when all men have common genetics, common cultures, and common history: there is no possibility of genocide or “replacement.” Yes, we may fight bitter wars against our own kind, but at the end, the people and the culture remain. With diversity there is either perpetual conflict or domination of one group by the other. The real problem is not periodic warfare, but endless discord, gradual replacement, and mixing.
Furthermore, emphasizing individual rights diminishes a proper perspective of group rights, if the right for somebody to be included in a group is placed above the right of the group to exclude.
Others have not been so long and so aggressively groomed to believe in the absolute primacy of the individual and of the impropriety of their group identity as our people have. As such, the others favor their own kind without shame or guilt. And they have discovered that being a united group operating in a society that is founded on the individual has a considerable advantage. This is a lesson we are learning all too well as traditional Americans are pushed out of one job, one industry, and one neighborhood after another. I do not begrudge other people for championing their own side, nor do I believe that we can convince them to instead adopt a mindset of self-sacrifice through “Christian love” or any other mechanism. They only speak the language of weakness when it is to their advantage; it is our self-sacrifice they applaud, not their own. I only wish that we, too, shared their pursuit of group interests.
Another stumbling block—perhaps the most deeply embedded of all our cultural fallacies—is the belief that all humanity belongs to some universal collective rather than to particular peoples, that the love for all humanity should be equal to the love we show to those closest to us. It is a vestige of Christianity that remains even in a life-long agnostic such as yourself. But just like with individualism, such a principle can work only if all people share it equally; those who love only their own have a distinct advantage in a multicultural society operating under the assumption of universal love. I see no such universal love in our diverse fellow citizens, only lip service. They seek their own advantage at our expense, always.
Still, you keep supporting a vision for society that transcends the tribe and is extended to all who meet certain criteria. One criterion is meritocracy, which is a good rule in particular situations within a society, such as choosing somebody for a job or in college admissions. But as a rule for choosing members of the society? Such a criterion can be disastrous, creating foreign elites who have contempt for ordinary whites. The sheer numbers of talented outsiders who wish to come here could easily overwhelm us—how is it good for us to be subordinated into a lower class in our own country? To favor sheer intelligence over community is a grave error, a mistaken Randian fantasy; technical advance without a balancing love for society is a road to evil. Furthermore, when talented foreigners are brought into the West, they often try to bring in less-talented members of their ethnicity rather than to maintain the pure meritocracy that brought them to us.
And never forget, we were long the world’s creative engine without others; there’s no reason why we cannot be so again.
The other criterion you suggest is granting membership according to one’s beliefs or ideas—civic nationalism. However, this is the most unstable of foundations for a society. Beliefs change drastically, not only from one generation to the next, but even in one’s own life. One year the multicultural masses may favor the American Constitution, a few years later they may slide into extreme egalitarianism. And always, ethnic interests are likely to be lurking beneath one’s publicly professed ideals.
Both individualism and meritocracy run counter to the elements that naturally bind people together, such as family and tradition.
You also offer as a reason for your preference for a diverse society your acquaintances among non-whites. You mention your first love—a Jewish girl from a wealthy family. You cite your positive relationship with members of a black church through your Rotary club’s attempts to help them. You cite pleasant casual encounters with blacks in your ordinary daily life. These reasons seem rather myopic to base your rejection of a major existential threat. For the first, there is the opportunity cost; you would have certainly had another first love, and one that was longer-lasting. Had you stayed within your own people, the girl’s father would not have ended it because you were not one of “them,” but embraced you as a worthy suitor for his daughter’s hand. For the second, it would be natural that you would have good relations with people you are helping. But what would your relations be like if your club told the church that it’s time their people started solving their own problems? And the third is merely petty; we all like a little variety in our lives, but this is hardly a reason upon which to base a nation. And what about the bad encounters with others that are commonplace today? So far you seem to have escaped them—that may be simply random luck rather than a true reflection of reality.
The real question is not about individual experiences, but about creating the best society. Of course, we may get along with different peoples in our day-to-day lives, but are such pleasantries worth our diminishing, our debasement, and, perhaps, our extinction? Current trends suggest an approaching disaster for whites: we were 90 percent of the country a few decades ago and now we are somewhere between 50 and 60 percent—and already a minority at the younger age levels. In 1900, we dominated almost every corner of the globe; today we don’t dominate even in our native lands. We got to this unfortunate place because we wish to be seen as good according to false standards. We got here because we have allowed other groups—who are not shy about seeking advantages for their own—to exploit our openness, fairness, and decency. Without a renewed sense of group identity and the will to push for our own interests, the decline will continue until we are a powerless, forgotten people; our replacements will not continue our culture but their own. Your individualism, civic nationalism, and meritocracy—the cornerstones of your preferred society—will disappear as our influence recedes.
And, of course, there is always the “not all of them are like that” problem. Again, I am concerned about preserving our people; they are simply not us and including significant numbers of “them” in our society as equal members mean that we will become less “us” over time. Furthermore, to include the ones “who are not like that” means we must also include the ones “who are very much like that.” This problem is tied to individualism; no matter how strongly you feel about treating everybody as individuals, it can be a very limiting perspective. Like it or not, at some point group influence must be considered, for the influences of others invariably change our society in ways that we would not choose on our own.
There is a great body of empirical evidence about what those group influences can do. I know I’ve sent you the chart showing how the average black, over the course of a lifetime, takes ¾ of a million dollars from the system, while the average Hispanic takes about ½ million. The average white, on the other hand, contributes about ¼ million. Is it not obvious that including these others in our debt-laden society is dragging us down economically? What kind of society would we have if our populace were composed only of those who are likely to be contributors? These same patterns exist in every facet of life, not just economics. These are the considerations upon which to enact policy, not random encounters with outliers who are “not like that.”
Having dispensed with the roots of your “disgust,” we can now shift to the second part of your dilemma—your attraction to whiteness. I think I know you pretty well, have served as your reader, sounding board, and confidant for the last few years. It appears you do not have quite the same instinctive, intense attraction to your European heritage that I have. Why this is so, I cannot say. Perhaps I simply inherited more of the genetic trait that encourages racial solidarity? Who knows?
Or it could be differences in our upbringings. Certainly, my Archie Bunkeresque (although educated) father made me fully aware which side of the racial/ethnic divide I was on, whereas your own parents might never have brought the subject up. I went to an integrated school in the suburbs of a city filled with racial tension and was fully aware of racial differences long before I entered high school, whereas you grew up in a time and place where whites were over 99 percent of the population and therefore you had few opportunities to witness the differences first-hand. Furthermore, your adult life in America has been spent entirely in the congenial atmosphere of academia and white, middle class neighborhoods, where there are few opportunities for genuine racial conflict. Your views might be different if you had spent your life living in areas where minorities have ceased conforming to majority customs and reverted to their own norms.
You can order Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
Yet, despite all your reservations, your attraction to whiteness is still there. I believe the answer is to be found in your desire for truth. You, my friend, are without question a “seeker of truth,” a man of science in the best sense of the word. You have long accepted—perhaps reveled in—a role as the outside observer, the Socrates who reveals the unpleasant truths the establishment wishes to remain hidden. Also, you have a very natural repulsion towards the liars and defenders of the false status quo—you go after them tenaciously when more cautious souls would hold back.
In today’s world, the establishment’s lies about race are everywhere. There’s no reason to tell you; you have written extensively about some of them, pointing out the emptiness of minority scholarship, and the unfair treatment of whites. It is inexplicable to me how you can so clearly see these particulars and yet still refrain from making the obvious inferences and generalizations that these particulars suggest. Over 80 years of propaganda and social grooming seem to have had their intended effect, even on one as aware and rational as yourself. Something dramatic must be going on underneath your hood; the internal discord could be causing you to freeze into indecision. Recoiling from the lies pushes you toward the white cause even as the manipulative language pushes you away. This contradiction certainly left me in a confused state for much of my life.
I understand that the leap toward white identity I am suggesting is not an easy one, that it means you must re-order your life, both the inner and outer spheres. It will affect your self-image, relationships, and your social status, and often not for the better. But doing so will bring you closer to the truth you so treasure. And it is not like your current position is bringing you a sense of peace. Your criticism of particular writers, thinkers, and theories has already cost you plenty. I’ve been witness to your battles in the last few years, with your old academic department and with editors who formerly published all your articles but now hesitate because you refuse to buckle under the prevailing consensus. How long do you think you can remain in the middle, both attacking and preserving a culture that has led us to the unhappy, unpromising present? Do you not see that diversity itself has brought us to this point, that the solution is racial unity, not more of the same atomization?
Truth and reality will have their way, eventually. But consider your desire for a diverse, open, meritocratic society based on individual rights. That vision dies hard, but die it must if one loves the truth as much as you do. The cracks in America’s attempt to create such a society are obvious and spreading. The nation is polarizing and fracturing into not just left and right but into dozens of ethnic and religious factions, all clamoring for a larger slice of the pie. How many of the non-white newcomers come from societies with traditions of openness and meritocracy? It is only within white society that such ideal conditions have existed to the degree you wish. Elsewhere, everything is kinship, tribe, religion, party allegiance, even bribery. Just observe how minorities lobby for unfair advantages in college admissions and employment; their concern is not for universal justice. Or the way Islamic communities in England circle the wagons to defend the grooming gangs who abuse young English girls. Or the way that, very recently, millions of Indians have called for clemency for the illegal Sikh truck driver whose stupidity and lack of regard for others killed a family of three. Or how minorities often vote in blocs, not as individuals. The only way that the meritocratic society based on individual rights and responsibilities can be continued is to cut the diversity part of the equation adrift.
It is also likely, when you are faced with these considerations, some small part of you will in fact identify with your fellow whites. Surely a man as knowledgeable about history can recognize the greatness and beauty of Europeans; why would you not identify with that? I realize you have been hammered with the message that recognizing and favoring our people as a unique community to be proud of is wrong from the moment you became sentient. But if the basic drive of life—for all creatures, large and small–is to promote your genetic inheritance, then how can it be wrong?
It’s okay to be white. And it’s okay to side with whites against others—after all, they have no reservations about organizing to take what belongs to us. It’s never too late to join us.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
33 comments
Great article! That old man needs to be slapped in the face with a reality check. I resent people that have not had my experiences, and suffering—he has been getting over too long. 🙃
Peter,
Thanks for your kind praise. Please don’t be too hard on my buddy. He’s actually a great guy who has been steeped in the propaganda for over 80 years, and I am the first admitted racial realist he has known. And of all my normie friends, he was the first one I could speak to about such matters honestly without creating a ruckus. I prefer making tiny subtle gains with true believers in the colorblind meritocracy instead of destroying relationships with people who are not ready to receive the message. Shockingly, it works sometimes. For instance, my Conservative Inc. boss just wrote an article (not yet published) about American universities serving America instead of the world. When I started there a couple of decades ago, I was immediately ostracized because of my anti-immigration stance, and my boss was right there with the rest of them. Now she almost sounds like the 2007 “me.”
Milk before meat.
“Now she almost sounds like the 2007 “me.”
She.
Ouch.
Very, very well done! This letter to your friend is so very passionate, logical and comprehensive; an absolutely liberating journey through all the anti-White mythology we have been trammeled with. It is rather sad, though, that at his age he has even the slightest doubt about his racial instincts; which is nothing less than our natural endowment — and I would go so far as to say, our basic survival instinct.
This was great. I may send this to one of my friends who was a libertarian when I first met him but is now most of the way to our side.
Thanks for that, Dave. That was exactly my intention when I decided to rewrite the personal letter for publication–to create a template for discussion with normies who are starting to lean in our direction.
“Despite my disgust at the idea, I find myself strangely drawn to white supremacy. Why can that be?” Although I personally don’t espouse the “supremacy” aspect – white “separation” is more my speed, the simple answer is that he gets the big picture.
It is a question so clumsily crafted that it reminds me “Leopold and Loeb”. Not that the questioner meant it in that way but put in that manner it sounds just as crazy.
4,000 words is a little long for me to read, Dereck, but I saw you answered your friend nicely with just this one question: Why do you use the term “white supremacy” when there are other, less abrasive terms for pro-white sentiments? Very good!
Your old friend, being a scientist, might gain from reading the work of Dr. William Pierce, who, as a race realist with a PhD in physics, evaluated Nature’s laws as a scientist.
Your letter reminded me of a fine letter by a young National Alliance member, an attorney, to his mother 30 years ago. Others may enjoy reading this: “Dear Mom” at nationalvanguard.org
Dear Mom —
You tell me that what I believe is wrong and that all we need in this country is a religious revival. But let me tell you what I believe in. I believe the destruction of our country is not caused by a lack of Christianity but due to the corruption of the White people who made the country. Let me explain what I mean.
Mom, Whites are a special people, much different than Blacks and other races. For example, Whites have a special gift for making civilization run smoothly and peacefully and orderly. Whites also have a special gift for inventing things, a gift which some other races don’t have. Whites, before integration, had the most peaceful countries, the most peaceful neighborhoods, the most peaceful cities in the world. And thousands of miles away, on the African continent, Blacks were running around killing each other as they still do today and as they will forever because that’s their nature.
Even though you don’t like to think of yourself as White, you are White. You are descended from Italian and English blood. You are an American but you are a White. You were born in the United States: that is your country of origin. But you are a White: that is your race. Your race is not American. Because of race, you have more in common, believe it or not, with a person from Iceland than you do with a Black who lives in America. That is how important and determinative race is. Race is far more defining, far more important than nationality. For example, if you were an American Black, instead of an American White, you would likely not be as intelligent, nor would you even think or feel in the same way.
No, the destruction of the country is not due to a lack of religion or the wrong religion, because even before the acceptance of our current religion, Whites possessed their genius for civilization. Whites would have created their beautiful and advanced societies no matter what their religion was because their talent, as is all talent, is genetic. Today, the mainline churches and a lot of the smaller ones are actually destroying the White race: they promote race-mixing and most everyone in the pews goes along with it.
I would hate to see the White race destroyed. Its destruction is mainly because of the Jews. Once again, let me explain. The Jews created, with the help of White traitors, all the legislation to allow unlimited Third World immigration to enter and destroy the country. Also, the Jews led the crusade for racial integration. Next, the Jews have power in the form of nearly endless money (which one way or another comes from our pockets) and the Jews own the media: virtually all movies, all sitcoms, all commercials, with very few exceptions, must meet with Jewish approval or they don’t get on the air. The Jew’s power to control the White through his media is absolutely tremendous. And the Jews use this great power to brainwash Whites to think that race-mixing is a good idea, that it is the “right thing to do.” Look at the Disney movie Pocohontas for example, which glorifies the interracial union of a White and an Indian. The movie also disparages the White race as morally inferior. And look at MTV. And the cinema. And Sesame Street. The media’s messages encouraging White interracial mating and deprecating White history are everywhere, on every channel, all day, all night.
Look at how much harm the Jew does! And why do they do it? Do they really hate us that much? Why would they want to destroy the White race?…
I’ll cut Brian’s letter short for brevity. Read the rest of it at the link above.
Well said. I hope Brian’s mom took it to heart.
Sorry for the length, Will, but I was trying to cover the matter comprehensively. This is an important question that should be on all our minds–how do we talk about racial realism to our normie friends? It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation. With most people, you have to be strategic, gradual, and subtle, with others you can perform a frontal assault like the letter you included. Little cracks are appearing in the national unity against the white identity and people are slightly more receptive to our ideas, or at least they don’t run away like they’ve seen the devil anymore. Ten years ago, I kept my thoughts to myself; now, most of the people in my life know that I’m a white nationalist, including my Conservative Inc. boss. And they still seem to like me.
Derek Stark: September 5, 2025 … It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation. With most people, you have to be strategic, gradual, and subtle, with others you can perform a frontal assault like the letter you included… Ten years ago, I kept my thoughts to myself; now, most of the people in my life know that I’m a white nationalist, including my Conservative Inc. boss. And they still seem to like me…
—
Come on, Derek. Brian’s plainspoken, common sense letter is no “frontal assault.” Those who would think that it is have a way to go to understand the dire situation our race was in three decades ago and is in even more so today.
Was it Brian’s mention of the Jewish Question that bothers you?
I searched for Conservative Inc. and came up empty, except for this pabulum: https://evangelicaldarkweb.org/2025/03/21/the-death-of-conservative-inc/
“White nationalist” has become too vague — a “big tent” term that even includes conservatives. When I saw the term I recalled Dr. Pierce’s 1971 classic “Why Conservatives Can’t Win” at nationalvanguard.org.
SOME OF MY best friends are conservatives. I sincerely like them and I admire them for their genuine virtues: for their sense of propriety and personal integrity in an age of corruption, for their independent spirit and their willingness to stand on their own feet in an increasingly paternalistic society.
Therefore, I hope my conservative friends will forgive me for what I am about to write.
A Tragic Choice
There is not the least doubt in my mind that if I were forced to cast my lot with either conservatism or with the left — old or new — I would choose conservatism.
But fortunately, none of us is faced with such a limited choice. It would surely be tragic if we were. It would be tragic in the great sense, in the Spenglerian sense. We would be making the choice of Spengler’s Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii — who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. We would be choosing what is right and honorable and in accord with the traditions of our race — and certain to fail.
For conservatives cannot possibly emerge victorious from the life-or-death struggle in which they are presently engaged. Although their opponents on the radical left may not attain their own goals — indeed, cannot attain them, because they are based on an erroneous conception of man and Nature — conservatives have proved themselves utterly incapable of preventing the destruction of their own world by those same radical leftists.
Revolutionary Advantage
Conservatives cannot win because the enemy to which they are opposed is a revolutionary enemy — an enemy with revolutionary goals and guided by a revolutionary way of life.
The advantage has always lain — and will always lie — on the side of the contender who is prepared to take the offensive, rather than maintaining a defensive position only. And the evolutionary natures of the conservative and the revolutionary determine that the one shall always play an essentially defensive role and the other an offensive role.
Besieged vs. Besieger
The offensive-defensive dichotomy does not apply absolutely to tactics, of course, but it does to strategy. The conservative may launch brief counterattacks — he may sally forth from his fortress to harry his revolutionary besieger — but in the long run he is always the besieged and the revolutionary the besieger.
The goal of the conservative is to protect what is, or, at the extreme, to restore what recently was. The goal of the revolutionary is to radically transform what is, or to do away with it altogether, so that it can be replaced by something entirely different….
Read the rest at the link above, or, to physically spread this 54-year-old truth around you might want to print and distribute this tri-fold flier of the essay from the National Alliance free flier page: WHY_CONS_final.pdf
Will,
You seemed to make a lot of assumptions about me that may not be right.
First of all, I liked your friend’s letter very much. In rhetorical terms, his letter was indeed very much a “frontal assault”–that’s not necessarily a negative description. His letter was direct and forceful, with the writer putting all his cards on the table at once, no punches pulled, nothing hidden from view. I see nothing wrong with such a tactic—when it’s the right one. Depending on the audience, it can be very effective. I find, however, that when you’re discussing white identity with most mainstream normies, it can be best to bring them along gradually instead of angering them or scaring them off by being totally direct.
You also insinuated that I somehow am a bit “squishy” on the JQ. Wrong again. For example, on Counter-Currents, I’ve reviewed a book written by well-known Jewish professor who uses duplicity to advance the Zionist cause. A couple of excerpts:
Yet his Marxism is secondary to his other agenda: he is also an ardent Zionist and defender of Israel and Jewry . . . He rails at how anti-Zionist activists try to hide behind academic freedom to attack Israel and Jews, while at the same time proposing no protections against similar attacks on whites.
In other words, ordinary human mental processes such as detecting patterns of behavior are forbidden when applied to Jews or Israel. Jewish influence also should not be discussed: Nelson suggests that the existence of a “vastly powerful ‘Israel lobby’” is “an antisemitic fiction.”
And another thing on the JQ. Convincing somebody that “it’s okay to be white,” which is the first real step in our direction, is a lot easier than convincing somebody of all the Jewish perfidy we have suffered. It’s a lot easier to get somebody to “Square 5” when they’ve already made the difficult move to “Square 1.” Sometimes it’s best to deal with individual issues than convincing somebody to buy into everything at once.
Did you really google “Conservative Inc” to search for me? That’s a major LOL. Did you really not know that Conservative Inc is just a somewhat derogatory generic catch-all phrase for all of the thousands of mainstream think tanks, consultants, media outlets, political organizations, etc. that are right of center? So when I say I work in Conservative Inc, I mean I work in one of those thousands of organizations. And, while much of it is indeed toxic, Conservative Inc is also an important pipeline into the white identity movement—consider how Gregory Hood and Paul Kersey of American Renaissance frequently discuss their time working in Conservative Inc. And there are many potential allies there who keep their heads down to make a living but have some sympathy for us. I see lots of movement in our direction there in the last year. Personally, I can make contributions in my day job—such as attacking the anti-white “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” movement—without compromising my pro-white beliefs.
Furthermore, you and Pierce seem to be lumping all “conservatives” together. It is a mistake. The conservative world contains everything from neo-cons, Straussians, and right-libertarians to paleo-cons. Paleo-cons have contributed greatly to the literature of white nationalism. We’re talking about people like Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, and many more.
One thing is for certain. Purity spiraling is a sure path to irrelevance and defeat. We have to be strategic, nimble, flexible, and clever to advance our cause, grow our numbers, and win. We have to take one tiny little advance at a time—until the trickle of gains becomes a flood. The fight to preserve the white race is too important to go down in noble defeat—I want to win.
Speaking of reducing reality to language, doesn’t the word ‘conservative’ need to go? Not just because cuckservayidism doesn’t conserve anything, least of all a folk, but because it’s really an old man’s word for bill o’reilly watchers and dennis miller types? Language speaks so why do raceless normievision republicans continue to embrace that embarrassing word? It represents being a weak, pathetic pushover, boredom, useful idiocy (republican saps for israel like democrat saps for blacks), is about as inspiring as a high school principal, and reeks of old-fartism of a bygone amerika in permanent retreat from all confrontations except for allowed micro issues like tax policy. There is nothing cool, creative, strong, or admirable about any association with that word so why haven’t these people gotten the hint that it’s long overdue to ditch it?
I love your answers, Will. With you, it always seems like everything has already been said by someone else 30 years ago, and said better. Whether it’s about the band Absurd, burnout, a letter to normie friend, JQ, racial separatism, or any other topic. Doesn’t that make you a little depressed?
Ondrej Mann: September 6, 2025 I love your answers, Will. With you, it always seems like everything has already been said by someone else 30 years ago, and said better. Whether it’s about the band Absurd, burnout, a letter to normie friend, JQ, racial separatism, or any other topic. Doesn’t that make you a little depressed?
—
Depressed? Not at all, Ondrej. Your response to my comments is encouraging. First, because I learn that someone of your stature and influence reads my comments, but also because you like them. My time has not been wasted.
That “someone” I quote from the past is usually William Pierce and what he had to say to his people 30 years ago — sometimes 50-plus years ago — and after, was indeed expressed better than much of what is being said by wannabe White leaders today.
In the interview you did with me for C-C earlier this year I focused on the founder of the National Alliance and Cosmotheism, my mentor, William Pierce. It is not about me, but what he left for us to build on. 50 years from now, long after I become worm food, Pierce’s vision will be carried forward by younger generations of Whites who have paid attention to his unique body of work.
Thanks for the good answer. Yes Pierce is in many ways relevant today. He was a great and very brave thinker. I believe if he were alive today he would also be reading Counter-currents.
Beau Albrecht: September 5, 2025 Well said. I hope Brian’s mom took it to heart.
—
I haven’t talked to Brian in years. It’s doubtful, though, that he has changed his heartfelt views since then.
You can tell from the loving letter to his mom that he cared what she thinks of his not-so-radical “radical” racial politics. It’s a simple, truthful explanation that reads as well today as it did back then.
Because NA had so many enemies, my own mother worried about my choice to embrace the Alliance and Pierce’s teachings as Brian had. It’s a normal motherly response. Though worried, once she had met Dr. Pierce she knew that I, as a truth-seeker, could justify my actions and would follow my own path, no matter the personal consequences. The response she once told me that I’ll never forget:
Son, know that just because others disagree with you does not mean you are wrong.
Derek Stark: September 6, 2025 Will, You seemed to make a lot of assumptions about me that may not be right… You also insinuated that I somehow am a bit “squishy” on the JQ… Jewish influence also should not be discussed: Nelson suggests that the existence of a “vastly powerful ‘Israel lobby’” is “an antisemitic fiction.”
—
Seems squishy to me. That is my informed opinion, Derek. Who cares what this Jew apologist Nelson thinks?
—
And another thing on the JQ. Convincing somebody that “it’s okay to be white [sic],”.. is the first real step in our direction, is a lot easier than convincing somebody of all the Jewish perfidy we have suffered…
—
Nonsense. IT IS GREAT TO BE WHITE, not just OK. Baby steps are for babies, not for racially responsible White adults.
—
Did you really not know that Conservative Inc is just a somewhat derogatory generic catch-all phrase for all of the thousands of mainstream think tanks, consultants, media outlets, political organizations, etc. that are right of center? So when I say I work in Conservative Inc, I mean I work in one of those thousands of organizations. And, while much of it is indeed toxic, Conservative Inc is also an important pipeline into the white [sic] identity movement..
—
Oh, I see. How would I have known that? I’m not in any “identity” movement.
I could give a shit what thousands of “right-of-center” conservative think tanks and organizations think. In the end, if our race is to survive and expand, many current conservative-minded men and women must come Pierce’s way, and as his successor, my way, not I theirs. Believe me.
—
Furthermore, you and Pierce seem to be lumping all “conservatives” together. It is a mistake. The conservative world contains everything from neo-cons, Straussians, and right-libertarians to paleo-cons. Paleo-cons have contributed greatly to the literature of white [sic] nationalism…
—
Lumping all conservatives together is not a mistake. You deal with all of those various conservatives and our Alliance will deal with the race realists who are beyond conservatism and are attracted to us. I even go so far as to lump all Christians together because at its core Christianity is Semitic, worshipping our enemy’s tribal deity.
BTW, not everyone at C-C pooh poohs Pierce’s teachings, otherwise “Why Conservatives Can’t Win” would not be featured on this site. Dr. Greg Johnson introduced that essay and other Pierce writings like this, here: “Remembering William Pierce: September 11, 1933–July 23, 2002”
Pierce’s commitment to metapolitics was so thoroughgoing that he even founded the religion of Cosmotheism to provide philosophical and spiritual foundations for the National Alliance’s work. But the Alliance did not neglect the other fundamental branch of metapolitics: community organizing. The Alliance also worked to foster local National Alliance groups and to educate a leadership cadre.
Will,
I’ll try to make this as short as possible because I’ve already wasted enough time trying to reason with somebody who is not open to any sort of real discussion but just wants to throw out accusations without any real evidence.
Whether you like it or not, I believe Peirce is wrong by lumping all conservatives together. Anybody who thinks the US would not be a far better place today if conservative Pat Buchanan had replaced Reagan instead of Bush Sr. is ignoring reality. Buchanan was a strong nativist who would have fought to stop mass immigration and would have used tariffs to prevent the foreign undercutting of American industry. He was also very aware of the JQ, having called Israel “a strategic albatross draped around the neck of the United State” and called the US Capitol “Israeli-occupied territory.” Had he been running the Republican show, there is a very good chance AIPAC would have to register as a foreign lobby, ending its stranglehold on Congressional elections. Of course, the vast majority of so-called conservative officials are terrible. But there are strains of thought in conservatism, dating all the way back to Edmund Burke, that can be beneficial to the white cause.
You make a new accusation, that I somehow “pooh-poohed” Pierce’s teachings by saying he made a mistake. Once again, you see something that you don’t like and rush to judgment according to your preconceived notions and then hurl an accusation. Making an occasional mistake is something Pierce had in common with every human being who has ever lived. That does not mean I “pooh-poohed” his entire set of ideas. I don’t know that much about Pierce, but my guess is that he and I share a great many opinions in common. But no man is infallible, and as far as I’m concerned, he got that one wrong. Am I allowed to have my own opinions?
Speaking of getting things wrong, you again called me squishy on the JQ. You had no idea what I think when you did so. Well, just like you, I also find Christianity—which I also believe is a sect of Judaism for non-Jews–to be a major problem. Its universalism and Nietzschean inversion of morality make up the “secret sauce” that have allowed Jews to cleverly manipulate, indoctrinate, and partially destroy the West in the last century or so. Note that last phrase: I stated as my true opinion that the Jews have cleverly manipulated, indoctrinated, and partially destroyed the West. How the bleep is that squishy on the JQ? It’s probably not too far from what your beloved Pierce might have thought, although I’m not familiar enough with him to be sure. But what I actually think doesn’t seem to matter when you’re sure you know better.
But that’s okay—accuse me of me whatever you want. You’ve already demonstrated to me that you’re an unreasonable person. We should be on the same side, accepting each others’ differences and possibly learning from each other. Unfortunately, building a viable movement doesn’t seem to be in your toolkit. It’s all or nothing with you–not sometthing I want to deal with. Enough of this.
You’re right about Pat Buchanan; he is a good man. However, if he had been elected (though I don’t see how that could have ever occurred), he would have been assassinated pronto once they figured out what his plans were. It happened to Lincoln (he wanted the Negroes back in Africa).
I didn’t find the length of your letter a problem as far as being able to read it; it’s easy, fast reading and well written. But I think your friend perhaps needs something a tad harsher. Of course, he’s your friend and not mine.
Derek,
Excellent comments regarding Buchanan. Sam Francis worked for Buchanan’s 1992 campaign. He advised him not to call himself a conservative, that the name meant nothing anymore. But even given that Buchanan was a great conservative, and I agree with you that there is a strain of conservatism we can work with that is not so far off from where we are. Buchanan was Black Irish and he said that the only two parties who wanted the Gulf War were the IDF and their amen corner in the US Senate, so he got the Jew angle. His corporate tax was to be zero which combined with prohibitive tariffs would have brought an avalanche of industry coming home. In addition Buchanan is a great guy and he will always be remembered for his 92 convention speech, the one that made Molly Ivins say the speech was better in the original German. No higher recommendation can be made.
Chesterton’s opinion on conservatives (and progressives):
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”
Yes, he was British, but so what.
Derek Stark: September 7, 2025 Will… Whether you like it or not, I believe Peirce is wrong by lumping all conservatives together. Anybody who thinks the US would not be a far better place today if conservative Pat Buchanan had replaced Reagan instead of Bush Sr. is ignoring reality. Buchanan was a strong nativist… [and]was also very aware of the JQ.
—
I and our Carolina National Alliance members worked closely with PB during his 2000 Reform Party bid for president, mostly to introduce his conservative White base to NA and Pierce’s teachings. We did the same with Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential bid. You may appreciate this Pierce’ piece, about Jewry’s hatred of PB, “Why They Hate Buchanan” at nationalvanguard.org.
Pierce liked Buchanan — what’s not to like? — but did not endorse him because, as a serious White revolutionary separatist/preservationist, he opposed the entire electoral process of mass democracy. Pierce, a statesman, was no politician. The present system of choosing our leaders has to go.
—
I also find Christianity—which I also believe is a sect of Judaism for non-Jews–to be a major problem… I stated as my true opinion that the Jews have cleverly manipulated, indoctrinated, and partially destroyed the West. How the bleep is that squishy on the JQ? It’s probably not too far from what your beloved Pierce might have thought, although I’m not familiar enough with him to be sure… [You say] I somehow “pooh-poohed” Pierce’s teachings by saying he made a mistake [by lumping all conservatives together].
…
Squishy is your word, not mine. Pooh pooh is mine, which I retract since you found it to be offensive.
I grant that you are not squishy on the JQ Then do you embrace the slogan JEWS ARE OUR MISFORTUNE as did Pierce and as does our Alliance? If not, why not? That is the simple answer to the Jewish Question?
As for Pierce’s dim view of conservatism as the ideology for Whites, please read your C-C host, Dr. Johnson’s piece from 15 years ago: “Why Conservatives STILL Can’t Win” at nationalvanguard.org
by Greg Johnson
RECENTLY I RE-READ William Pierce’s classic 1971 essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win.” Like Pierce, if forced to choose between liberals and conservatives, I would side with conservatives. Conservatives have the indispensable political realism necessary for the preservation of any civilization…
The core of Pierce’s argument is that conservatives can’t win because they aren’t really trying. The left plays for keeps. They have an overriding goal. They have a world to win. Conservatives are just trying to hold on to the 1950s or the 1980s. Conservatives may fight ferociously from time to time, but they are always playing defense. They think the election of a Nixon or a Reagan is a great victory, then lapse into complacency, only to awaken a few years later to find that the left has been on the march the whole time…
Conservatives also make a virtual cult out of being good sports, graceful losers, and ready compromisers.
Well, conservatives STILL can’t win. But neither can they learn, so they continue to promote their folly to new generations…
Pierce was right. Conservatism can’t win. It doesn’t really conserve anything. It is so politically inept and hapless that it seems almost designed to lose. If doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, it is also a good definition of conservatism.
—
We should be on the same side…
—
Derek, we do agree on important, fundamental issues of the JQ and Christianity as an opposed ideology — that’s big! — but disagree on Conservativism of any stripe being the ideology for serious racial nationalists.
I suggest you grant a C-C interview with Ondrej Mann, like he did with me earlier this year. That way we can learn more about you. You have much to say.
Will,
Much better. Very reasonable. Perhaps our exchange was the adult version of a new kid showing up on the first day of school and having to fight somebody to show he’s not a wimp (although I have been writing articles in C-C for almost a year now).
As far as the slogan, goes, yeah, I think they’re a big problem. (Although I’m not the type to use slogans much) They’ve only corrupted and half-destroyed my people and Western civilization because of their fanatical belief that they are chosen by God and therefore everybody else is here on earth to serve them—what’s not to dislike?
As far as conservatism goes, I think the problem is with the particular form of conservatism that developed in the US in the mid-20th century. It was defined not according to true conservative principles, but by the “fusionist” concept of William Buckley and Barry Goldwasser (lots of J influence with both), which married libertarian economics with Christian social beliefs. One of the first things they did was to chase the nativists out of their coalition, leaving them without a mainstream voice. (This elimination of the nativist voice occurred again when the neocons chased Buchanan from the Republican Party). This form of conservatism has served as a “controlled opposition” that always loses in the long run, and it may have been secretly conceived of as such from the start. Or maybe it is just the Christian mentality that seems to like losing. I can’t say for sure—above my pay grade.
Throw into the mix the constant corruption introduced by the Js and other elites, such as military sub-contractors, and conservatism has become defined by greedy loser scum like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
But that form of conservatism has little to do with the fundamental principles of Edmund Burke—it is a mockery of them. The two most important ideas of Burke (according to me, at least) are his concept of the “contract between the generations” and his rejection of Classical Liberal universalism for a particularist, historicist view of the world.
Both of those ideas fit very well into the white nationalist ideology. Especially the contract between the generations. “Generations” implies a family, hence a people. And Burke was writing at a time when he would have meant exactly that. So the contract means that we have obligations to our people, both past and future. What modern American conservatives have done is to twist it into some superficial idea of going back to some recent past culture, liked the 90s or 50s, without mentioning that a culture is an expression of a people. Very lame, and easily defeated.
But despite the so-called American “conservatives” constantly ridding their movement of the nativist element, the nativists keep coming back (Buchanan, MAGA)—because there is a natural, innate connection of nativism to conservatism. Everything good that has happened politically in the last decade is because of the pressure they put on Trump. There are many people in the conservative world who are somewhat with us, but they have not yet fully articulated their white identitarian thoughts or are not yet secure enough in their ideas to make the leap. Millions of them, often educated, with skills and resources. It is they I wish to reach. The friend to whom my letter was addressed told me he has given close to $100,000 over the years to conservative organizations. And he recently got rejected by the biggest recipient of his generosity because he defended the philosopher David Hume over some so-called “racist” comment that he made. How great would it be if he were giving to C-C, American Renaissance, and maybe some WN podcasters instead? And contributing his ideas to our discussions? I’m afraid, at his advanced age, he might not be able to make the leap to our side, but he asked me the question. And he is a good test case for when I talk to younger people.
Anyway, it is good that we are now on the same page, or at least very similar ones. Like I said, I want to win.
Derek
Derek Stark: September 7, 2025 …Perhaps our exchange was the adult version of a new kid showing up on the first day of school and having to fight somebody to show he’s not a wimp (although I have been writing articles in C-C for almost a year now).
—
Come back when you’ve been doing this thing of ours for 40 years and we’ll talk more. I’ll be 118 then. I attended my high school classes 60th reunion last weekend. Classmates enjoyed telling me some “Billy Williams” stories, one about how I lasted three rounds boxing a Negro professional fighter at a local county fair on a Friday night. I was carried out of the tent on classmates’ shoulders, a hero. By Monday, I had to begin fighting others who wanted a piece of the “hero,” so I relate to what you are talking about. ;o}
—
…As far as conservatism goes, I think the problem is with the particular form of conservatism that developed in the US in the mid-20th century. It was defined not according to true conservative principles, but by the “fusionist” concept of William Buckley and Barry Goldwasser (lots of J influence with both), which married libertarian economics with Christian social beliefs. One of the first things they did was to chase the nativists out of their coalition, leaving them without a mainstream voice. (This elimination of the nativist voice occurred again when the neocons chased Buchanan from the Republican Party). This form of conservatism has served as a “controlled opposition” that always loses in the long run, and it may have been secretly conceived of as such from the start. Or maybe it is just the Christian mentality that seems to like losing. I can’t say for sure—above my pay grade.
… [C]onservatism has become defined by greedy loser scum like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham. But that form of conservatism has little to do with the fundamental principles of Edmund Burke—it is a mockery of them. The two most important ideas of Burke (according to me, at least) are his concept of the “contract between the generations” and his rejection of Classical Liberal universalism for a particularist, historicist view of the world… Burke was writing at a time when he would have meant exactly that. So the contract means that we have obligations to our people, both past and future. What modern American conservatives have done is to twist it into some superficial idea of going back to some recent past culture, liked the 90s or 50s, without mentioning that a culture is an expression of a people. Very lame, and easily defeated….
—
Agreed. Thank you, Derek. Your response is something I’d expect to see in a Poli Sci paper on “The History of Conservatism” : “Where’s Edmund Burke when we need him?”
You don’t address Greg’s supportive quote, Pierce was right. Conservatism can’t win. It doesn’t really conserve anything… Oh, well I shouldn’t have expected you to.
Did you not read Pierce’s “Why They Hate Buchanan” — “they” being Jews? Since we were discussing PB and the Jews, I’ll post an excerpt from that here for others to enjoy:
…But does any of these things make Buchanan an “anti-Semite”? Do these things justify the Jews’ claims that he is a “hatemonger,” a “Jew baiter,” and a “neo-Nazi”? I doubt it. What do you think?
Now if I were the candidate [for POTUS] instead of Pat Buchanan, the Jews would have something to scream about. Because if I were elected I’d declare a national emergency, and I’d immediately take the control of our news and entertainment media away from them. I’d root them out of Hollywood. I’d weed them out of our universities. I’d remove them from the courts. I’d clean house. But I really don’t believe that Buchanan would do that. He’s certainly never said or written anything to indicate he’d do that. He’s not a revolutionary. He’s a conservative. He’s a Republican. He’s a Christian. He’s simply a fellow with old-fashioned values, and he’s a fighter. He has no particular grudge against the Jews, but when some of them desecrate his church, he becomes angry and says something about it. When he sees an injustice taking place, as in the persecution of John Demjanjuk, he may or may not speak out, but his decision as to whether or not to speak out isn’t based on what the Jews might think about it. He has other considerations.
And basically that’s why the Jewish media are attacking him so viciously. They can’t tolerate a politician who has any considerations other than what the Jews might think. Basically they can’t tolerate a politician who doesn’t jump when they whistle. If he won’t apologize and grovel now, there’s no telling what he might not do if he’s in the White House. He might not send all of those billions of dollars from American taxpayers to Israel every year. He might not appoint Jews to half of his cabinet positions and to the head of the CIA and to every Supreme Court vacancy, the way Clinton has. He might not send U.S. troops when and where he’s told to send them. He might not base his policies on what’s good for the Jews instead of on what’s good for America. That’s why they hate him. That’s why they’re trying to convince the voters that he’s an extremist….
More of that Pierce classic from nearly 30 years ago at the link.
Though Pierce doesn’t mention the word conservative in the following quote by him from July 2001 to his Alliance members (that a current Alliance member just sent to me) it’s conservatives that he is describing, don’t you think?
Many people who are sympathetic to our side view the present disparity in strength between us and the Jews — and also the rapidity with which the Jews are pushing toward their goal — and they conclude that the Jews will win. Those who reach this conclusion often become unwilling to participate in our effort. They don’t want to make personal sacrifices for a cause they view as lost, and so they remain on the sidelines.
The cause these people on the sidelines view as lost is not the same as our cause, however. Their cause is the salvaging of the present order of things, more or less intact. Our goal is the permanent survival and ascendancy of our genes and our ideas, no matter what else is lost and no matter how long it takes to ensure our success…
Will,
It appears that we have exhausted the nested replies, so I had to reply to my own post. Since you asked about whether I recognize those who recognize those sitting on the sidelines because they want to preserve the current culture, here goes. I think people’s ideas are not something you can put entirely into a permanent silo but exist along a spectrum. Furthermore, their ideas may be fluid. There are also a great many “conservatives” who notice the Jewish influence and think it’s a good thing (Christian Zionists, for example). There are other conservatives who have essentially been programmed not to notice anything of importance, including Jewish influence. There are conservatives, such as myself, who notice the Jewish influence and want to fight back. And of course there are some conservatives who fit Pierce’s description to a T. There are others who may appear to fit that description because of their inaction, but who actually have a more intelligent conception of conservatism than simply preserving the present. Most of them are struggling with what to do or have real-life concerns such as making a living that hold them back. Very many of these conservatives have never connected with the white advocate world. Perhaps the incessant indoctrination they’ve been subjected to since birth has given them the impression about us that the Jews want them to have, that all white advocates are monsters, when if they actually listened to us they might be attracted to our ideas. Perhaps they have never had an actual conversation with a white advocate. Some of them may be slowly moving in our direction—maybe they just saw their first AR or C-C article today and it will take them some time to digest it all. Those conservatives are our potential allies; I used to be one of them.
I’ll throw Pierce on the “To Read” pile, although it’s already a big pile. I’m currently half-way through both Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique and Alisdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue.
“Unless Western civilization is superior to other civilizations and societies, it is not worth defending; unless Westerners are willing to use their power, the West cannot be defended.” – James Burnham, Suicide of the West, chapter XV: Liberalism vs. Reality
Whether or not the white race is superior to other races is not the point. The point is to have a mindset which motivates political action for white people. Regardless of what it is called (“white supremacy,” “white nationalism,” “white advocacy”), it is going to be denounced by the Left as well as by respectable conservatives. They are opposed to any kind of white racial mindset because once white people start thinking racially, the game is up for the “woke.”
And now for another reference: some years ago a local rightwing talk radio host made an on-air statement to the effect: “Wherever white people run things you get a better run society. So what?” Nothing happened to this fellow (he’s still on the air) because he did apologize and he did not back down.
Saying that white nationalists do not want to dominate other peoples verges on apologizing for one’s own existence (the “sanction of the victim” if you like). White people are under no obligation to explain themselves, their history or their actions to anyone. Again, it is the mindset that counts. Let us note that when white people do stand up for themselves, many others will respect them for possessing a spinal column. Let’s see the “woke” put on the hot seat and having to explain themselves for a change.
As for white nationalism leading to war…well, war is part of human existence. Right now there is a full spectrum war going on against white people just short of armed invasion. Time to recognize the reality. Which is where the racial mindset comes in.
Should have typed: “Nothing happened to this fellow (he’s still on the air) because he did not apologize and he did not back down.”
I don’t hate the term “white supremacy” at all. I think it’s true; we are better than everyone else. And that doesn’t mean I want to rape or enslave anyone. Quite the contrary. I wish to never lay eyes on a black, brown, yellow or anything else as long as I live. That would be awesome, it would actually be supreme!
Weave: September 7, 2025 I don’t hate the term “white supremacy” at all. I think it’s true; we are better than everyone else. And that doesn’t mean I want to rape or enslave anyone…
—
Whites as a unique race were still supreme on this planet around the beginning of the last century. That has changed as the world has shrunk and other races have become “equalized,” to our detriment.
Whites have shrunk to less than 4% of the world human population and our traditional living/breeding habitats are being invaded by competing subspecies (races). It is a natural phenomenon that ecologists call “habitat succession,” when the traditional subspecies gives up its habitat without a fight — leading to its extinction.
Mother Nature cares not which of her creations is the prettiest, most inventive, or even the smartest — only which is standing at the end of the natural struggle for space and resources. Dr. Pierce famously said, “We cannot put the White man in the fight until we put the fight into the White Man.”
As word-controlled humans “White supremacy” has become a term used by our enemies, a guilt trip on Whitey that suggests that we want to reign supreme over other races. We don’t! Maybe some Kluckers or others feel that way. I don’t know.
Serious White preservationists seek strict racial separation. How can they be accused of supremacy over non-Whites who are not in their midst? It’s a stupid term.
It’s not necessary for us to claim that Whites are the superior race — it’s implicit! Many ineligible Whites will be lost to us and will fight against us. Some will eventually wake up and want to join with us.
Other races can claim superiority in certain areas, like nigger fecundity, criminal tendancies, singing, dancing, shooting hoops, and running with a pigskin. Give that to them while entirely separating from them and their influences. No racial mixing! Whites who support racially-mixed sports and entertainment should give that up if they want to be in our intentional, exclusive White communities. It’s easy.
—
I wish to never lay eyes on a black, brown, yellow or anything else as long as I live. That would be awesome, it would actually be supreme!
—
There you go, Weave! That’s the attitude. Seek out others who are determined to separate and live that way with you.
Derek Stark: September 8, 2025 Will, It appears that we have exhausted the nested replies, so I had to reply to my own post. Since you asked about whether I recognize those who recognize those sitting on the sidelines because they want to preserve the current culture, here goes…[skip the various types of conservatives] Some of them may be slowly moving in our direction—maybe they just saw their first AR or C-C article today and it will take them some time to digest it all. Those conservatives are our potential allies; I used to be one of them.
I’ll throw Pierce on the “To Read” pile, although it’s already a big pile. I’m currently half-way through both Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique and Alisdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue.
—
Yes, our interesting exchange on the merits of conservatism as a serious strategy has been pretty much exhausted, but I want to add this final word to your final word:
Pierce admired KMac and Greg’s recent interview with him waa excellent, But in Greg’s early C-C essay “Why Conservatives STILL Can’t Win” from December 2010, that more or less agreed with Pierce, he wrote this about KMac’s journal:
The Occidental Quarterly I knew was founded to be explicitly white and to deal explicitly with the Jewish question. But you would never know that from Gardner’s TOQ 2.0 agenda…
If this is taken seriously as TOQ policy, then every back issue of the journal will have to be pulped and reprinted, with references to Jews replaced by euphemisms like “liberals” and “cultural Marxists.” Furthermore, Kevin MacDonald now seems like an odd choice for Editor. And in the end, it will never work, because the SPLC will always be around to remind people of the truth about White Nationalists who scuttle crabwise toward the mainstream, begin speaking in riddles and euphemisms, and try to reinvent themselves as conservatives.
We few who know the most important truth in the world—that organized Jewry (not “liberals,” not “cultural Marxists”) have set the white race (not “conservatives,” not “Christians,” not “Western Civilization”) on the path to extinction—have an absolute duty to get this message out and wake our people up. Because if we don’t do it, nobody else will. Those who know the truth but can’t shout it from the rooftops have the duty to support those who can spread the word.
I’ve never heard of Alisdair MacIntyre, so searched his name to find he was probably an academic philosopher, who evolved from being a Marxist to Catholicism — not someone I would read, and, if true, certainly not a serious White race-thinker like Pierce.
If I were you I’d toss MacIntyre and pick up Pierce’s teachings, or better. yet, read William Gayley Simpson’s widely banned magnum opus, Which Way Western Man? He evolved over his lifetime from being an extremely devout Christian to eventually embracing Pierce’s Cosmotheism and joining Pierce’s National Alliance.
Which Way Western Man? (Third Edition) by William Gayley Simpson at cosmotheistchurch.org. Blurb:
Throughout his long lifetime, William Gayley Simpson was a widely traveled and careful observer of Western civilization and its relations with the non-White peoples of the world, especially the Negro and the Jew. An exceptionally deep thinker, he traced the sickness that has overtaken the White man’s world in the 20th century to its roots in Jewish world conspiracy and its coordinated aggressive moves against us. Simpson reveals the deception inherent in our money system, which isn’t based on real wealth at all, but on debt and fantasy, and it cannot do other than cause trouble for the people condemned to use it as their medium of exchange. The author also shows why feminism is not the liberation of woman, but the unsexing of woman. Simpson reveals the fundamental incompatibility between capitalism, which he calls “The Machine,” and the human psyche. He goes into great detail about the physiological basis of Negro intellectual inferiority, quoting copiously from sources that once were readily available to the layman, but were censored from the popular media and removed to arcane medical journals after World War 2. And, of course, he exposes the nefarious Jew for the deadly parasite he is. Every racially conscious White person will want this book in his collection. It is very possibly the best book of racial philosophy originally written in the English language. This is the only edition of Which Way Western Man? that incorporates the author’s final revisions.
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.