810 words
The killing of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy that deserves the strongest condemnation. Whatever one thinks of his politics, Charlie Kirk was not the figure his enemies in the press claim he was. He was not an extremist and he was certainly not some unhinged provocateur. In truth, Kirk was often criticized by dissident voices for being too flat and too cautious. Many on the edges of the right dismissed him as a conventional conservative who was reluctant to take the intellectual risks that dissidents wanted him to take.Yet in death, as in life, the media chose to smear him with the most loaded labels available. They called him far right, they depicted him as dangerous, and they treated his views as though they were beyond the pale of civilized society. This depiction is tasteless and dishonest, and it reveals far more about the ideological prejudices of the press than it does about Charlie Kirk himself.
Kirk did something that most mainstream conservatives refuse to do. He was willing to entertain dissident perspectives. He interviewed figures like the IQ blogger Cremieux and gave him space to share arguments that the establishment regards as radioactive. He was willing to criticize the failures of third world immigration when most conservatives prefer to stay silent to avoid backlash. That willingness to entertain controversy did not make him a radical. On the contrary, his approach was closer to a cautious curiosity. He did not endorse every position of the dissidents he spoke with, but he allowed them into the conversation. In a climate where the left insists on silencing all dissent, that alone was enough to mark him for vilification.
What makes the media caricature of Kirk even more ridiculous is the breadth of his audience. Charlie Kirk was not simply speaking to suburban Republicans or white conservatives. His message reached people in the Caribbean and beyond. I know people in Jamaica who respected Charlie Kirk for his willingness to expose the contradictions of the American system. When I speak with them, they tell me openly that America is sliding toward failed state conditions because its ruling class refuses to punish far left activists. They see clearly what the American media tries to obscure. They know that Antifa is not a group of noble defenders of democracy but rather a movement with a destructive reputation abroad. Outside of the United States, Antifa is widely seen as a violent menace that destabilizes societies instead of protecting them.
The assumption in American liberal circles is that all black people are loyal to the Democratic Party. That assumption is false. Not all black people are Democrats, and not all black people believe the left is working in their interest. In fact, in Jamaica the conversations I hear often turn toward the necessity of strong leadership in America. People say bluntly that Donald Trump should act quickly because lawlessness is spiraling out of control and the Democrats have become a disgrace. These views are not rare and they reflect a growing awareness among ordinary people that the left’s narrative does not match reality.
Instead of facing this crisis honestly, the press chooses to inflame it further by publishing malicious profiles of dissident figures. The recent profile of Nick Fuentes in The New York Times was a disgrace. It was not journalism. It was a deliberate attempt to portray him as despicable and to stir up fear and division. What the article ignored is that Fuentes is hardly a universally admired figure on the right. White nationalists themselves are deeply critical of him. He has been sternly criticized in outlets like Counter-Currents and Occidental Dissent. Many dissidents are contemptuous of him. Yet the left ignores these internal disagreements because it is convenient to present every non-liberal as part of one undifferentiated mass of extremism.
By treating conservatives and dissidents in this way, the left is not building progress but destroying it. Its campaign to smear and caricature every opponent is not a strategy of dialogue but of suppression. Profiles designed to demonize do not strengthen democracy. They only deepen resentment and sharpen divisions. The killing of Charlie Kirk shows us where this path leads. When disagreement is vilified and dissent is portrayed as criminal, violence becomes easier to justify.
Charlie Kirk’s death should have been a moment of reflection on the poisonous atmosphere that now defines American politics. Instead, the media is using it as one more excuse to double down on its agenda of distortion. That agenda is not progressive. It is anti progress. It leaves America more divided, less stable, and less capable of facing its real problems. To condemn Charlie Kirk honestly is to admit that his critics were wrong about him. To honor his memory is to reject the media narrative that misrepresented him in life and continues to slander him after death.
30 comments
Lip man: That willingness to entertain controversy did not make [Charlie Kirk] a radical.
—
True, and at a time when radical race thinkers is what’s needed.
—
[T]he media is [sic] using it as one more excuse to double down on its agenda of distortion.
—
I’ll take your word that The New York Times smeared Nick Fuentes in its profile of him. I tried to read that supposed smear at the link you provided and that Jew rag wanted $$ for me to read it. I already know Fuentes is a nutcase Christian showboat from reading about him on C-C — that he has claimed that when his crew takes over all non-Christians will somehow be eliminated. It’s no wonder The Times wound smear him.
Charlie Kirk built a vast political movement. He advanced the cause of White Nationalism, even without intending to.
Initially, Zionist Jews funded him. They wanted some kind of gate-keeper, to distract the masses from the JQ. However, despite that, and despite my disagreements with him, I still liked his “video shorts”, posted on YouTube, of his many interactions with students on college campuses, under the banner, “Prove Me Wrong.” He was very persuasive. Few people have the same combination of energy, intelligence and courage as did Kirk. The Left could only react with violence.
I hope the federal & state governments prosecute Antifa and those who fund them. Antifa are psychos and perverts, such as Tyler Robinson.
Nice piece. I saw a blurb from a democrat congressman saying that political violence is a problem for both sides. I haven’t noticed any attackers that would clearly qualify as republicans or trump supporters. They noted the killings in Minnesota including the lawmaker and spouse. I had to search for who the shooter was and the motive. Strange how this disappeared so quickly from the news cycle. No martyrdom there. Why? I literally am unable to discern the reason for the killing? Thus painting Kirk as a radical is the only way they can make his killing seem less consequential. He led a movement. It will expand now. They saw astroturf, but it’s grass roots.
My read on the other killing is that it was probably an anti-abortion thing, given that the targets on the alleged hit list were abortion clinics and some Democrats who presumably pushed for abortion.
“its ruling class refuses to punish far left activists”
Yes, this is a key point. It has been obvious to those of us paying attention, but it wasn’t expressed enough publicly until after the murder of Charlie Kirk. Now we’re starting to hear more about the need to go after these groups. We’ll see if there will be more than just words.
Some in government, such as Stephen Miller, seem to have the will to go against leftist revolutionary groups. Trump and Vance also might be willing, but it looks like government agencies such as the FBI have been shielding Antifa and other such groups, for many years now. The Trump administration did some good in cutting off some of the government funding of far-left activity, but there’s a long way to go.
It’s very interesting to read about the reactions outside of America towards Antifa, America’s decay, etc.
I was never a great fan, nor any kind of fan for that matter, of Charlie Kirk, regarding him as a “colorblind” conservative who worshipped Israel. In recent weeks, however, he’d changed his position and not only allowed criticism of Israel but himself began to question Israel. I suspect that’s why he was killed. I know the official version of his murder is already showing signs of cracking. That’s a discussion for a different post, however.
Over the week end I was astonished at the world wide mourning of Kirk, in London, Madrid, South Korea. Now we’re seeing white conservatives assembling a web site identifying POS liberals who celebrated and approved of Kirk’s murder. They’re actually getting these people fired from their jobs. Amazing. Never have I seen so much spontaneous outrage and backlash against the monsters who heretofore have ruled over us without significant pushback.
These people pushing back and organizing are “normies.” Thousands of them. Hundreds of thousands of them. Maybe even millions of them. Whatever you think of Kirk, he touched people very deeply, much more deeply than I would have imagined.
This morning I drove a friend to a doctor’s appointment. I know the doctor. He’s never been the least bit political. On the way home, my friend told me that, “out of the blue” this doctor, formerly apolitical, expressed his sorrow over the murder of Charlie Kirk. Out of the blue he said, “wasn’t that terrible what was done to Charlie Kirk.” My friend was stunned and so am I. This doctor, formerly totally apolitical as far as any of us knew, was obviously deeply touched by Charlie Kirk and his death. I am surprised that this man had even heard of Charlie Kirk. Yet here he was, deeply moved and saddened by Kirk’s murder.
Then I opened my emails and one was from a distant relative. He said he’d cried all weekend over the murder of Charlie Kirk. This relative was, as far as I knew, relatively apolitical. I am surprised he’d even heard of Charlie Kirk, yet here he admits openly weeping over Kirk’s death. This took me completely by surprise.
Regardless of what you think of Kirk, of his motives, of his message, he was a special person who touched millions of people at a very deep level. I don’t know what to make of this. How could I have been so blind to this man and to the impact he obviously made on so many people?
I think Kirk’s death created affection for him where it didn’t exist before. I had written Kirk off years ago as a milquetoast Conservative gatekeeper, but his assassination affected me deeply. My reaction didn’t come from other people. I saw the video posted with no comment, and I immediately felt despair for the state of our country and movement. I don’t fully understand why. I’ve seen worse things, but they didn’t affect me like this. I watched this tribute video (from Telegram) a dozen times at least.
This normie conservative website certainly agrees with you: https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/the-normie-conquest-millions-just-joined-the-right-overnight?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Afternoon%20Trending%20-%20September%2015&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News&tpcc=email-breaking
The hall of carnival mirrors constructed by the cabal of the leftist media creating the illusion of a fear of white and right wing violence came crashing down after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Instead of attempting some form of introspection, the leftist media is desperately trying to pick up the pieces of broken mirror and reconstruct their hall of carnival mirrors. It truly is sickening.
And they’re doing a decent job of it. According to a poll I saw today, more people think the killer was on the right than think he was on the left, despite all the contrary evidence.
Traddles: September 15, 2025 Some in government, such as Stephen Miller, seem to have the will to go against leftist revolutionary groups.
—
Traddles, if you or other C-Cers are interested in the JQ (Jewish Question) as a so-called White nationalist, you might not be so impressed by Stephen N. Miller, if you know more about him –a racial Jew raised in an Hasidic home — a Yeshiva boy. He even went on an all-expense-paid Birthright trip to Israel. See: What Is Birthright and Why Is It So Controversial? He married a Jewess, which is encouraged by Birthright.
Beware.
Stephen is a very good talker as Trump’s mouthpiece on hot topic issues of illegal immigration especially, and primarily as a FOX News conservative contributer.
While a student at Duke University Stephen became pals with alt-righter Richard Spencer, who, along with David Horowitz later, introduced him into wider conservative circles. Spencer earned a poor reputation here at Counter-Currents, but Stephen Miller shines on as an influential conservative voice.
After Charlie Kirk’s murder he blurted out this scary statement in an interview with VP Vance, who was carrying on “The Charlie Kirk Show” podcast:
“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”
“We,” he says, “in Charlie’s name.” Look out “Leftists,” whoever you are (including Jews, ostensibly). “Rightists,” whoever you are, had better look out for Stephen N. also (his middle name is the initial “N” for some unknown reason — Nussbaum, perhaps? Somebody knows.
Stephen N. has a very Jewish uncle, Dr. David Glosser, who said this about his nephew:
“I have watched with dismay and increasing horror as my nephew, an educated man who is well aware of his heritage, has become the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family’s life in this country.” Stephen Miller’s Uncle Says ‘Dozens of Family Members’ Wa… – Newsweek
I typed up a very long post that I decided to delete, that was critical of your mentor, Dr Pierce, for his tactics and delivery. Not for his message at all, mind you, but for his approach and public persona.
I deleted the post, because the man is long dead and he no doubt left a valuable legacy, in spite of whatever weaknesses I could list.
But the main point was to say that Stephen Miller has accomplished more tangible things for white people, things with real world results, than Pierce could have ever dreamed. I say that with all the respect due Dr Pierce and his life’s work. We simply cannot hope to win by ghettoizing ourselves from those accomplishments simply because Miller is Jewish. It’s bunk to do so. Utter bunk. I’m sorry. All due respect for Dr Pierce and National Alliance. But it’s bunk at this point. Not Stephen Miller or the admitted rare case that he is.
Too bad, I would have loved to hear your thoughts on William Luther Pierce.
Douglas Mercer: September 16, 2025 Too bad, I would have loved to hear your thoughts on William Luther Pierce.
—
Douglas, Conner, whoever his is, was about to present his negative thoughts about Dr. Pierce, his “weaknesses,” then decided to discard them, preferring to tell us instead of the “tangible accomplishments” the racial Jew Stephen Miller has done “for the White race.”
Having actually known and worked with Pierce for years, beginning 34 years ago, and being current Chairman of the National Alliance that he founded, and Trustee of Cosmotheism that he also founded (both 50 years ago), I will respectfully differ with Conner‘s uninformed nonsense, calling Pierce’s teachings “utter bunk.”
Did I even mention Pierce in my comment about Miller that Conner was to go off on Pierce and the National Alliance? No. The subject of the Negro Lip man Matthews’ essay is how the “Mainstream Media has Reached a New Low After the Kirk Shooting.
Stephen N. Miller aside for the moment, Do you suppose Conner realizes that Pierce, for 30 years, documented the lows of Jewish “mainstream media control” — see Who Rules America 2010? I don’t know if that link works here but “Who Rules America?” can be found at natall.com. by the diligent searcher.
Do you believe WRA? is bunk, Douglas? Do you stand by what you wrote here a year ago, or are you now more interested in what Conner’s dim opinion is of Dr. Pierce, comparing him to Trump’s Jewish mouthpiece on immigration and lead promoter of the Christian Zionist evangelist Kirk?
“The Vessel” at nationalvanguard.org
by Douglas Mercer
WILLIAM LUTHER PIERCE is the greatest racial thinker of all time; his precursors such as Madison Grant were prophets and showed us the way, but as they still lived in the time of White ascendancy, they were unable to fully see all the dangers that were to come.
George Lincoln Rockwell deserves all of our praise, but he was a swashbuckler and a performer and did not have the intellectual weight of Pierce, something which is necessary to see us through dark times.
Revilo Oliver was an unparalleled intellectual; it is said of him that he had the mind and the manners of a Renaissance prince or polymath combined with the untethered and weaponized language needed to decimate our opponents; Oliver was also not a religious man and as such was unable to go all the way down the path needed.
Pierce was of another ilk; a true intellectual, but a practical one also, concerned with our survival in the real world — and here his background in physics held him in good stead. But in addition to being a thinker and writer and speaker, Pierce was also a visionary, a seer and a holy man, the prophet of our time; he always kept his eyes on eternity; he knew that our destiny was in the stars and that in order to achieve this we needed to plan for the long future. He knew that, for our Creator, the Aryan race was its special and Promethean people; the only people who could bring the Creator’s fire to the Earth and usher in the completion of the cosmos. As such, Pierce, in addition to being a polemicist of rare vehemence, and an artist in words, was also a far-seeing man with the organizational skills to prepare for this endless future.
The National Alliance is now the vessel of the Creator on Earth, its members the worthy heirs of Pierce’s philosophy and religion — the only ones on the path.
All throughout American history, the idea of Utopian or intentional communities has been prevalent; there was Brooks Farm of the Transcendentalists; but our great precursor Poe saw their un-serious nature and their other flaws, and scathingly called them “frog-pondians.”
In our own time, such “communes” are more likely to be of the ilk of “Burning Man” — dedicated only to pleasure and frivolity; or like Jonestown, monuments to one man’s ego, ending in death and destruction. But the impulse to separate, to keep oneself pure, is a noble one; and the National Alliance has first and foremost kept its thought pure with its book Cosmotheism: Religion of the Future and its other equally uncompromising publications; it is building this separate community, and building a library dedicated to its founder and its ideals; it is a community dedicated to keeping the White race pure, and keeping it separate.
Any hope for the future depends upon us being thus separate — in more ways than one; the world today is addicted to its phones and its money and its greed, and is mired in corruption; it has no culture to speak of; it is steeped in immorality and degeneration and degradation; its rulers are vampires and bloodsuckers when they are not inept stooges; it is a world with no beliefs other than “lifestyles” or “comfort” — a fake world of the Potemkin Village. It preaches a weak form of “love and tolerance” and has racemixing as its credo. It has no purpose and no goal, other than political or economic domination; as such, it is a desecration of our lovely blue Earth.
Unlike all previous Utopias or intentional communities the National Alliance community is bound to succeed; the blood is pure and the thinking is pure. And it has aligned itself correctly with the cosmos and the Creator of the cosmos; when the time is right and ripe, this perfect confluence will bear its fruit.
Indeed, so rotten is the world from which we have separated ourselves, it will collapse from within, having no vision and no goal except to produce more and more trash of all kinds.
As such, the National Alliance is uniquely positioned to be the inheritor of the Earth and to achieve the only thing that matters in the end: victory. That is the eternal flame that has been burning brightly since our people first fanned out across the world, since our great artists and thinkers and explorers and leaders imprinted themselves on the Earth, this one and only true fire, the fire that belongs to us and our god, is in the best hands possible. We have not forgot it and we have not failed it; and the future will one day be wide open.
Will Williams: “Do you stand by what you wrote here a year ago, or are you now more interested in what Conner’s dim opinion is of Dr. Pierce, comparing him to Trump’s Jewish mouthpiece on immigration and lead promoter of the Christian Zionist evangelist Kirk?”
Is it really either/or Will? I think Conner is a smart guy and I’d be interested to see what his critique of WLP is. It does not mean I would agree with it.
What do you hope to accomplish my mocking Mr Matthews?
I’ll go ahead and give a shorthand on my criticisms of Dr Pierce. First, I never said Dr Pierce’s ideas were bunk. I said that it is bunk to understate what Stephen Miller has done for white people and to dismiss him only because he is Jewish. Dr Pierce was a brilliant but flawed man, flawed in a way that hindered his ability to spread his ideas beyond people who already agreed with him.
He was far too abrasive and course. Everything was black and white with no nuance. His message was angry in its delivery much of the time. His words seemed to assault the listener of his radio program with his rhetorical style rather than inspiring and challenging them.
Very little that he said was wrong. But you’re not going to accomplish much, no matter how correct you are, when you’re delivery leaves the listener feeling anxious and hopeless. Pierce rarely offered calmly delivered optimism. He was often gruff, terse, and angry. Even though his lectures may be 1000% true, important, necessary etc, his delivery worked against spreading that message to people in numbers.
Will: as far as The Vessel is concerned I still endorse it, but in re-reading it I think it a bit grandiose. As Greg Johnson said a professor once told him: if you want to think more clearly tone down your rhetoric—a good thing to take to heart for all of us.
The major pertinent detail to remember about the MSM is that it’s made up of people who get a salary to lie to you 40 hours a week.
Some of them even work overtime. 😛
Connor McDowell: “He was far too abrasive and course. Everything was black and white with no nuance. His message was angry in its delivery much of the time. His words seemed to assault the listener of his radio program with his rhetorical style rather than inspiring and challenging them.”
Connor: I can see your point about Pierce—there is no doubt he is strong medicine. All I can say is I think it is good and necessary that a figure like him came along, one who “said it all” as Pierce himself said, and said it with no hedging. I think our movement is broad enough and that there is room for the uncompromising Pierce and others who use different tactics.
Remove duplicate comment
Connor McDowell: September 16, 2025 What do you hope to accomplish my mocking Mr Matthews?
—
Mocking? Just telling it like he is, Conner.
Many who read C-C probably do not realize that the Lip man is a Negro. They are not told that, except by me, a strict racial separatist. Search for an image of him and you’ll see he is a Negro with bubble lips. His advice to White people can be read on the multi-millionaire racial Jew Ron Unz’s fancy site or even on American Renaissance, which surprises me since Jared has always been pretty good on the RQ (Race Question).
Frankly, I expect more from Counter-Currents. My opinion, that’s all. Some serious White preservationists — not you among them — agree with me. That’s OK, “freedom of speech” and all that. You won’t find the Lip Man on NA sites, unless it was by mistake, not realizing that he is a Negro.
—
(Pierce) was far too abrasive and course. Everything was black and white with no nuance. His message was angry in its delivery much of the time. His words seemed to assault the listener of his radio program with his rhetorical style rather than inspiring and challenging them….
—
Says you. His radio voice was his radio voice. It has inspired and guided those who are already strong or getting there, not for the weak or the compromiser.
—
…Very little that he said was wrong. But you’re not going to accomplish much, no matter how correct you are, when you’re delivery leaves the listener feeling anxious and hopeless. Pierce rarely offered calmly delivered optimism. He was often gruff, terse, and angry. Even though his lectures may be 1000% true, important, necessary etc, his delivery worked against spreading that message to people in numbers.
—
Anxious? Hopeless? Calm optimism? That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. However, many responsible kinsmen are attracted to Pierce’s no-nonsense radio voice. 240 of his speeches on 12 CDs, available here: “CDs & DVDs” at cosmotheistchurch.org
You are obviously not very familiar with Pierce’s body of work. Our racial plight is Black and White, with the Jew and other non-Whites thrown in for good measure.
“Calmly delivered optimism”? Who besides Pierce is 1,000% right and delivers that?
Pierce’s telling how it is, is necessary and effective to attract serious kinsmen, not compromisers, not herd animals. He knew we have to put the fight into the White man before the White man can join in the fight.
Mr Williams,
I’ve been reading a fair bit of WLP’s writings on the National Vanguard site over the last year or so and I think that he’s ‘dead right’ on just about everything.
Not only that, all of your comments that I’ve been reading here on C-C are right on the money too. It’s definitely time to get serious and stop stuffing around.
In reading Pierce you are reading the best. On the front page of NV right now is his last broadcast, worth listening to or reading.
Also on the front page of NV is an essay I wrote that pertains to WLP. It’s called The Order: A Drama, Part 3
Douglas Mercer – Having followed your work, and having read many of your essays, I must say that you are perhaps the most inspirational and powerful writer that I have ever read in the examination and defense of White racial identity. Others may be more well-known, or more influential, but your specific style speaks to me deeply. You don’t need to tone down your rhetoric one bit!
Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it.
NS Crusty: September 17, 2025 Mr Williams, I’ve been reading a fair bit of WLP’s writings on the National Vanguard site over the last year or so and I think that he’s ‘dead right’ on just about everything. Not only that, all of your comments that I’ve been reading here on C-C are right on the money too. It’s definitely time to get serious and stop stuffing around.
—
I appreciate that, Crusty. Call me Will or Chairman Will.
Dr. Pierce was and still is “dead right” on matters of race, the JQ and religion. If my comments are “right on the money” for you, it’s only because as current NA Chairman I promote the teachings of our organization’s founder. We have his legacy that no other group has. They may try to copy it, but when I compare them to what Pierce left to us they always come up short in one way or another, rather than simply join their strength with the Alliance’s.
There is much wisdom in Pierce’s answer to a question posed to him nearly 50 years ago by a follower. It may seem dated now with mention of government-enforced bussing and other issues in 1976, but overlook those to see his wise and honest analysis: “Why Don’t All the Pro-White Organizations Unite?” at nationalvanguard.org
Q. Why don’t all the patriotic, pro-White organizations unite instead of each one trying to win the battle against America’s enemies separately? If we could join forces the way those on the other side do, we would begin winning a few battles instead of losing all the time.
A. The answer to that question is readily apparent to anyone in the leadership ranks of any of the organizations in question, but it is difficult to explain convincingly to someone who does not have such a favored view.
Very briefly, the reasons for the disunity among patriots may be roughly broken down into differences in motivation, personality problems, and differences in ideology.
Under the first heading we should note that the actual motivations which various individuals or organizations have for taking a certain stand — on racial mixing, say, or communist influences in the government — differ markedly. Some take their stand because it expresses their genuine convictions and they are determined to accomplish something in accordance with those convictions.
But there are, unfortunately, numerous so-called “patriots” — and among them are some of the most “successful” — who have no convictions at all. They are simply businessmen, salesmen, and the product they sell is whatever patriotic Americans are willing to buy at any particular time. They hold a moistened forefinger up to the breeze of patriotic opinion and decide that now is the time to push an anti-busing amendment, or opposition to the Panama Canal “giveaway” — or even “patriotic unity.”
And when a genuine patriot denounces one of these hucksters publicly, the response from the rank and file is, “Don’t attack another patriot! We need unity, not discord.”
Finally, there are a number of individuals — “old fighters” — who are sincere enough in their convictions but who have given up any real hope of accomplishing anything. They have a few devoted followers who subscribe to their newsletters and keep them barely solvent, and so they continue churning out their broadsides. It is what they know how to do, and they feel comfortable with it. They have no interest in anything beyond that.
Personality problems take several forms. There are some patriotic leaders who simply cannot get along with certain other leaders, or who do not trust them, or who are intensely jealous of them. This, happily, is a problem not confined to patriots.
The leaders of some organizations are on a permanent ego trip. Each is thoroughly intoxicated with the feeling of being the biggest frog in his particular pond, and the last thing he wants is to jump from his pond into a lake, where there may be bigger frogs. There are probably more than a hundred one-man “organizations” of this description in the country, and the idea of gaining anything worthwhile by somehow unifying them is simply laughable.
But, discounting the hucksters, the “old fighters,” the ego-trippers, and a few especially sensitive or abrasive personalities, why can’t the remaining minority of patriotic leaders get together — the ones who believe enough in the cause for which they are fighting to put it ahead of personal considerations? Alas, it is usually that fervent devotion to a cause which itself provides the stumbling block in the path of unity.
A businessman, whose sole interest is maximizing his “take,” will readily make whatever compromises are conducive to a bigger profit. Ideology is simply a commodity he sells, and he is always prepared to switch to a new line of goods when sales conditions change — or to take on a new partner or to enter into a merger.
For different reasons, the organizer of a purely ad hoc group, with no vision beyond the achievement of an immediate and practical goal, will often be willing to join forces with whoever can help him, regardless of differences in style or beliefs.
On the other hand, the leader who has struggled for years — giving up his career and any semblance of a normal family life — in order to advance a cause which has a deep ideological significance for him will be less ready to compromise his beliefs for a temporary advantage. He takes the long view of things and is more concerned with keeping his group headed in the right direction toward a distant goal than he is with negotiating the next bump in the road.
To the exasperated patriot who wants immediate relief from creeping communism, crime in the streets, and busing, ideological quibbles may seem unimportant. He simply cannot understand why the fervent libertarian, who abhors busing as a government constraint on the individual’s freedom of choice, cannot collaborate to stop busing with the racial idealist, who abhors busing as a racially and culturally destructive practice. He forgets that the libertarian also abhors “racism” (as a form of “collectivism”), and the racial idealist abhors the egoism, the atomistic hyper-individualism of the libertarian. Neither is willing to signify approval of the philosophy of the other by collaborating openly.
Now, all this does not mean that patriotic groups do not or cannot collaborate. They often do, and there undoubtedly will be more collaboration in the future. The National Alliance, for example, collaborates with several other groups and with individuals whose beliefs do not coincide with our own, even though such collaboration is sometimes not publicized. But it does mean that any sort of close-knit patriotic confederation, incorporating most of the presently existing groups under a unified leadership, is extraordinarily unlikely.
This, however, may not be the unmitigated catastrophe it seems. Combining weaknesses does not necessarily yield strength, just as eight cripples, by joining arms, do not yield one gladiator.
When what is needed is genuine strength, not a combination of weaknesses, the way in which the strength will be achieved is likely to be through a free play of forces — through a selective competition among different groups, from which one will emerge as the most fit to lead our people. It is a wasteful, even tragic process, but it has always been Nature’s way.
Everything beautiful, noble, and of enduring value in this world has come about through such a process, which has ruthlessly weeded out weaknesses, punished mistakes, and corrected errors. That for which we are now striving will only be attained in the same way.
We must do whatever is necessary for us to win — including the joining of forces with other groups, when that can advance our cause — but we must not make the mistake of sacrificing our true strength — which is the correctness of our ideas — for the illusory advantage of a more rapid gain in numbers.
Douglas Mercer: September 16, 2025 Will: as far as The Vessel is concerned I still endorse it, but in re-reading it I think it a bit grandiose. As Greg Johnson said a professor once told him: if you want to think more clearly tone down your rhetoric—a good thing to take to heart for all of us.
—
Yes, good advice if your goal is to attract “smart guys” like Conner McDonnel who will compromise on our real goals of racial separation/preservation. Former professor, Dr. William Pierce, advised us to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth no matter the personal consequenses or if it makes some people uncomfortable.
Yesterday I saw a disgusting still photo of Cuban-American Zionist, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with Israeli Ambassador, Christian Zionist evangelical Huckabee, in their little yarmulkes, praying at the “wailing wall’ with the Bibi “the butcher” Netanyahoo. Whew! That says it all.
I don’t think what you wrote in “The Vessel” is grandiose at all, but was written from your heart. I like this one by you three years ago, also, and hope you don’t think it is a bit grandiose today: “Republican Treacle” at nationalvanguard.org
by Douglas Mercer
WE JUST CELEBRATED the Fourth, the ideal time for the Republicans to engage in some criminal revisionism. On Independence Day Republican Mike Pompeo thought it a fit time to rear back and lay on the bull with a trowel, to lard up the toast with some patriotic butter — so much butter that soon you’ll keel over from death and diabetes.
Apparently, if you listen to him, America’s founders wanted to take that Haitian wading in the river and adorn him with an Adam Smith tie and give him copies of Locke and Montesquieu. Who knew?
Our forebears were willing to risk everything for a dream. A dream of freedom and of opportunity. A dream that says no matter where you come from, no matter what your background is, if you work hard and live honestly and justly, you can succeed. This is the American Dream.
Really? Is that the one you want go with? A few clicks can dispel this myth, as when John Jay said:
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
And then there was that bit about “free White people.”
See, that wasn’t hard. That intellectual sludge about “all backgrounds” was as alien to the founders as a Jew wandering in capital city Germania. But that doesn’t stop them from laying it on so thick you have to cut it with a Teutonic battle axe.
Back to Pompeo:
Not divided by race or gender or class or region; but as a single, indivisible people devoted to the common good of this nation we love. We can do this today by remembering what makes America exceptional and dedicate ourselves, once more, to safeguarding the enduring principles upon which it was founded. If we can do this, we will soon find the American Dream not only restored but full of greater promise than ever before.
What planet is he living on? Certainly not this one. Blacks burn down cities, statues topple, Blacks rampage criminally, Africans are at the southern border, illegal aliens get free health care and can vote, “reparations” are given, Blacks kill some 30 White people a month, White names are removed, White pictures are taken down, and this pious fool says we are one people!
Hell no, we’re not. We are not one people. It will not be a civil war because a civil war is a war among the same people.
The Pompous One’s idol, Jesus of Nazareth, was alleged to have said that the truth will set us free. But P1 lies through his teeth in the vain hope that we can get back to being one nation. But the real and only America was always a White nation — and when it was no longer that, the dream was dead.
The “American Dream” he ballyhoos is dead.
Dead as a doornail…
Dead, dead, dead.
Dead as White people will be if we follow his ilk.
America needs a new message. Not one of defeat and decline, but one of vital optimism, grounded in the timeless, sacred principles of our nation: that we are all created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These words, penned by Thomas Jefferson before he would serve as America’s first secretary of state, are alive in the hearts of every American today, despite the challenges before us…
Dr. Pierce taught a good lesson: If we are going to discuss control of media, use proper English. Media is the plural form of the word medium, so when media is the subject in a sentence the verb that follows should be plural, not singular.
Mainstream Media Reaches (sic) New Low After Charlie Kirk Shooting
Mass media cannot get much lower than it has already been for decades under Jewish ownership and control. See: Who Rules America 2010. That exposee needs updating, which Kevin MacDonald has recently done to some extent for control of Internet media, here: The Billionaire Trump Supporters (Larry and David Ellison) Who Will Soon Own the News — and Important Social Media – The Occidental Observer
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.