4,607 words
Meaningful dialogue across an ideological divide can be quite difficult. It’s enough of a challenge with mainstream conservatives, who just need a helpful nudge out of the kiddie pool, but often are hung up on ineffectual positions such as civic nationalism, neocon military adventures, misplaced egalitarianism, and libertarian economism. Liberals are another matter entirely, given their greater ideological distance. Most of them won’t be receptive at all. From their perspective, we’re basically heretics. Quite often, discussions quickly become argumentative, and no meaningful exchange is possible that way. Leftist radicals are even further away, since most are indoctrinated to the point of fanaticism. They’re pretty much unreachable, unless any educable ones can be shown that they’ve been lashing out against the wrong targets.
Again, it’s a difficult case to make, but if I get through even to one person, then the time it took me to write this was worth it. There do exist moderate white liberals who really are open-minded and free-thinking. These are the “Question Authority” guys, right? I bet some of them mean it! This is my message for them.
We’re Not Your Enemy
Quite famously, our corner of the right was named a “basket of deplorables,” merely one sound bite in an ocean of heated debate over the years. (As amusing as that was, let’s try something more cheerful, shall we? I’ll go with the Sunshine Coalition.) I know you’ve heard lots of less than wonderful things about our band of heretics. Of course, I understand that the cheap shots go both ways. It’s not that we hate you; a difference in priorities and premises can lead to much frustration as well as gaps in communication. For instance, when we in the Sunshine Coalition try to get important information across, sometimes it’s as if we were speaking in Klingon.
I promise that I’m not about to bite your head off with this. As it is, quite regrettably, you’ve been getting more than enough flak from radical elements on the left, who have gone off the rails. They’re not really your friends, and being part of the moderate left won’t earn you much kind regard from them. They’ve become quite menacing, especially since the remarkably incendiary summer of 2020.
Why am I reaching out to you? At the end of the day, you’re our fellow citizens. More significantly, especially in the face of constant vilification during turbulent times like these, white people need to stand together. Perhaps the idea of ethnic solidarity makes you pretty anxious when it involves our own people, but there’s nothing immoral or wrong with it. This isn’t about “hate,” “bigotry,” or one of those ‑ism buzzwords coined to push your emotional buttons. The fact is that it’s perfectly natural and normal for everyone to look out for their own people. Why should it be any different for us? If that didn’t make you run away screaming like your hair is on fire, then congratulations!
You’re Not Evil
Now here’s something else remarkable. The moderate brand of liberalism that was normative during my younger days held that every society has good and bad aspects, and contains both good and bad people. I still stand by that much of it. This evenhandedness has become unfashionable. Lately you’ve heard again and again that white people are uniquely bad: the privileged, oppressors, beyond redemption, everything wrong with the world, “the cancer of human history” in the words of Susan Sontag (bless her heart), and so forth. An ideology once that prioritized fairness for all, inclusivity, and all the rest of it has swerved off course. Over time, the “let’s buy the world a Coke” brand of liberalism gave way to political correctness, and more recently critical race theory became normative.
By now, the volcanic resentment has become worse than even the late 1960s. It’s not only the Sunshine Coalition who the radicals, the fanatics, and the self-hating are putting a target on. They mean you too. By now, it’s come to the point of political violence. (I know you didn’t sign up for all that!) If push came to shove, being a big-hearted liberal or even an ally wouldn’t spare you. It’s not just the theoretical possibility of a revolution eating itself; even now, all whites are condemned in very explicit terms. You don’t have to take my word for it, just take a good look at their demonizing rhetoric.
I’m here to say that they’re wrong about you. Really, it’s pretty shabby that those further to your left have been browbeating and shaming you. I bet you’re a nice person. You’re certainly no demon! I’ll gladly acknowledge this, despite our differences in opinion. In fact, from the Sunshine Coalition’s perspective, liberals usually seem a little too nice for their own good! (Maybe some of that niceness gets a bit scarce during political discussions, but I’ll let that one slide here.) I don’t like to see you getting burdened with endless psychological manipulation tactics like false guilt, moral blackmail, abusive badgering, and gaslighting. It’s just wrong. Neither should your kindness or your humanitarian inclinations be turned against you to self-destructive ends.
Although it may seem like we’re polar opposites in ideology, this isn’t necessarily an unbridgeable divide. In fact, there is a place for liberals who’ve shaken off their anti-white conditioning. Moreover, there’s more of a range of opinions than you might expect. My take is that old-school classical liberalism had many good features, although there were areas for improvement, no ideology has been perfect. All told, there is some common ground beyond that.
Don’t Like Big Business Manipulating Governments? Neither Do We!
If you’ve suspected that the government doesn’t work the way you’ve heard in your civics classes, then you’re onto something. With leftists, it’s common knowledge that a bunch of extremely wealthy shmucks are really in charge. (When rightists start naming powerful figures and institutions, why call us “conspiracy theorists”? Come on, we’re agreeing with you!) The World Trade Organization protesters in 1999 were onto something, as was Occupy Wall Street a decade later. One notable problem is that both the Democrat and Republican parties are beholden to the same major corporations and powerful lobbies.
The two-party system usually delivers mediocre or highly flawed candidates who (with a few exceptions) generate little enthusiasm with the grassroots. More often than not, voters choose the “lesser of two evils” rather than someone we really admire. Think of it like a good cop / bad cop dynamic – what party plays which role depends on our relative opinions, but either way, they’re all cops! Our side wants to get back the nice country we grew up in. Your side wants prosperity for the masses and world peace. (That also sounds like a fine idea to me.) Then comes Election Day, neither side gets what we want. Whatever the result is, it’s mostly more of the same thing. Not much really changes.
The mainstream Democrats and Republicans don’t differ quite as much as most people assume. You have a choice of a neoliberal globalist party or a neoconservative globalist party. It’s much similar in Anglosphere and Western European countries abroad. Sure, there are several divisive topics the public debates incessantly (haven’t we all?) yet many are of middling importance and don’t really challenge the status quo. It’s rather like WWE wrestling: there’s a lot of melodrama, but the fix is in. The Uniparty holds the line on several major policies that remain off limits. Democrats and Republicans can argue up a storm over transgender inclusion in sports, school prayer, or some other inconsequential policy that generates a thunderclap out of a fart. Still, no matter who’s in office, globalist agendas remain largely intact, despite any empty promises made on the campaign trail.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
Other than that, politicians and major corporations and pretty chummy at the high levels, contrary to what traditional political theory says about government and business always opposing each other. You’ve heard much about the 1%ers, though the Sunshine Coalition considers the 0.001%ers to be the worst part of them. The fact is that all countries have a ruling class, whether we call it The Establishment, the Deep State, the shadow government, or something else. As the saying goes, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”
As you’re likely aware, our “elites” are not working for the best interests of the public, and haven’t been for a long time. These oligarchs and their toadies also meddle with the candidate selection process in both parties, subverting the political system into managed democracy. The DNC email leaks gave us a rare view into what really goes on behind the scenes. Although there’s an illusion of choice, the oligarchy effectively presents a “heads I win, tails you lose” dynamic. Do you find that a pretty shabby way to run Our Democracy™️ ? (That was some clever branding, I’ll add!) We in the Sunshine Coalition don’t like what’s been happening either.
What about Donald Trump? You’ve heard that he’s the ultimate incarnation of evil, of course. Really, that’s a little much. The truth is that he still has one foot in the kiddie pool. As much loathing as Bush the Younger received, it was small potatoes compared to Orange Man. The entire establishment went stark raving berserk, including the Republican Party’s “lose with Cruz” shenanigans in 2016, and there’s a reason for it that has nothing to do with his brimstone-scented cologne. In terms of the above-mentioned two-party kabuki theater, he’s been the first gatecrasher so far. Too bad he’s not smarter! He does oppose globalist agendas, and to a degree he means it, but so far it’s mainly amounting to halfhearted token efforts. For example, there’s a highly visible effort to deport illegal aliens, but no effort to put sensible limits on legal immigration. From the Sunshine Coalition’s perspective, being replaced by legal migrants is hardly better than being replaced by illegal ones.
Concerned About Zionism? So Are We!
You may be quite shocked and distressed at the scenes of death and suffering in Gaza. Although the Israelis do have the right to defend themselves, like any other nation, it’s gone to the point of massive overkill. You might also be concerned about the reprisals against demonstrators here. Why were the Gaza protests handled differently from those about anything else? What happened to their rights under the First Amendment? Simply put, they were targeted because they locked horns with Zionism. The demonstrators just didn’t know what they were getting themselves into with all this.
Zionism doesn’t handle criticism very well, to say the least, and will do everything possible to suppress dissent. (There is a bit of irony, of course, since these eternal crybullies dish out so much criticism themselves!) Friction is inevitable, given the extent of Zionist bad behavior; if they want better public relations, they should just stop doing that. Unfortunately, learning from their mistakes isn’t their strong suit.
Although dissent is routinely labeled “anti-Semitism,” the object isn’t about dunking on religious minorities. Personally, I’d really prefer to sidestep the Jewish issue entirely, but it’s too extensive to overlook. I’m not out to pick a fight with them; it’s that their elites picked a fight with us. To put things in perspective, the problem isn’t with the ordinary type of Jews who get along well enough— the sort you’re most likely to encounter in daily life. Neither is the problem about their religion; hardly anyone has a sectarian gripe with them these days, other than Muslims.
The major troublemakers include the wealthiest and most influential tier, along with the highly influential and lavishly funded institutions that further their interests. As has happened in many other host nations, their elites have been playing America for chumps. They bit the hand that fed them: the country that took in their forefathers, gave them refuge from Czarist oppression, and proved to be the most hospitable nation they’ve ever known. Moreover, Zionists don’t have the good sense to realize that trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg is a bad idea. Yes, we’re the goose.
The bad news is that all this is worse than you probably expect. Some aspects of Zionism are functionally rather like a white collar mafia. (The Sunshine Coalition has been documenting this problem for a long time! We should compare notes. How about it?) Perhaps you might think of The Establishment as an “old boy network” of very wealthy WASPs. There was something to that, but Zionists have been elbowing their way into power gradually, ultimately setting themselves up as an unofficial ruling class. The remaining WASPs follow their lead. In both parties, nearly all Congressmen will dance to their tune. Sometimes Presidents have grumbled under their breath a bit, but JFK was the last one who tried to put his foot down to the Israelis. As for Donald Trump, they threw him under the bus repeatedly during his first term, but he still thinks they’re his friends.
You may find neocon military interventions in the Middle East to be very troubling. Isn’t it time for America to stop playing Globocop where we’re not wanted? The Sunshine Coalition agrees. These turned into deadly quagmires, enormously costly and badly managed. This happened because the Israelis got us to fight their wars for them. There’s much more to the Zionism problem than all that, and we have answers. If you want a deep dive into it, Professor Kevin McDonald’s The Culture of Critique series has the details.
Want To Protect The Environment? So Do We!
I’m proud to admit that I’m a tree hugger. I’m trying my best to bring my carbon footprint down to the size of an ant’s paw. (I’d love to get an electric car too, but first I have to uncover a stash of pirate treasure.) I recycle whatever I can. If I were any bigger of an environmentalist, I’d be the Jolly Green Giant. The majesty of nature leaves me in awe, and I have a big soft spot for forest creatures, be they cute Bambis and bunnies or regal wolves and bears. You also might be surprised to find that ecology had much rightist support, and still does.
There’s another type of environmentalism, however, that isn’t too helpful. For one example, according to the original plan in the Kyoto Protocols, all Western countries are expected to participate, but the only non-Western countries on board with it are Japan and Kazakhstan. China, India, and every other Third World manufacturing hotspot are under no such expectations. What would be the outcome? The end result would be to deindustrialize the First World, and give gigantic corporations even more incentive to move remaining manufacturing jobs to sweatshops abroad with lax pollution controls. They won’t mind continuing to plunder what’s left of our industry. For us, however, it would bring the public another step closer to serfdom, and with little to no real progress toward improving the environment.
Now take a wild guess what gets the most media attention: grassroots environmentalism, or corporate-friendly greenwashing? Another thing is that hardly any tree huggers, me included, really do want to return to swinging on vines like Tarzan and subsisting on nuts and berries. Even living like the Amish would be too much for nearly all of us. We do want electricity, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, modern appliances, reliable transportation, and so forth – the key here is to work toward sustainable development.
For one thing, it will be necessary to stop mass migration. We simply can’t afford to be a safety valve for Third World overpopulation. (That does many other bad things to developed countries, but all that’s a much larger discussion.) Letting in the world’s hard luck cases may seem benevolent from a certain perspective, but they need to start getting hip to sustainable development in their own societies. As I stated before:
The one way to have a world that still has abundant forests, croplands, natural beauty, and biodiversity is to isolate overpopulating regions from those with stable populations. That means no globalist open-borders migration. If the overpopulating regions don’t stop multiplying like bunnies, they’ll eventually hit their Malthusian limit. That’s not pretty to see, of course. On the other hand, it’s better than permitting uncontrollably reproducing hordes to spread across the entire world like a black plague.
For one matter, the US now has close to 100 million more non-whites than it did at the time of the passage of the treasonous 1965 Immigration Act. If not, the population would’ve remained stable and would today be about 90% white, like it was then. The effects today are easy enough to observe: more urban sprawl eating up farmland and wilderness, increased depletion of resources, greater need to manage pollution, strained infrastructure, unsustainable demand-driven increases in housing costs, etc. This doesn’t even account for the other negative aspects of diversity such as endless disputes, loss of national cohesion, reduced social trust, turf wars, and so on.
Hopefully, all that will be food for thought if you find yourself stuck in traffic in a city that’s become much overgrown, more expensive, less safe, and perhaps hardly recognizable over the years.
Who Elected the Media?
How do you get information about the world around you? Can your sources be trusted? There’s plenty of cultural mythology about intrepid reporters battling corruption with a pen and a steno pad, but that one’s way out of date. I observed journalism students back in my college days, before they learned to conceal their biases, and those kiddos weren’t exactly Clark Kent and Peter Parker. (The stories I could tell. . .) Now they and countless other activists pretending to be journalists are cogs in the media machine, society’s most powerful opinion-forming institution. They get a pay check to lie to you, and they believe they’re doing the Lord’s work.
Another sad joke is that an independent media is a pillar of democracy bringing a wide diversity of opinion to the free marketplace of ideas. The management perspective isn’t any better than the bozos in the newsroom. There used to be fifty independent media corporations in America, until antitrust measures were lifted during the administrations of Reagan and Bush the Elder. Following years of consolidation, 90% of America’s media outlets, from TV networks to Hollywood studios and even all the way down to comic books, belong to six gigantic media conglomerates, all heavily Zionist-aligned. Aside from the mediocre neoconservative conglomerate, they’re singing from the same hymn sheet. The latter five may be telling you what you want to hear, but they’re not your friends!
Of their many sins, one of the worst is dishonestly promoting racial agendas. (Once again, you’re on target just as much as I am.) The media has a repeated pattern of portraying whites as the primary aggressors in interracial crime, when in fact the opposite is true. The overall effect is to mislead the public, preventing us from drawing sensible conclusions, while fanning the flames of minority grievances. Did the media tell you about the Knoxville Horror, or many other monstrous cases like that? I rather doubt it; at most, such events get muted local coverage, usually concealing the race of the perpetrators. On the other hand, you certainly have heard about several celebrated white-on-black cases, or incidents that can be shoehorned into that category, which were signal-boosted from coast to coast. There are several such incidents, but I’ll name the two most famous ones and tell you what CNN and Buzzfeed didn’t.
One of them was the Trayvon Martin shooting. The media ran it through their Narrative Filter and dishonestly characterized that as a white-on-black crime, when in fact it was a black-on-Hispanic crime. They purposefully ran a flattering picture of Trayvon at 13 – and not his recent social media posts when he was making obscene gestures and gang signs, and meanwhile ran the most unflattering picture of George Zimmerman that they could find. They characterized the shooting as an unprovoked attack, although the evidence for self-defense was so clear that Zimmerman was acquitted even in one of those politically charged trials. Still, retaliatory anti-white violence broke out, because the media lied to the public. They have blood on their hands because of their mendacious agitprop.
The other one was the George Floyd case, of course. They told you he was a gentle giant, a saint martyred by cowboy cops. They didn’t hasten to describe him as a career criminal who’d last been incarcerated for armed robbery which involved pointing a gun at a pregnant mother’s belly (a black lady, if it makes a difference). The media didn’t mention that he was as high as a kite and behaving erratically, or tell you about his constellation of health problems which, together with the illegal narcotics, led to his death. Does it still seem as if he’d been choked? The recording shows that the first time he said “I can’t breathe” was when he was in the back of the squad car and nobody was touching him. This is consistent with the symptoms of a heart attack, which often includes the “elephant standing on my chest” feeling. Moreover, pressure on the side of the neck doesn’t cause asphyxiation; that only happens if it’s from the front. This is basic anatomy. Finally, how does someone say he can’t breathe if his airway is completely closed off?
Rather than waiting for the facts to come in, the media once again ran the story through the Narrative Filter, and the result was months of coast-to-coast rioting. Dozens were killed, billions in property damage was incurred, and countless businesses were destroyed. The media lied, people died. (I might ask – what did you think of all that deadly violence, mindless destruction, and people losing their livelihoods? Something tells me you didn’t sign up for this.) Note well, if George Floyd had stayed home that day, the media would’ve found some other case to ignite the racial powderkeg.
This is why the mainstream media can’t be trusted. I understand confirmation bias is real. It’s comforting to read and see things which back up our existing beliefs rather than challenge them too much. The problem is that limiting yourself to carefully curated content and one-sided ideological spin doctoring will make you like a dweller in Plato’s Cave. What’s going on outside of the echo chamber? Are you being told both sides of the story? You don’t know unless you step out of your comfort zone once in a while and have a look around.
That’s what I’m challenging you to do. I don’t mean Fox News; they’re in the kiddie pool side of the right. By exiting your comfort zone, I’m not asking you to do anything I wouldn’t do myself. (About a quarter of my writing at Counter-Currents involves in-depth reviews of books and films with a leftist, globalist, or minoritist angle. I’m certainly not limiting myself to a single perspective.) As for the activists pretending to be journalists who lie to you, emotionally manipulate you, and feed you demoralization propaganda, why not tune them out?
You’re Not Responsible For The World’s Problems
I’ve saved the best for the last. Now I’ll let you in on something that might bring as much relief as a dozen therapy sessions, a bubble bath, and pint of Ben & Jerry’s. Back in my liberal days, I labored under a millstone of collective guilt. I know that there are plenty of others; I’ve heard from some of them, including in my own family. You too, perhaps? If so, I’ll share with you the four words that lifted the tremendous burden from my mind: It’s not your fault.
You’re responsible for what you do personally, of course, as is everyone. However, you cannot inherit guilt even if you wanted it. (With some, it seems there’s a masochistic streak going on. Hopefully that doesn’t include you; it’s quite grotesque!) Not only is the collective guilt trip invalid, it’s based on a narrow and very biased interpretation of history. Moreover, the purpose is to manipulate you into serving everyone else’s interests and disregarding your own.
Still not convinced? For Americans, the greatest emotional blackmail narrative is about antebellum slavery. If there were a legitimate debt for it, then you might be surprised to know that it was paid off long ago, and enormously overcompensated by now. For the most part, differential patterns of taxation and consumption of social services effectively amounts to an ongoing massive transfer of wealth from whites to non-whites with no end in sight. If the black community is still lagging behind on several socioeconomic indices after six decades, then they’ve squandered trillions in federal funding intended to improve their lot. (Misspending their freebies is not our fault either! Our role is merely to pay the tab.) Equality of outcome is not a realistic goal, especially between populations with differing average genetic characteristics, and there’s no reason to believe that pouring more trillions down the drain on social leveling schemes will produce better results than before.
As for the tens of millions of non-white immigrants since 1965, any complaints from them also ring hollow. It’s just more emotional blackmail to angle for special accommodations. Nobody forced them to move here. They did so in order to take advantage of a more orderly society with better economic conditions and social services than the countries their own people built. If they really were getting it as tough here as many of them claim, then they’d return to their ancestral homelands. Finally, as our editor put it:
- White people do not bear collective guilt for the acts of others. But collective pride in our race and nations is perfectly healthy and moral.
- We have obligations to other human beings. But our obligations to others are not equal. We owe more to people who are biologically and culturally close to us than to those who are biologically and culturally remote. Preferences for one’s own are natural, normal, and right. The political system most consistent with human biological and cultural diversity, as well as ingroup preferences, is nationalism for all nations, a world with borders.
- The classical rather than the Christian scale of values is correct. Merit is based on virtue, not need; strength, not weakness.
- We are not magically redeemed from fake guilt through suffering and self-sacrifice. Human beings are not naturally good or innocent. Human goodness is rare and requires cultivation. Nobody attains virtue merely by professing the right ideas or championing the people who lack.
- Suffering and weakness do not entitle you to victimize others.
So there you have it. The world’s problems are not your fault, nor are the woes of eternally dissatisfied minorities. Neither is it your obligation to cater to everyone else’s demands, or to perform thankless self-sacrifice until the end of your days. Your natural priority is to look out for your own people. Hopefully that’s a load off of your mind!
In Conclusion
I’m not expecting that you’ll be completely convinced, or experience a “Saul on the road to Damascus” conversion. I know that all this was quite a lot. Still, perhaps you’ll come away with a better idea of what the Sunshine Coalition is about. If you got anything out of this, then I hope that henceforth you’ll start taking your own side in the great contest of life, and refuse to participate in your own destruction. Being kind and caring doesn’t mean letting others walk all over you like a doormat, either individually or collectively. There’s so much more to be said, but this will have to do for now. Until next time, keep questioning authority.
35 comments
A lot of wise things were said in Beau Albrecht’s article but it would help a lot if White liberals would first accept the simple truth that in their antiwhite coalition they are not among friends.
Liberal Whites get the bullet too.
Liberal White women especially need to understand that they are not honored members of the coalition of the oppressed. Liberal White women get the knife too. You have only been tolerated to make up the numbers to defeat White men who are the only people instinctively inclined to protect you, and as as antiwhites see it they have the numbers now which means your time of being protected is at an end.
Reaching out to mentally defective White genetic garbage is at best, an exercise in futility. No argument, no matter how craftily conceived, will change an organism that is biologically defective. The White gene pool needs cleaning, and it will be cleaned. The hour is very late and the wise know to focus on partnering with proven quality individuals, not the severely mentally defective. Coddling traitors is the mark of a dangerous fool. Let Mother nature deal with them.
Most whites on both the left and the right simply follow the herd. Many political stances on both sides these days seem better explained by contrarianism than principle. If the other side is for it, then we must be against it, etc. I’d agree that we shouldn’t waste time with anyone who’s anti-white, whether explicitly or implicitly, but tens of millions of Democrats want all illegal aliens deported and millions of normies near the center would come to our side if we could shift the Overton window.
but tens of millions of Democrats want all illegal aliens deported. Where the fuck is this happening?
Obviously their party will never give it to them, regardless of what polls say Democrats want.
I figured I’d hear something like this. Anyway, you’ll note that my appeal is to those who really do have critical thinking skills. I won’t be wasting my time on trustafarians, Ph.D.s in lesbian ninja studies, and the like. That said, if you can convince the pawns on the enemy’s chessboard that they don’t have to be pawns, then so much the better.
Sometimes Presidents have grumbled under their breath a bit, but JFK was the last one who tried to put his foot down to the Israelis.
A viewpoint I agree with, however Counter-Currents has attracted an individual, who seems to regard it, as his life mission to promote “the lone gunman” theory, and if you don’t agree with him, you are stupid–we’ll see how he reacts. I wish I could speak Klingon—great article. 🙃
I do think the Israel connection is plausible, but it’s also good to stick to what we can prove…
I assume that you mean me. I am willing to debate it but JFK, RFK, and Charlie Kirk were all killed by Lone Gunmen.
It is mighty hard for Liberals to accept that Saint Kennedy could have been gunned down by a scruffy lone gunman like Marxist-Leninist Lee Harvey Oswald, who even the Soviets thought was a misfit loser.
Also, all of the mischief of the Lyndon Johnson Administration was first started in the brain of Jack Kennedy.
Jack ─ the man who coined the notion that the United States was “a nation of immigrants” ─ just never had a chance to pass things like the Civil Rights Act, the Hart-Celler Act, the Voting Rights Act, and to ramp up the Vietnam War (which he thought would be safer than the brinkmanship at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin, with General Lucius Clay champing at the bit to fight the Commies).
Some have had cognitive dissonance that a punk-ass kid like Thomas Matthew Crookes was able to shoot former President and candidate Donald Trump in the ear in 2024. But for the Donald moving his head slightly at exactly the right time, the outcome would have been very different.
Sometimes things just happen the way that they do.
The notion that JFK stood up to the Israelis is hugely overstated.
The tabloid journalist, Michael Collins Piper, who wrote edgy articles for the Spotlight, which I had subscribed to since 1979, claimed that JFK was shot because he was supposedly opposed to Israel getting an atomic bomb.
This is what is wrong with edgy journalism pretending to be historical analysis.
Well, I can think of no President who has ever actually been in favor of nuclear proliferation, and in any case this is irrelevant to Israel stealing fissile materials from private companies that employed the likes of Karen Silkwood.
Since the Jimmy Carter Administration, the only entity that is allowed to chemically reprocess nuclear fuel is the U.S. Navy in the Idaho desert; this is why there is so much nuclear waste stored indefinitely in casks at commercial nuclear power plants themselves (although it is not nearly as much as people would think).
Plus, the Israeli atomic bomb was a joint program with the South Africans. The South Africans killed their nuclear capability with the end of Apartheid, but the Israelis still officially deny having nukes, which is why they are not subject to non-proliferation sanctions.
However, since everybody knows that Israel actually does have nuclear capability, they are able to benefit from whatever military leverage this gives them without paying the price.
Yes, the 24-year old Marxist-Leninist, Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK without any help. Oswald didn’t really have anything against Jack Kennedy but he was the President.
Otherwise, Oswald would have preferred to have shot somebody like General Ted Walker, whom the Kennedies hated and was forced to resign from the Army for his anti-Communist Rightwing activism. Oswald had already taken a shot at Walker not long before killing Kennedy, but the shot missed and Walker was only lightly wounded ─ rather like Trump in 2024.
I am willing to debate this ─ just as I was willing to debate the perfidious hoax that the Moon Landing was faked.
I am not willing to debate Flat Earth because others do it better and I don’t have the patience for that. Just too stupid.
I’m also not willing to debate the “Fake Nukes” B.S. other than I will say that I have held the radioactive green glass in my hands from the 1945 Trinity test site in New Mexico. And I started school in Las Vegas because my Dad was a reliabilty engineer employed crunching atomic warhead test data from the Nevada Nuclear Testing Site in the 1960s.
I’d say that I understand these subjects better than most. Plus, I’m a degreed historian, and evaluating evidence is part of the historian’s craft.
🙂
Done? Good! My reply to you is that I never read your overly long, wind-bag comments. I did however scan the first, and last paragraphs. On the subject of JFK’s assassination, it elicits a visceral reaction which you will never overcome with your logic, and method of ratiocination, in other words people are going to believe what they want to believe, and nothing you say can change their minds. Being arrogant, and afflicted with hubris coupled with being a subject matter expert on absolutely every subject, will get you nowhere on this site. I did like the way you tied in your lineage, and pedigree in the last paragraph. 🙃
I don’t really care. You don’t have to read my comments. You can believe what you want to believe. I just don’t understand why so many people are so hung up on Saint Kennedy.
🙂
I am willing to debate it but JFK, RFK, and Charlie Kirk were all killed by Lone Gunmen.
I am curious to know why you are so quick to believe the government’s official statement on these assassinations (or on anything, for that matter)? Is the government our friend? Since when? Your government never lies, does it. A totally trustworthy and honest entity. These kinds of murders are shocking and therefore it is in the govt’s interest to make the claims that it does, to calm us down before we start getting ideas not in line with the official story. It’s always One Lone Nut, meaning “nothing to see here, folks; just toddle along home, now.”
Well, most critics have not even read the Warren Commission Report, so they don’t know what it really says.
Oswald was killed before his trial, so a lot of answers were not forthcoming and the media only milked the controversy in subsequent decades for further publicity ─ almost always failing to answer key questions that were long known. For example, nobody knew that it was Oswald who took the shot at General Walker until Marina Oswald testified to the Warren Commission about it.
Plus, she is the one who took the “resume photos” of Oswald in their back yard on Neeley street which is midway between Oswald’s later boarding house and the Texas Theater on Jefferson Avenue, which they had been to many times.
Oswald told the police that his head had been superimposed onto the photograph with some other guy holding Communist literature and an Italian surplus Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a revolver on his hip. But there were multiple versions of the photo with different poses, copies of which Oswald had been sending to radial groups he wanted to join thinking (incorrectly) that he looked dedicated and sane.
The Texas Theater was where Oswald tried to hide after fatally shooting Officer Tippit; he only had about 13 dollars and change in his pocket when he sneaked into the show without paying ─ but the Hudson’s shoe store guy a few doors away saw him furtively dash around when the cops went roaring down Jefferson Ave. in response to the Tippit shooting, so the shoe guy who had been listening to the radio on the JFK assassination, called the police and notified the staff at the theater that they had a suspicious person hiding inside who had sneaked in without paying.
Oswald had the revolver on him when arrested and the Dallas PD matched it to the spent shell casings found at the Tippit crime scene, which had several eyewitnesses. The revolver had been modified from a .38 S&W (or Lend-Lease .38/200) to the more powerful .38 Special (0.357 inch or 9.1 mm). But the cylinder and bore size for a .38 S&W is slightly larger than for .38 Special, and this made the fired brass cases expand in a unique way. On the other hand, the four .38 caliber lead slugs fired into Officer Tippit were too damaged to be matched to the shortened barrel of Oswald’s gun, originally chambered in the slightly larger .38 S&W bore (0.361 inch or 9.2 mm).
What is the motivation for the government to lie about the Charlie Kirk shooter?
What lies, specifically?
🙂
What is the motivation for the government to lie about the Charlie Kirk shooter?
What lies, specifically.
Thanks for responding. Political parties and governments at all levels (along with their front men in media and business) are the biggest conspirators of all time. Everything they say is inherently suspect, especially as regards controversial, shocking events. Don’t you know what governments are? They consist of persons who think they know how everyone else should live and think, and then use their monopoly on power to make sure we do. The mere fact that they promote the “one lone shooter of Charlie Kirk using a such & such rifle” theory means they are talking baloney. They came to this conclusion shortly after the killing. All this time I thought that meticulous, lengthy investigation was required before an official opinion could be made on such serious incidents. Other conspiracy theorists are promoting a variety of ideas just to create chaos and mess with our minds.
The big problem is that most of the population, as far as I can tell, believe what governments tell them, because they think the government cares about them and will always do what is right.
Re J.F.K. Some people who have written tomes challenging the Warren Report have indeed read it. I haven’t, though. I’m not even sure which conspiracy theory I’d support if I were to read the dozens of books on the murder of JFK. Other people will read Case Closed by Gerald Posner* and think it’s the last word. Why, look at all those blurbs his book received.
*Posner’s first book, Mengele, a 1986 biography of the Nazi “Angel of Death” Josef Mengele, was the result of a pro-bono lawsuit Posner brought on behalf of surviving twins from Auschwitz. He didn’t win the case, so he doubled down and wrote a book instead. When life hands you a lemon…
I strongly agree with the importance of Skepticism with respect to the government or any other institution or individual. I consider myself a Skeptic in fact.
But kneejerk conspiracy-theory and epistemological nihilism at best does not help us and is very likely just plain wrong so it ultimately hurts us.
I see no evidence that the Joos shot Charlie Kirk. JFC.
The Gerald Posner book on the JFK shooting, Case Closed is fine to get one’s beak wet on the subject.
But the Magnum Opus on the JFK assassination is definitely the massive Vincent Bugliosi tome, Reclaiming History (2007). Hardly a stone is left unturned.
Bonus points to also read the Warren Commission Report to see what it really says and not what some jokers say that it said. (Yes, the WC did make some mistakes here and there.)
The other stuff, especially from shyster attorney/journalist (((Mark Lane))) is not worth the bother.
🙂
On an article here a while back about the moon landing, you wrote a few comments that a tech know-nothing like me found dizzingingly complex with an impressive plethora of notoriously complicated terminology I won’t even begin to understand, but I trust your background, that of your relatives, and sent your comments on the topic to a not-very-bright but stubborn perpetual disbeliever that started second guessing it all afterwards.
For the record, I take an agnostic position on the various lines of speculation regarding JFK. It’s possible there was Israeli involvement, and they would’ve had motives, but then again many other powerful people and interests had it in for him.
Yes, but Occam’s Razor weighs heavily on Dealey Plaza.
When the company management at the Texas School Book Depository assembled the building employees out in the parking lot so that the Dallas PD could search the building systematically and did a head count, Lee was the only employee conspicuously missing, so an all-points-bulletin went out on the police radio and by broadcast radio giving Oswald’s description, but they did not give his name. He was just a person of interest.
Nineteen-year-old Wesley Buell Frasier, who was Mrs. Paine’s neighbor in Irving, Texas ─ about ten miles away from downtown Dallas ─ where Mrs. Marina Oswald was living away from her abusive husband who was allowed to visit his wife on weekends, drove Lee into work on Friday morning. That was weird because Lee rode to Irving with Mr. Frasier to stay with Marina on Thursday night instead of the normal Friday night.
Friday morning, the day of the JFK assassination, Wes Frasier noted that Lee had not packed a lunch for the day when they drove together into downtown Dallas to work at the TSBD. But Lee did have some kind of package wrapped in brown packing paper with him that day which he had retrieved from the Oswald family belongings stored in Mrs. Paine’s garage. This package was too short to be a rifle because Oswald had disassembled it. Mrs. Paine told investigators that she had not known that LHO had a rifle let alone had been keeping it in her garage along with other Oswald family things.
Lee told Mr. Frasier that Mrs. Paine had given him some curtain rods to use in his boarding house flat. When the pair arrived at Dealey Plaza in Frasier’s car to report for work, Lee hustled the “curtain rods” into the TSBD building while Wes was parking the car and checking the oil. That was weird because normally Lee hung out until the last minute before reporting to work, and they would walk in together.
The Dallas PD initially considered Wesley Buell Frasier to be a suspect and treated him roughly. He told the police that he did see Lee leaving the TSBD building on foot East on Elm Street right after the shooting, but it was not immediately clear what had happened, and Frasier assumed that Lee was just going to lunch as he had not brought a sack lunch with him that day, and it was about lunch time just after the shooting (12:30 PM).
Oswald tried to take a bus the two miles home to his boarding house in the Oak Cliff neighborhood, but the entire area around Dealy Plaza was gridlocked with automobile traffic, so Oswald found a cab driver at the nearby Greyhound bus station (MAP1) who thought he could get around the mess. Lee Harvey Oswald had just bought a bus ticket that he now could not use, and the cab ride home cost him 99 cents more. Oswald only had 13 dollars and change in his pocket when he was arrested.
Earlier that morning, Oswald had left the rest of his paycheck with his estranged wife Marina at Mrs. Paine’s house. He also left his wedding ring and a cryptic note about getting captured or killed. Oswald had no real escape plan and probably was highly amused that he had simply been able to walk away after the shooting.
The cabbie got him home quickly, except that Oswald had the taxi driver drop him a block or two away from his boarding house so that he would not know exactly where Oswald lived.
Oswald quickly changed his clothes at the boarding house and fetched his cut down Smith & Wesson Model 10 K-frame revolver converted to .38 Special. Then he started hoofing it to a bus stop, one not too close, near 10th Street and Patton, hoping to still use his bus transfer ticket before it expired. He would not have arrived in time even if Officer Tippit had not stopped him.
Officer Tippit was cruising East down 10th Street just past Patton when he saw Oswald power-walking and fitting the description of the suspect from the be-on-the-lookout advisory. Tippit stopped his car at the curb to talk to Oswald, and as he walked over to him, Oswald drew his gun and pumped the nosey Dallas police officer full of four slugs and immediately reloaded (discarding the spent shell casings).
There were several witnesses, and others who heard the shots. The slain officer’s police radio was used to report the shooting and to get help. The crowd discretely chased the armed fugitive. A taxi driver was having his lunch at the corner of Patton and 10th who did not see the Tippit shooting around the corner but certainly heard it. Then Oswald dove out of the shrubbery and nearly ran into the car. The cab driver thought that he was about to be carjacked.
The armed murderer was able to elude his followers and ditched his cream-colored jacket under a parked car in a lot. Oswald made his way to nearby Jefferson Avenue and then furtively ducked into the sidewalk alcove at Hudson’s Shoes as police cars roared past, catching the notice of the shoe store manager, who had been listening to the radio. The shoe guy then saw Oswald duck into the Texas Theater a few doors down without paying, so he called the police and notified the theater staff of the fugitive in hiding.
Basically, the Dallas PD had the suspect for a double murder in their jail within a couple of hours. Of course, the public had lots of unanswered questions because Oswald did not live long enough to be put on trial.
Two days later, on Sunday morning when Oswald was being moved to the regular jail from the police station ─ and all of the Press and TV had been notified, because why not? ─ a sleazy small-time nightclub operator named Jacob Rubenstein went walking by on Main Street.
Jack Ruby was hardly some mob kingpin. He lived with another man in a shabby Dallas apartment and barely made ends meet with a club he owned that sold watery drinks served by burlesque show dancers that were a little past prime time.
Near Noon on Sunday morning, Ruby had been walking by the police station to the Western Union office on Main and Pearl Street (MAP2) to wire a small amount of money to one of his cocktail waitresses who was out of town and having some kind of emergency.
On his way back to his car, Ruby had only walked 350 feet from the Western Union office and noticed the buzz now gathering at the police station. So while the lone officer guarding the Main St. entrance to the Police Station underground parking garage (MAP3) was occupied, the busybody Ruby, who was used to crashing events, deftly negotiated himself unseen around the squad car preparing to back in for the prisoner transfer.
Jack Ruby was wearing a suit and coat with hat and nonchanlantly walked right in, and going unnoticed, he stood with the press and TV crews waiting. But not for long. Just then, Lee Harvey Oswald was coming out of the elevator about to be escorted into the squad car ─ the bumper of which almost makes contact with Captain Fritz and the other parties as it backs down the ramp. The impulsive Ruby then draws his gun from his pocket and fires a single fatal shot into Oswald’s torso (VIDEO1).
Jack Kennedy was considered a Righteous Gentile by many Jews who worshipped him, and Ruby often carried his .38 Special Colt Cobra snubbie revolver in his coat pocket whenever he was carrying cash back and forth from his nightclub. Ruby had already seen Oswald’s trademark smirk in an earlier press conference at the police station, and just then decided to wipe it off for good.
Though he probably did not know it yet, Jack Ruby’s health was not right and he died from terminal cancer in prison two years later. Some have suggested that Jack Ruby might have been be a homosexual, but his roommate sharing their hovel vehemently denied this.
Jack Ruby’s attorney for his murder trial was the flamboyant San Francisco attorney Melvin Belli, who later played the creepy pedo etherial entity “the Gorgan” in a very forgettable episode of Star Trek (VIDEO2). And then Belli involved himself in the publicity surrounding the Zodiac serial killer case.
An excellent book on the murder of Officer J.D. Tippet is With Malice by Dale K. Myers (1998). It is an good companion piece to the Vincent Bugliosi book already referenced.
🙂
Not to dehumanize these people or anything, because they have been subjected to lifelong conditioning, but i agree with Hammerhead. If you can’t, or refuse to see whats right in front of your face and you lash out at people who do see it, then yes you are mentally defective.
Some of us here underestimate the power of milieu control. Suppose you were brought up to believe that the universe is an imaginary hologram. Lots of stuff you see on TV reinforces that, as well as what you’re taught in school and especially in college. Lots of pop culture and even advertisements reinforce the idea that the universe is an imaginary hologram. That’s what your friends have been saying too, and you reflexively shun anyone who doesn’t believe so. Everyone knows that someone who believes reality is real is an ignorant nitwit. Sure, you can kick a rock and that feels pretty darn real, but you might lose your friends and your livelihood if you mention that!
The recent CC article about the movie A Time to Kill is a good example of that. Blacks killed a white girl, but John Grisham flipped the script on reality with that book and movie, which in turn put that narrative in the public’s mind. Reality gets lost in the process.
It really fries me off. He, and others like that, willfully changed the story in order to make their own people look bad.
Nice article. I think it mainly concerns “liberals” who are actually apolitical but repeat liberal mantras for reasons of conformity (they perceive liberal slogans as “the right things to say”).But it’s hard to convince people who profess liberal ideology as part of their elitist identity: “luxury beliefs” are part of their aspirations to be among the successful. The really militant liberals and wokeists tend to be motivated by so-called narcissistic sadism. They see us as weak outsiders whom they can bully with impunity and even feel “morally elevated” for doing so. No arguments work on such people.
I actually wrote up an email suggesting you guys write an article tailored to a white liberal audience. I don’t think I ended up sending it though. The recommendation came more about tackling the assumptions of diversity. I’ll post it below.
—–
when I assert white racial interests, I inevitably come across many average people who don’t see anything wrong with the idea of a mixed society. I used to have a hard time getting past this point. But I discovered that when I point out that mixed societies are more racially stratified and hierarchical, to a brutal degree, they respond with surprise. With liberal progressives it’s one avenue of rhetoric that gets them to open up to the evidence. We can just highlight Northern India, Egypt and Latin America, highly mixed societies, to showcase that what society regards as “racism” intensifies. In the 90s and 00s, the media often talked about the inevitable future when we would be blended into one race. It always comes with the assumption that it makes people more equal and ends racism, but it doesn’t, it makes both problems much worse. People are still approaching the issues of mass migration and miscegenation with the assumptions of that false messaging.
Having been through the archives here and on American Renaissance, I don’t think there’s been a proper breakdown of what we can expect from a mixed race western world in regards to social tolerance, racial tolerance and egalitarianism, drawing evidence from other mixed race parts of the world that exist today. I understand white nationalists have greater concerns with mixing (the survival of our race), but normal people hold certain values in certain ways and don’t think in the same way as us. You have to meet people where they are. Such a full analysis, written for a progressive liberal audience, would go far with waking people up. Liberal progressives are typically soft minded, so when one harps on about how blacks are of low intelligence and references natural hierarchies, their egalitarian instincts and compassion activate and they close off. They get defensive over blacks and just see you as punching down at the vulnerable. When I bring up this issue, I try to do so as follows.
-When interracial mixing does occur, it doesn’t happen evenly. The races stratify at different levels socially. It’s typically the exceptional of the lower races marrying up, and the failures of the higher races marrying down. Given enough time, this sucks the cognitive talent out of the lower races, and pushes the incapable traits out of the races higher on the hierarchy, and this further feeds into a colorist hierarchy.
-When white traits become rare, there’s the fisherian runaway with pale complexion, and people become obsessed with light-skin, the class correlation with color from before feeds into this. There’s a reason Indian diaspora stores always stock skin-lightening products, with them having a dedicated shelf. Many of these people from those mixed parts of the world are actually disgusted and horrified at our level of tolerance to intermarriage, and see so many westerners as blindly dating down without realizing it. And as western countries become more mixed, that intolerance becomes the majority opinion.
-Egalitarianism as a value can only exist with homogeneity. In white etho-states the garbageman is the same color as the business elite, in Northern India and Brazil the garbagemen are dark and the businessmen are of a lighter complexion, even after centuries of mixing. It leads to resentment, politics of envy, feelings of insecurity and all the “racist” mannerisms you hate.
-Once a country is mixed, it’s “racist”. You can’t unmix it, you’re stuck with that brutal colorist hierarchy forever. There has never been, as far as I’m aware, a society losing its complex over complexion once it has set in.
Highlight that their mixed race utopian ideal, like the communist ideal, is just never going to come true. They will then come to realize what a massive mistake we’re making. Even if you don’t convert them, you would certainly seed doubt into their mind. It’s an underrated avenue of attack I don’t see the movement making, and one that will draw blood. Certainly someone a lot smarter than I can flesh out this point better.
I hope someone takes you up on the offer and writes that article. Unfortunately, I don’t know nearly enough about the social structure of Brazil or India to do it effectively, so I’m not the guy for the job.
The observation that increasing race-mixing is not a cure for wealth/status inequality between different groups is not something that I’ve seen discussed here before, but it does make sense, and I think you are right that it could be a way to reach some egalitarian-minded Whites.
I think a related argument can and should be made against high-skilled immigration, as it drains third-world countries of their most talented and productive citizens, leaving them poorer. Is it really just to deprive Africa and India of their most capable doctors and engineers? This argument obviously won’t get through GDP-obsessed right-wingers who want to “run the country like a sports team” and could care less if the whole third world starves, but it might win over a chunk of White liberals who are deeply concerned with equality.
They will then come to realize what a massive mistake we’re making. Most never will cause they’re committed to the colorblind equalitarianism myth and damn all the horrid consequences. Or they do see the truth clear as day but don’t give a fuck and celebrate with sadistic glee cause Whites suffering to death is their aphrodisiac. When it should be their cruelest punishment.
Good piece. ‘Meaningful dialogue across an ideological divide can be quite difficult’. Wow. Tattoo that on your arm. Discourse has been disarmed. ‘Personally, I’d really prefer to sidestep the Jewish issue entirely, but it’s too extensive to overlook’. I’m going through the same problem, but with Kevin McDonald as an introductory course, sort of Kike 101. I’ve been called a Jew (not on CC) because I failed to criticize the tribes enough. You’ve picked apart the stitches of the current great divide, politically speaking. Bravo.
It would be futile for me to share white advocacy opinions or content, but I do comment when other people share the racial advocacy of non-whites, which is blatantly non-liberal but doesn’t trigger the alarms.
I try to make salient the non-liberal principles that non-whites unashamedly demand for their own people: in-group favoritism, group assembly, group advocacy, institutions and territory explicitly and constitutionally belonging to their group and excluding others; and a healthy meta-principle that your people’s survival and flourishing is the highest good, so any principle that requires your people to walk itself off a cliff should be rejected until and if it can be refined to work in your people’s favor.
I point out that expressing such principles, and those principles being so well aligned with intuitions and emotions, tends to make a person formidable, authentic, and charismatic. These people like themselves, they have their tribe, they stand up for themselves and their tribe, they believe the future world is better if they make more instances of their tribe’s genotype and phenotype.
Liberals pride themselves on not being parochial, on taking the long view, and the global view is surely that non-whites are non-liberal and don’t want to become liberal, that our own people were non-liberal until your grandmother’s time, and that the Western world is becoming being non-liberal, the only question being whether it’ll be white non-liberal or non-white non-liberal.
Liberals converted so far: zero. Hope that seeds are being sown: eternal. I like to think that a principle expressed for another race will inevitably, like a mathematical axiom, be applied to whites. But there’s an Orwellian crimestop where obvious parallels aren’t explored, and unfortunately we’ve also reached a point where even white liberals explicitly gloat that the principles are different because the ultimate good consists in the flourishing of non-whites and and the decline of whites.
Crimestop = “Protective Stupidity”. Leftists are totally brainwashed. They hate politics, which they want to outlaw. They use censorship and violence, not reason and debate. For example, most of them openly approve of the murder of Charlie Kirk. They can’t prove him wrong, so they resort to violence. This is not new. Antifa violence (supported by the Democratic Party and protected by Democrat judges, AG’s and DA’s) has been ongoing for many years.
Even Orwell would be surprised at the fanatical stupidity of leftwingers today. Orwell was leftwing, but not like that. And he liked politics.
The chances of being able to convince a white liberal woman who’s already had a child and is still liberal and not leaning in our direction is in my opinion very low. I think if you’re able to clearly demonstrate and show that their child could be in danger in the future that might be a way to convince them, but other than that, unless they are like actively having problems, it’s I think it’s probably very low to convince that type of person. I do think, however there is a huge opportunity to convince white men who are still relatively young (under 40) and still liberal/leftist given that their lives aren’t a total train wreck and they’re not like super crazy. There’s a lot of of these types of guys who are Bernie Bros etc and are very demoralized for being on the left, I think, especially like once they are out of academia.
I really see the conservative ideology being a much bigger threat to maybe not to white people but to the movement so I guess in a way it is a bigger threat to white people because it’s like it’s kinda like the hand that holds us in place while the hammer of left/liberalism state power whatever just comes down and keeps whacking us. I think we just really need to crush a lot of conservative ideology and just flush out all of these traitors from the right. I don’t entirely like the left right distinction but it can be useful. There’s a lot of ideas that I think I have that are very liberal and leftist but when it comes to race, I guess it’s on the right now as apposed to 100 years ago it used to be on the left. The thing is though is if you can get a lot of the arguments out of how we have kinda a safety net societies and how we clearly are distinct from fundamental conservatives. Most of us here especially young ones don’t really follow Christian fundamentalism and you know we like things like nice architecture, saving the planet, walkable cities, etc. We have a lot of the same things that the left or the white liberals want but we just say “no that we think that white people have a right to their own homeland and we have the right to exclude others if we want just like everybody else and we respect other people but obviously we put our people first and we say things like we don’t like the war in the Middle East you know all of these talking points and then in the end we’re racially conscious at the same time think that’s very demoralizing for a liberal to hear I think to like a lot of white liberals to just find the out like that, they find out that they just love so much of many the things that we like to, and so I don’t know if it would convince like tons of them over to our side, but we might be able to just neutralize them by getting them to acknowledge what we are really about and that might just be good enough. I think most of our effort should be really on just like I said crushing cuckservative ideology or at least most of it cause I see it as like a really big problem. it also has more staying power into the future I think now even though things like Zionism aren’t popular even among Christians that are under 30 they’re still always that angle in the future of Jews are special and the conservative colorblind ideology. It has a lot more staying power because 40 to 50 years from now I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of white liberals left Especially young ones. I don’t think there’s gonna be a lot of young ones I could be wrong on that, but I don’t think that they’re reproducing enough and because of how the world is, every other group of people is essentially conservative in their own way it’s just gonna be very weird and unpopular and looked on as silly like it will be much lower status I think in a multicultural or diverse society to be that way. And actually a lot of liberals are about status and it will just won’t be popular. Now all this is my perception of things and I didn’t fully flesh all my ideas out because I’m just giving you guys a comment I have, but I do think the idea of reaching out and starting a dialogue and keeping a record of all the times we’ve tried to initiate a dialogue and conversation over and over again could be pretty helpful, especially if you know a lot of nefarious forces like Jews keep obfuscating the message. I mean a lot of liberals don’t like them anyway now because of Gaza and if they see that you know a lot of the media that’s run by Jews obfuscating our message and demonizing us they’ll lose a lot of trust for institutions that are run by jews and it could turn out in our favor.
All Whites should be required to view the full video of the murder of Iryna Zarutska, who was knifed by a nigger last Aug 22, on the transit in Charlotte NC. Not just liberals, but conservatives also delude themselves that they are safe from these vermin. The whole world should watch it, and then watch the smug reaction of the Mayor to this horror.
The authorities tried to conceal the video of this crime for a good reason. They wanted to maintain the bubble of illusion that Whites can co-exist with niggers. We are in mortal danger every day. We all know it in theory, but this truth must be reinforced with graphic videos such as this one.
Beau, you wish to tell liberals that they are not our enemy. The word liberal today has little to do with the Voltarian liberal — “I may disagree with what you say but will defend to my death your right to say it.” Today, liberal is practically a euphemism for anti-White. Many who identify as liberal are our enemy, at least my enemy, until proven otherwise.. They disagree with what I say and want me dead.
Forget liberals and others opposed to us and concentrate on organizing around those few who agree with us. By “us” I mean those who support us and will hold the hard line, and not compromise with the also-rans. Some pro-Whites, not all by any means, will appreciate my vow in this interview from 10 and 1/2 years ago to never compromise on William Pierce’s fundamentals — never! “Will Williams: Taking the Hard Line” at nationalvanguard.org
I said:
…And they [NARRG coup-plotters who had recently sued NA for $2 million] are what’s called “Big Tent” — those who want to open the Alliance to any and all “pro-White” comers of any ideology [aka in some circles as generic “WNs”]; and [NARRGs] do not follow Dr. Pierce’s Cosmotheist belief system. I want nothing to do with compromisers who appeal to the herd with a watered-down message for the sake of expediency, for a short term gain in numbers. Dr. Pierce would not have approved of NARRG’s departure from his vanguard approach, which was to attract that perceptive, responsible minority of our people who agree with our uncompromising, hard-line ideology, program, and strategy, and build a mass movement of will and determination around that core. It is really that simple and straightforward…
See the rest of that interview and learn who the NARRG losers were at the link.
First up, I’m not expecting miracles. It’s a hard sell, but generally I’d like some of them at least to decide they don’t want to be chickens voting for Colonel Sanders any longer. Other than that, before we can bring people to where we’d like them to be, we have to reach them where they are now. As much as I’d like things to be otherwise, this doesn’t just happen overnight.
Beau Albrecht: October 2, 2025 First up, I’m not expecting miracles. It’s a hard sell, but generally I’d like some of them at least to decide they don’t want to be chickens voting for Colonel Sanders any longer. Other than that, before we can bring people to where we’d like them to be, we have to reach them where they are now. As much as I’d like things to be otherwise, this doesn’t just happen overnight.
—
You’re a good man, Beau. I wish you luck in bringing liberals around to the Cause.
My movement, the National Alliance, is small, and not so interested in appealing to those who are opposed to NA or appealing to the hopelessly Judaized White mass of herd animals who care not about preservation of our race. You won’t find much about us on social media because we are real, not virtual. We’ve been around for more than 50 years.
I see your plan to recruit liberals as putting the cart before the horse.
Preserving our race will happen because it must happen. It should not be thought of as some sort of miracle.
Nor should it be a hard sell when presented to the right, racially responsible people of our race — those who are eligible to join with us to form a core of serious, like-minded Whites. Some of these people have come from the ranks of former liberals who have become racially responsible, just as some in this core group have come and will continue to come from Christian ranks, since most of our people were brought up in Christian homes.
Christianity is an alien creed, spawned from Judaism and unsuitable as the belief system for serious separatist/preservationist Whites who find it stupid to worship the imaginary deity of one’s enemy — and they see Jewry as the enemy of our race.
NA founder, Dr. William Pierce, knew Our Cause needed a new consiousness, a new non-Semitic spiritual foundation, so he developed the needed philosophy, calling it Cosmotheism. Some call his new belief system for out people a religion.
It’s that simple. No hard sell. I’ve put my organization’s Web page on Counter-Currents several times. Some have read it– most have not, or either it had little or no appeal to them. It’s What is the National Alliance? | National Alliance. That’s at our main site, http://www.natall.com if that link doesn’t take you to it.
IDEOLOGY OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE
THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE is not only working to achieve certain goals; it also stands for a comprehensive view of life, or worldview. Its goals have not been chosen arbitrarily in reaction to current social, racial, or economic problems, the way the Democrats and Republicans put together a party platform for election purposes; instead they follow naturally from Alliance ideology.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A Natural Order
We see ourselves as integral with a unitary world around us, which evolves according to natural law. In the simplest words: There is only one reality, which we call Nature: not the “my reality” and “your reality” of the subjectivists and not the separate spiritual and physical realms of the supernaturalists. We are a part of Nature and subject to Nature’s laws. Within the scope of these laws we are able to determine our own destiny. If we err in our efforts there is no one to protect us from the consequences of our folly or our weakness. In other words, we ourselves are responsible for everything over which we have the power of choice: in particular, for the state of our environment and for the destiny of our race.
This view may be contrasted with the Semitic view, which separates man from the rest of the world and postulates a divine but nevertheless manlike being who rules man and the world by supernatural law. Those who hold this view absolve themselves of responsibility for their fate. When faced with an undesired outcome of events they say, “It is God’s (or Yahweh’s or Allah’s) will.” They believe that it is not necessary for men to concern themselves with the future beyond planning for their own needs, because their god has everything under control…
[…]
Strength in unity: As a member of the National Alliance you will be doing something about what is happening to your world, instead of just complaining about it. You will be joining your strength to that of many other men and women with the same beliefs and goals. Working alone you can accomplish relatively little; working in concert with others you can have a much greater effect on the course of events around you.
Guidance for members: By keeping informed through internal National Alliance publications of other members’ activities and of ongoing National Alliance programs, you will have both guidance and a wider scope for your own activity. You will be able to draw on the experience and special knowledge of other members instead of relying entirely on your own guesswork.aking your life count: Nothing in life is more satisfying and fulfilling than making a commitment to a great and impersonal goal and then devoting one’s talents and energies to its achievement. As a National Alliance member you will be taking a hand in shaping the future and in determining the destiny of your race. By doing so you will share in its immortality.
A necessary task: In addition to the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of doing something which really matters and which makes your life count, you should join the National Alliance because it is the right thing to do. Any White person who can see the threat to the future of the race today and who refuses, whether from cowardice or selfishness, to stand up for his people does not deserve to be counted among them. The task of the National Alliance is an extraordinarily difficult one, but it is necessary, and that should be the only consideration for any man or woman with a fully developed sense of responsibility.
REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP
Eligibility: Any White person (a non-Jewish person of wholly European ancestry) of good character and at least 18 years of age who accepts as his own the goals of the National Alliance and who is willing to support the program described herein may apply for membership.
Note that under Ineligibility, neither liberals nor Christians are included.
Read the rest of that shortened document, less images, at the link. I emphasize that NA is not for every White person. Applicants for membership in our Alliance must accept the Alliance’s goals as stated in “What is the National Alliance” and support its program and goals. Those who do not meet NA’s eligibility requirements or who don’t care to join, but still accept NA’s program and goals — carefully crafted by NA founder, William Pierce — can still apply as an official supporter, entitling them to receive the monthly NA BULLETIN, snail mailed to members and supporters.
Beau, please read “What is the National Alliance” at the link, and critique it for me and for others honestly: why you think it is a sound strategy for our people, or why not. It is not for liberals nor or for the masses, nor even for many who consider themselves “WNs.”
To clarify further, let’s say that recruiting those who agree with us (or nearly entirely so) is the low hanging fruit approach. There’s good reason for that, and everyone does it. Some will cast their nets wider too, and that’s also very common. The higher hanging fruit is harder to reach, but there’s more of it. This isn’t an either/or thing; it’s entirely possible to reach out to two different target audiences.
As for this article here, my primary object isn’t to get Bernie Bros to become pro-White activists. (It would be great if they did, of course, but realistically it would take a lot more than 4600 words to counteract thousands of hours of television!) For the moment, I’d like to see them reject ethnomasochism and refuse to participate in their own destruction.
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.