Fidus, Schwertwache (Swordguard), 1912
1,222 words
Many disagreements about politics stem from a confusion between two sets of basic distinctions: “us vs. them” and “friend vs. enemy.”
In politics, the most important distinction is between “us” and “them”: our group and all the others.
A political regime is just if it benefits “us”: meaning that it serves the common good of one’s community. As a White Nationalist, my ultimate ingroup is white people. As an American, my ingroup is Americans, meaning white Americans, not non-whites who happen to hold US citizenship. When I evaluate American politics at home and abroad, I think solely in terms of white well-being. For me, whites are the proper beneficiary of political policy, which is to say that white well-being is the standard of political justice.
What about the well-being of “them”? That depends. I believe that other human beings have rights to life, liberty, property, and homelands of their own, which I will respect, provided they reciprocate. I am a universal ethnonationalist, which means that ideally, I’d like to live in a world in which all peoples have homelands of their own, and different peoples maintain amicable relations, preferring trade over plunder and diplomacy over warfare. Getting to that world is my goal, and I view all political issues in terms of how they contribute to or detract from that project.
This brings us to the next distinction: friend vs. enemy. Actually, there is a third category: those who are outside the fight. I will just call them neutrals. Friends are those who help “us.” They are pro-white. Enemies are those who oppose “us.” They are anti-white. Neutrals don’t care or don’t matter.
The distinctions between “Us and Them” and “Friend, Enemy, Neutral” can be depicted in a table:
We also need to make a distinction between objective and subjective friends, enemies, and neutrals. An objective friend actually helps whites, whether he intends to do so or not. An objective enemy actually hurts whites, whether he intends to do so or not. A subjective friend intends to promote white interests. A subjective enemy intends to harm white interests. A subjective neutral doesn’t care about us. An objective neutral doesn’t matter.
One can also be both subjectively and objectively a friend, enemy, or neutral.
The best kind of friend both wants to help and actually helps: he is subjectively and objectively helpful. The worst friend wants to help but actually harms us: he is subjectively on our side but objectively an enemy.
The best enemy doesn’t want to help White Nationalism but actually promotes our cause anyway: he is subjectively an enemy but objectively a friend. The worst enemy wants to harm us and actually does so: he is subjectively and objectively an enemy.
The best neutral is subjectively uninterested in whites but objectively helps us nonetheless. The worst neutral is subjectively ill-disposed to us yet has no actual effect. But their ill-will might someday become effective against us.
These distinctions can also be depicted in a table:
Very few people in politics wish to promote white interests. Basically, nobody in the political mainstream is our friend. The best we have to pick from are enemies or neutrals who end up promoting white interests accidentally or for the wrong reasons. That includes politicians like Donald Trump.
However, no matter how problematic these “good enemies” and “good neutrals” are, we must always remember that they are better for white well-being than “bad friends” who think they are promoting our cause but are actually harming it.
At this point, it should be clear that not all of “us” are friends of white interests. White Nationalism represents the genuine interests of all whites. We see whites as “us.” But thus far, only a small percentage of whites agree with White Nationalism. They are our friends. The vast majority of whites at present are enemies or neutral.
Thus it is a sign of a fundamental confusion when race-conscious whites are told that we should mourn the death of someone like Renee Good because, after all, she was a white woman. Yes, Renee Good was one of “us,” and in a White Nationalist society, she might have had a decent life. But politically speaking, she was an enemy. And although I think it is in bad taste to celebrate the deaths of enemies, neither do I mourn them. For me, the saddest thing about Renee Good is that she was deluded enough to work against the interests of her own people.
Because some of “us” can be “enemies,” White Nationalists are in the strange position of wanting to provide white homelands for all white people, even though some of them will fight tooth and nail against us and would refuse to live there once we win.
As a White Nationalist, I would have all whites be friends. I would not choose any whites as enemies. But sometimes your enemy chooses you, and you would be a fool to ignore or dismiss sworn enemies simply because they are white.
If one of “us” can be an enemy of white interests, can one of “them” be a friend? Of course. Just as I want non-whites to have homelands of their own, there are non-whites who wish the same for whites. These are non-white allies. They are not “us,” but they can and do help us. This is why I have no patience for people who decry the fact that Counter-Currents regularly publishes writings by non-white allies of White Nationalism, while I do not publish white authors who are objectively or subjectively harmful to our cause.
If we are serious about saving our race, we must use every means to that end. Thus we must clearly distinguish who our real friends and enemies are. A politician like Donald Trump who is objectively helping us even though he opposes or is indifferent to our goals is better for our cause than a convinced White Nationalist who harms us. A non-white ally who objectively and subjectively helps us is better than either of them.
Now, this might sound like “civic nationalism.” But that would be a confusion. Civic nationalists claim that what makes someone one of “us” is belief, not blood. I reject that. But being a friend of White Nationalism is definitely a matter of belief (and/or action), not blood — since many who share our blood hate us, while some who don’t share our blood are on our side. Thus whites who are against us are political enemies, and non-whites who are for us are political friends.
63 comments
Great article. I want to help our race, and I do help our race. 🙃
“Every white supremacist cause – no matter where or when – has had blacks on its side.” – Jean Raspail
On that point. Despite the anti-white propaganda everywhere, it’s surprising how little we are hated. The victimization and hatred whites do receive is often reflexively attacking a defanged target, or done for material profit. Despite western government’s best efforts, and the law’s best efforts, there’s less actual anti-white animosity than people think. Even with anti-white hatred institutionalized, it doesn’t have much sticking power and just feels forced in the culture. Blacks, Indians, Jews, Hispanics, Chinese, etc just can’t help but find themselves squabbling and hating one another, despite having a racial scapegoat in the form of whites.
Which makes one question whether or not past racial hatred was simply deserved. Especially the intense animosity people feel for certain groups like Gypsies and Jews. Surely the level of anti-white dehumanization trumps what was seen in Imperial and Weimar Germany with the jews? With all their institutionalized power and glossy propaganda, jews have failed to make themselves liked in the long run. Same with blacks, no matter how many times they’re cast as the heroes in movies, people’s experiences with them will remain negative. And despite always being the villain in stories, whites are still stereotyped as being trusting, open and even gullible by other races.
I feel people fall into the trap of thinking that non-whites are a unified bloc that will always target us, and that hatred is hardwired into them. Being a minority puts us in a vulnerable position, certainly, but there’s much possibility for power-brokering and negotiating with races who hate other races more than they hate whites, and angling for an ethno-state from that position. We still will have a plurality for a long time, and have a significant IQ advantage over many other groups. I’m not saying this as a cope, but more to take the edge off the blackpill.
Of all the races, Whites are the least racist. In order to win allies, all sane Whites should unite and present a strong front to the world. We can learn from the example of others, such as the Jews.
Kevin MacDonald, in his closing remarks in The Culture of Critique, asserted that will be the consequence of demographic replacement. Culturally we’re shredding the openness that defined our people, and are having to mimic those that threaten our way of life. Already this is under way, and we’re getting a heightened sense of who we are.
It’s quite funny, when you read early 20th century conservative criticisms of the National Socialist movement, one of their main criticisms was that the Nazis were behaving like the jews. Mythological irredentism, claims to racial supremacy, a hierarchical worldview, conspiratorial and insular, meeting in seedy corners and plotting together. It was very unlike the relatively egalitarian and open cultures common to our people.
Really? I see people in my personal sphere fleeing and eschewing white identity as much as possible. They intermarry with nonwhites, typically some type of Asian and/or they try to claim some BIPOC identity, typically Amerindian like Elizabeth Warren, even though they’re lily white. Whites with white marriages are not proud of it, nor value their whiteness as such. Social pressure is very transformative.
But I agree allies of color are important because as things stand, people will only take seriously things coming from nonwhites.
The suicidal problem with Whites is they’re raceless: low-to-zero ethnocentrism, self-hating guilted xenophilia induced and penetrated by jews. The irony is if Whites grew a spine, became militantly tribal, wore ‘racist’ as an honor badge and said nigger unapologetically half as much as they do motherfucker, blacks would actually respect the hardline ‘dun give a fuck’ steadfastness. They understand force and respect the brutality of a fighter. They have far more admiration for a Hitler than a pathetic pussy like tim walz.
From the above article, I conclude that in politics you gotta know who are your friends and who are your enemies. For example, presidents Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 are proven enemies of the White race for many reasons.
One decisive reason is that they imported over 80,000 Somalis into Minneapolis (and over 250,000 nation-wide) during their terms in office. They changed Minneapolis from a civilized city into a third-world, Jew-run shit-hole. They did this deliberately, out of malice, and in order to suck up to the Jews.
However, even if they had had good motives, they are objectively enemies of the White race. And their accomplices are also our enemies. It doesn’t matter if some of them were White, they are still our enemies. The same holds for such degenerate lunatics as Rene and Rebecca Good.
My heartfelt agreement! Here am I, a long time fan and reader of and regular donator and occasional essay contributor to Counter Currents, a non-White who subjectively wishes and objectively acts to help the cause of White Nationalism. This, I believe, makes me a political friend/ally of all the racially conscious White people, including but not limited to the writers for and readers and supporters of Counter Currents. Again, it is my humble yet sincere and confident understanding that my case precisely constitutes a typical non-white friend/ally by belief and action. It is a firm and clear choice/decision of mine by conscience and conviction, about which I feel nothing but honor, pleasure and responsibility.
I’d like to hear what non-White allies of the proWhite cause have to say about what their colored brethren think about us in relation to jewish power. Are they somewhat in agreement, sympathetic, incurable or what is the temperature gauge of how they feel about White nationalism, and especially hordes of invaders whom I’m sure they are not all fans of. Would be interesting to hear what a contact/ally would report back.
I’m thankful that this way of thinking, that first drew me to Counter-Currents (going on eleven years now!) has remained unwaveringly on-point and not ventured off into the silly weeds. There’s a reason C-C remains blacklisted, as it does: it offers up no easily toppled proxies in WN’s place (lobbed like softballs for enemies to knock out of the park or back down our throats with minimal effort). In other words, the message is far too sensible and beyond reproach to be tolerated and allowed past the gatekeepers.
Instructive.
This is why I have no patience for people who decry the fact that Counter-Currents regularly publishes writings by non-white allies of White Nationalism, while I do not publish white authors who are objectively or subjectively harmful to our cause.
It is why I’ve defended Lipton Matthews on these pages, and it’s why I think so highly of Alexander Jacob, neither of whom belongs to our people. They are not “us,” but they are objective & subjective friends.
As much as I would like to be on Dr. Johnson’s side on this one, I cannot. The fundamental problem with ‘us’ vs ‘them’ or ‘friend’ vs ‘enemy’ is that we are not in command of the state. Our choices cannot be based on exercising a power that (a) we either don’t have or (b) to the extent that we do have a power, we’re using unproductively.
I’d say this is the case here. And it starts with whatever you give for an ‘What is the purpose of White Nationalism?’ Because once you answer that question, all of the ‘How do I pursue the purpose of White Nationalism?’ become more obvious.
The most successful movement among Whites was ‘christianity’, which, sadly, was an entirely anti-White movement from start to finish. But it was successful. Now, why was it successful? Because it pursued a strategy across classes and because it offered a vision of a better day to come for those who followed it. It also tried to offer the concrete benefits of solidarity in the here and now in the form of mutual aid (burial societies, agape dinners).
The single most successful non-violent social movement in the last century was Alcoholics Anonymous. There’s a branch in virtually every inhabited area and an AA participant can, if they need to, find a ‘buddy’ to help them stay sober. There was a need and Bill W. and the other founders tried to fill it as best they could and were brilliant in their efforts to continually refine AA and to keep AA from becoming just another income-generating multi-level marketing scheme.
Why raise this two movements? Because the one thing they had in common is that they did not foreclose participation because a potential member had erred in the past. The future was not yet set. One could act now to bring about the vision of the ‘better day to come’.
Renee Good was White. Does her error make her any less White? If White Nationalism isn’t for Whites who made a mistake in their choice of racial loyalty, then what is ‘White Nationalism’ for?
To me, ‘White Nationalism’ is ‘Whites caring about Whites because they are White and no other reason‘ because making ‘us’ vs ‘them’ choices that signals to Whites who have make poor racial loyalty choices that White Nationalism doesn’t care about them, does not seem like a way to make ‘White Nationalism’ an option for the vast majority of Whites who have make poor racial loyalty choices simply because White Nationalism failed to give them an alternative.
Renee Good is dead because she made poor choices for her racial loyalty. And it appears that the White man who shot her was a race-mixer.
There’s not ‘side’ to take in this event (and some many other similar events in the past and that will, no doubt occur in the future) where Whites harm Whites because the current anti-White regime engineers Whites to make poor choices in their racial loyalty and then exploits Whites for their own purposes.
Donald Trump is a whore to the jews. Everything he does is guided by the jews’ contempt and hatred for White people. If ‘immigration enforcement’ is so important, why isn’t Trump’s ICE doing surges in ‘red’ states, where their efforts would – at least in theory – be welcomed and supported? Here’s why: It’s all showmanship. The GOP doesn’t really want to end mass immigration and they don’t really want White dispossession to end. And they know that the best way to do that is to simply create conditions where failure is inevitable. Minnesota is a mostly White place. The people opposing ICE are mostly White people, especially menopausal women. There’s literally no reason for Trump’s ICE to take on ‘sanctuary’ locales directly except to create conflict among Whites. That’s it. Trump’s ICE could be cleaning up any solidly ‘red’ state and showing how much better things are there. He doesn’t because the whole ‘Trump’s fighting mass immigration’ is a fraud. The point is to get Whites at each other’s throats over a thing – mass immigration – that the jews ultimately control.
“Renee Good was White. Does her error make her any less White? If White Nationalism isn’t for Whites who made a mistake in their choice of racial loyalty, then what is ‘White Nationalism’ for?”
The second best way to destroy a white ethnostate: let in non-whites.
The best best way to destroy one: let in a bunch of Renee Goods, simply because they’re white.
Is it, um, discipline (ahem) traitors before enemies?
In Captain Codreanu’s opinion, yes.
First of all, you’re never going to get a ‘White ethnostate’ using the approach described in Dr. Johnson’s essay or the one you’ve espoused here. You’re under the false assumption that how things are now is how they have to be in the future, or at least that’s how I read your argument here. But, that’s not a revolutionary doctrine and, if White Nationalism isn’t a revolutionary doctrine, what is it? Stock GOP politics with slurs?
Renee Good is not the enemy. She’s a White person who’d taken a bad path and needed the guidance of a genuinely pro-White culture to help her with her choices, or, better yet, constrain those choices to better one’s for her, her family and her race.
But the whole ‘some whites are enemies because they don’t meet our standards of conduct’ hasn’t worked to create a mass movement. And at least one good reason why is because if you call someone your enemy they have no reason not to become one or stay one.
Looking at how Dr. Johnson tried to use Schmitt here only reinforces something I’ve realizing: Schmitt isn’t about insurgency. It’s the philosophy of those who already have state power. And that’s not White Nationalism today.
If Renee Good isn’t worth the concern of White Nationalists, then who else isn’t? And who gets to set the standards? Counter-Currents? National Alliance? Who?
Right now, what I see is that 70+ years of ‘some whites bad some whites good’ has not grown self-identification as ‘White Nationalist’ at all. The same percentage of the population believe in ‘White self-determination’ and ‘White racial self-care’ today as they did when George Lincoln Rockwell set up his Hitler shrine. It might even be less.
There’s a lot of White concern out there but ‘White Nationalism’ is not capturing their imagination or loyalty because our leaders discriminate against Whites they don’t like.
Why would I want to be part of movement where ‘movement leaders’ can decide I’m a White that deserves to die?
Hamburger, you have made some good points on this thread but the conversations have branched out to dead ends so I’m replying here.
For one thing, I don’t give AF if Renee Good and her “wife” are Lesbos or not. To borrow from Jewish comedian Andrew Dice Clay, they are not even “good looking.”
It is not a lifestyle that I approve of, but I’m not homosexual so I can’t get into their minds or their shoes. I am, however, convinced that putting Big Brother into the bedroom is not a good thing at all.
Also, I consider myself hard-Right and not a Libertarian. This does not mean that I am not Progressive or that I am anti-Modern. I just have a different vision of progress and modernity than most of the Wall Street traders and Marxist SOBs evidently do.
I define Progress a little more modestly than the Libtards, Marxists, Stockbrokers, and the tiresome Churchmen, and think that humans can make definitive societal progress without “Divine Intervention” and without linear historical Marxism.
There is no reason why History cannot regress badly, either, and it frequently does when humans are not vigilant.
You said:
“What is the purpose of ‘moral ‘choices’? Is it to look good before some jewish god? Is it to look good to your neighbors? Or perhaps you’re the member of some ‘white’ club where you can posture as if you’re part of something larger while everything goes to hell?”
Well, I was raised in one of those mainstream denonimations of totalitarian (my words) Christianity that have great interest in “moral choices,” and I have no illusions about that whatsoever, nor am I an unqualified admirer of Faith. Sometimes “excommunications” are necessary and unavoidable, however.
In the day, Christianity derived its proverbial “electromotive force” from the proposition that the supernatural is 1) real and 2) that somebody uniquely has or had the authority and “gospel” of that morality.
The great cosmological quibbles have to do with whether these vicars of morality are just pedo-priests with their cannibal crackers and blood wine symbolically derived from the body of a slain God; are maybe possessing divinely-translated Golden Plates “bearing witness” after being obscurely lost by pre-Columbian White pilgrims from the Old World who were ministered to directly by the resurrected Jesus Christ; or perhaps they are some other evangelical denomination with Sola Scriptura worthy of King James himself.
White Nationalists don’t have any Magic Beans nor any other juju. One either appreciates White Culture or one does not. Forward-thinking White pathbreakers are never going to be able to convert all of the White host, and we have to be realistic about that.
Still, there are retards that just don’t have the basic raw material to work with, and they will likely never be able to help us. I am hardly sadistic about it. Forgive me if I gather considerable Schadenfreude when Leftist weasels step on their own land mines.
YouTube has a recent video from Soviet Minneapolis where some pale male idiot is yelling “F*** Ice” and the Black sodomite, Don Lemon goes over and tries to interview him. The guy’s only response to the dusky journalist was “White Supremacist!” Laughable.
I am not really a Eugenicist but some of these people are so stupid that the idea that they are worth recruiting politically is just bizarre.
🙂
What is the purpose of ‘moral ‘choices’? Is it to look good before some jewish god? Is it to look good to your neighbors? Or perhaps you’re the member of some ‘white’ club where you can posture as if you’re part of something larger while everything goes to hell?
If your morality is not about ‘Who should live versus Who should die?’ what is it about? Applause in the salon?
Everything else you said is reaction-takes. I urge you to stop looking at our enemies as really so much worse than our ‘friends’ in ‘the movement’.
There’s plenty of sadism to go around. And a lot of it comes from our own ranks.
Renee Good was White. Nothing she did made her less White. It was my understanding that to the extent that a ‘movement’ exists, it’s a White ‘nationalist’ movement. Now, if the point of a White nationalist movement is to judge the value of other White people to see if they’re ‘white enough to be white enough’ for the ‘movement’ to care about them, that should be up on the banner of this site and every other ‘pro-white’ site just as a kind of ‘truth in advertising’ courtesy to White people.
There are lots of good reason for embracing a version of ‘White Nationalism’ that is ‘White people caring about White people because they are White people and no other reason‘. But one of the most important ones is that it prevents these kinds of morality plays where one White is more valuable than another for some reason‘.
I get the impression you’re trying to shoehorn your principles (i.e. that its important to be welcoming to whites who weren’t always perfect—which is generally a good thing) into a situation that doesn’t apply. I also think the situation has provided a springboard for you into some hyperbole.
Additionally, you seem to have succumbed to that whitest of tendencies: thinking, if I can just be accommodating enough to someone who has deemed me an enemy, I will be able to, by the gesture, break through and convert them to my philosophy. (Unfortunately, that often degenerates into erecting strawmen in order to contend against one’s own camp.)
So be it.
I agree with this.
It is a very white form of grandiosity to think that somehow everything depends on us. So if someone is our enemy, that must be because we are not being high-minded and accommodating enough. No, sometimes your enemy just chooses you, and you need to recognize that fact. Delusions to the contrary endanger our survival.
I don’t know why ‘welcoming’ is bad. Is it because you think of ‘white nationalism’ as some kind of a club with ‘no lezzies’ allowed sign out front? Or is it ‘no lefties’? Or is it ‘no menopausal women confused about how to apply their maternal instincts’? What’s the criteria your ‘white nationalist’ club? Let’s have some ‘truth in advertising’ here.
I say that ‘White Nationalism’ should be founded on the principle of “White people caring about White people because they are White people and no other reason‘ because that is the only standard that keeps this kind of ‘no concerned white lesbians allowed’ or ‘no concerned white lefties allowed’ nonsense from being given credence.
And wasting a lot of processing cycles where ‘white nationalists’ pat themselves on the back for hating the right kind of White.
If White Nationalism is a social club, then that’s how people like you ought to promote it.
But if White Nationalism is the overall rubric for a revolutionary movement racial renewal and and racial self-defense, then it need to burn off all of the political and emotional baggage that interferes with getting the message out that if you’re a ‘concerned white’ who cares about how they’re being treated and how they see other Whites being treated, then become a White Nationalist if no other place than in your heart.
Read what I wrote, HT. It’s really annoying trying to reason with all this strawman business you’re bringing. If I say that welcoming whites with a checkered past is generally a good thing (which I did above) and your response is that diatribe of a response you posted, then reasoning with you will not be happening.
Say the last word if you want. I don’t have any use for this new trend of WNs trying to convert by appeasing our sworn enemies, just because those enemies happen to be white.
By the way, I’m the Mister Rogers of White Nationalism, if I may say so myself, so spare me the sanctimony.
“Renee Good is not the enemy. She’s a White person who’d taken a bad path and needed the guidance of a genuinely pro-White culture to help her with her choices…”
Nah, she was the enemy. She wasn’t “radicalized by leftist agitprop” or under the spell of SSRI’s: she resonated with Antifa style, anti-White terrorism because of something already within her, something dysgenic and perhaps even spiritual. Ditto Tyler Robinson.
Trump has all the diplomatic skill of a bull in a china shop, but I disagree with the idea of not targeting “Sanctuary Cities.”
Yes, this will lead to conflict, but that only enables bringing the underlying conflict to a head and potentially lancing the boil.
Already the usual suspects like “Tampon” Tim Walz and (((Jacob Frey))) are walking back some of their insurrectionist rhetoric. And having people like them suddenly resort to 10th Amendment arguments to fight “emperor” Trump only underscores their hypocrisy.
Trump needs to double-down. He has this one in the can if he can stay focused.
The Red State GOP that like their cheap labor and border loopholes are definitely a problem too. They are the reason that the E-Verify program was not the magic bullet that it could have been, as it did not sufficiently penalize employers for hiring illegals, just gave them cover for the same business as usual.
But the open-borders GOP are caught between a rock and a hard place with many of Trump’s policies becoming mainstream ─ and so they are just waiting it out for when bad-orange-man is no longer setting the agenda.
We really don’t need the Liz Cheneys and the Renee Goods on side, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
🙂
I no longer ascribe to the finkelpolitique principle that ‘sadism to one’s opponents is victory’. When Trump is done, nothing significant will have improved because there is no desire by the GOP or the DNC to end the chaos and violence immigration as directed against Whites, including the chaos and violence of ‘pro-immigrant’ groups and federal paramilitary units like ICE.
Whites are not winning. Whites are at each other’s throats because non-Whites are more important than Whites to both sides.
This chaos does not serve Whites at all.
The fact that Trump didn’t start in ‘red’ states and drive immigrants into ‘sanctuary’ locales causing them to collapse from the inside out, tells you everything you need to know about The Big Show that Trump and his jew handlers are putting on for the silly goyim who believe what the see on jewish media.
I find it odd that you say you disagree with me, because aside from the business about Trump at the end, I don’t disagree with what you are saying here. I just think you are addressing different issues.
As a White Nationalist, I would have all whites be friends. I would not choose any whites as enemies. But sometimes your enemy chooses you, and you would be a fool to ignore or dismiss sworn enemies because they are white.
That includes people like Reneee Good.
You are talking about something completely different: what we should do with whites who wish to un-choose being our enemies. What do we do with people who want to become friends/comrades but “have a past.” That’s an interesting question, but it is not the question of this essay.
Dr. Johnson. This is your venue, so I do not enjoy continuing this dispute. However, even though you might feel you don’t disagree with me, I, unfortunately, do disagree with you. There are number of points you made in your essay that I already addressed, but rather than allow things to be unclear, I’ve picked a few of your positions with which I disagree and included them along with my response to make it easier to keep this dialog at least somewhat ‘on the text’.
*
I believe that other human beings have rights to life, liberty, property, and homelands of their own, which I will respect, provided they reciprocate.
Why is this necessary at all? If White Nationalists create and empower a pro-White culture and the institutions necessary to sustain that culture against all opponents, the rest of the races of the world will just need to adjust. ‘Reciprocation’ is a ‘nice-to-have’ but it should not be embedded in White Nationalist ideological doctrine.
*
I am a universal ethnonationalist….
I am not. I consider ‘ethnonationalism’ to be just another iteration of ‘the White Man’s Burden’ that has done so much harm and no good for Whites. Whites need a clear doctrine that gives them faith that ‘White Nationalism’ is always going to take their side against non-Whites and always will be looking for ways to make every White secure in their persons and culture.
*
As a White Nationalist, I would have all whites be friends. I would not choose any whites as enemies. But sometimes your enemy chooses you, and you would be a fool to ignore or dismiss sworn enemies simply because they are white.
This a framing of the problem that over-determines any judgments arising from it. Further, it’s extremely reactionary and allows White Nationalist doctrine to be guided by the errors and whims of those who oppose us rather than by what is – and will be in the long run – best for Whites. By taking this stance, your brand of ‘White Nationalism’ feeds into the finkelpolitique of our era, where the suffering of our enemies is a victory even if we gain nothing from that suffering. White Nationalism needs to be doctrine for Whites who want out of this endless cycle of Whites hating Whites for every reason under the Sun.
What occurred in Minnesota was a tragic collision between Whites that an effective and strategic-minded White Nationalism ought to have prevented. Getting to that state of affairs is the course White Nationalism should be pursuing and every position we take should be guided by that goal.
I have said this before on this site and I will say it again: White Nationalism needs to be movement of White emotional renewal that provides resources for Concerned Whites to direct their concerns effectively to bring about a culture of White racial self-care. Until we have that, any exercise of what little power we have will be just as infused with anti-Whiteness as that of your enemies.
I do not wish to get into the weeds of this debate with Hamburger Today, but I will leave this one very important comment. We no longer live in a world where White Europeans have all the global power and infrastructure to dominate the rest of the world, so it is very much important that White Nationalists create friendly alliances among other races, ethnicities, and nations that serve all of our interests. This idea that White Nationalists have any chance at survival and being left alone to prosper by all the other peoples of the world, if we carry a chip on our shoulder and a dismissive attitude about the concerns of other people, is absurd on its face. This isn’t 1492, nor is it 1776. The technological world we have inherited is shared by all of us at this point, even if it is White Europeans who created it. The ever shrinking White population of the world no longer wields enough power to go it alone.
The Renee Goods of the world will always be the Benedict Arnolds, the Judas Iscariots, the Marcus Brutus’ of our race. They can’t be rehabilitated. Their value as traitors is less than nothing. If, at the last moment, they reach their hand out an ask for our mercy, it should be given, but with a skeptical eye until proven otherwise.
Traitors are unforgivable. We need to relearn the code of honor that served White Men so well for centuries.
You freely admit that Whites do not have the power we used to and then go on to project that imaginary past in the form of ‘alliances’ with ‘other races’ as if we had something they want that they cannot get just by taking it.
Before Whites can negotiate from a position of strength with the rest of the races of the world, Whites need to exhibit racial solidarity, the kind of tribal morality that excludes from moral consideration all those who are ‘not us’ on the basis of race.
Why should I put my trust in a ‘White Nationalism’ that might choose for some reason to no longer consider me ‘White’ enough to care about?
I’m just trying to get Concerned Whites to grasp the fact that what matters is the actual concrete survival of the actual concrete living White people on this planet and not the ‘moral systems’ of the last 3000 years which hang on us like dead weight.
Whites are in an evolutionary bottle-neck. We either thrive or we slowly turn into the meat-puppets of other races.
I truly believe that we underestimate the number of ordinary people in the United States and Europe who, while maybe they wouldn’t outwardly claim themselves White Nationalists, they do prefer associating only with White, living in White communities, going to White churches, having employers, supervisors, community leaders, and politicians who are White, and who do not wish their children to suffer from antiwhite biases in their schools and futures as adults.
A lot of ordinary people do not have the ability to envision anything beyond what IS.
They just operate within the paradigm that they know, that exists today. White ethnostates don’t currently exist. So White Nationalism might as well be a fairy tale or fantasy world. And even if they have the ability to imagine it, they don’t really have the stomach to suffer through the uncomfortable realities that such a change would require.
So most of them are not really against us. Not in spirit anyway. I’d say at least 20% of White Americans see things this way. Most of them in red states or red rural areas of blue states.
I agree with you and if you include people with various degrees of ‘concern’ about issues that are ultimately racial issues though not obviously so, the percentage is probably closer to 50%. The question for every White Nationalist is ‘What is White Nationalism doing to reach these people?’ In the context of Dr. Johnson’s essay, is saying ‘Renee Good is our enemy’ a good way to reach Whites who may be on the same path but might be persuaded to stop or at least to mitigate their feelings of White self-loathing? One thing folks in WN circle often discount is how White the non-jewish left is. Renee Good was a White woman who I assume married a White man and had White children and then took up with what appeared to be a White lesbian girlfriend. My point is that she’s being pro-White while attacking White interests. I seems to me White Nationalism ought to have something meaningful and caring to say to Whites in such a quandary.
An interesting article in The Federalist today about the war on whites.
The Left Will Never Forgive Renee Good For Being White
It’s a very good article, except that I disagree with honoring that self-immolating freak, Aaron Bushnell.
Besides, most of the Pro-Palestinian agitation is not grounded on honestly examining the Jewish Question at all, and it isn’t even technically what the ADL would call anti-Semitism (i.e., criticizing Jews or Israel).
Instead, Leftists since the October 7th, 2023 hang glider attack on Israel are critical of Israel because they see it (wrongly) as White colonialism. So it is less pro-Palestinian or “anti-Semitic” in any case, and just more flavors of the usual anti-Whiteness of cultural-Marxism in every case.
The correct view of Zionism was already outlined in Mein Kampf from about a century ago, i.e., that Israel gets its power and global subversion directly from the Diaspora (now mostly lodged like a vampire into the proverbial jugular of the United States) and that, therefore, the Jewish state itself is at best a distraction.
Zionism wasn’t exactly a new idea a century ago. A certain toothbrush-mustachioed Uncle simply observed that Jews will rarely ever want to actually settle and live in Palestine or Israel; they will instead want some other good Jew to “make Aliyah” and go work and fight for their beloved country.
Big difference between Israeli “chalutzim” and those Gentile pioneers that, for example, settled the American West.
🙂
Cemil Kerimoglu wrote exactly about this here https://cemilk.substack.com/p/todays-anti-semitism-is-an-offshoot
Mmhmm, that’s why Kyle rittenhouse got off, of all those who were tried during the Floyd era, because the people he shot were actually white.
Bushnell would have been an objective but not subjective ally.
No. Rittenhouse got lucky. Some of the people he shot were jews.
One of the Jews that Rittenhouse killed was a particularly troublesome pedophile and alumnus of the Arizona State Penitentiary named Joseph Rosenbaum, who was one of the gang of aggressive people chasing Kyle down during the Summer of St. Floyd.
Rittenhouse probably would not have “gotten lucky” with the jury on self-defense if the bullet that he fired at “jump-kick man,” a Negro, had not actually missed. Like Derek Chauvin, he likely would have been shanked in prison by now.
🙂
And ‘white nationalists’ will never forgive her for being a lesbian. Or a ‘leftist’. Or for a confused application of maternal instinct. The question for every Concerned White person with regard to this situation is: Did I do anything today to make Whites harming Whites less likely tomorrow?
Hamburger, you have made some good points on this thread but the conversations have branched out to dead ends so I’m replying here.
For one thing, I don’t give AF if Renee Good and her “wife” are Lesbos or not. To borrow from Jewish comedian Andrew Dice Clay, they are not even “good looking.”
It is not a lifestyle that I approve of, but I’m not homosexual so I can’t get into their minds or their shoes. I am, however, convinced that putting Big Brother into the bedroom is not a good thing at all.
Also, I consider myself hard-Right and not a Libertarian. This does not mean that I am not Progressive or that I am anti-Modern. I just have a different vision of progress and modernity than most of the Wall Street traders and Marxist SOBs evidently do.
I define Progress a little more modestly than the Libtards, Marxists, Stockbrokers, and the tiresome Churchmen, and think that humans can make definitive societal progress without “Divine Intervention” and without linear historical Marxism.
There is no reason why History cannot regress badly, either, and it frequently does when humans are not vigilant.
You said:
“What is the purpose of ‘moral ‘choices’? Is it to look good before some jewish god? Is it to look good to your neighbors? Or perhaps you’re the member of some ‘white’ club where you can posture as if you’re part of something larger while everything goes to hell?”
Well, I was raised in one of those mainstream denonimations of totalitarian (my words) Christianity that have great interest in “moral choices,” and I have no illusions about that whatsoever, nor am I an unqualified admirer of Faith. Sometimes “excommunications” are necessary and unavoidable.
In the day, Christianity derived its proverbial “electromotive force” from the proposition that the supernatural is 1) real and 2) that somebody uniquely has or had the authority and “gospel” of that morality.
The great cosmological quibbles have to do with whether these vicars of morality are pedo-priests with their cannibal crackers and blood wine symbolically derived from the body of a slain God; are possessing divinely-translated Golden Plates “bearing witness” after being obscurely lost by pre-Columbian White pilgrims from the Old World who were ministered to directly by the resurrected Jesus Christ; or are some other evangelical denomination with Sola Scriptura worthy of King James himself.
White Nationalists don’t have any Magic Beans nor any other ju ju. One either appreciates White Culture or one does not. Forward-thinking White pathbreakers are never going to be able to convert all of the White host, and we have to be realistic about that.
Still, there are retards that just don’t have the basic raw material to work with and they will likely never be able to help us. I am hardly sadistic about it. Forgive me if I gather considerable Schadenfreude when Leftist weasels step on their own land mines.
YouTube has a recent video from Soviet Minneapolis where some pale male idiot is yelling “F*** Ice” and the Black sodomite, Don Lemon goes over and tries to interview him. The guy’s only response to the dusky journalist was “White Supremacist!” Laughable.
I am not really a Eugenicist but some of these people are so stupid that the idea that they are worth recruiting politically is just bizarre.
🙂
I reject any sadism directed at Whites. So, if you say some of our people need to be culled, you’re in the same company as all the anti-Whites that want you dead. The message that White Nationalists should be communicating far and wide is that White Nationalism is ‘White people caring about White people because they are White people and no other reason. Join us an learn to love yourself again.’
What is required is not only a revolution in social-political-cultural organization, but a revolution of White emotional life. We must love one another as one family, one people, one organism moving through time and creating ourselves as we do so.
If White Nationalists do not love our own people, who will?
And how you can pick and choose among our people to love and care about and still say you ‘care about White people’?
I don’t see it.
The only way forward that I can see that has any hope at all is Whites to bind with Whites in an unbreakable chain of caring for one another. That is a kind of ‘White Nationalism’ that can transform the entire landscape for our people. That kind of White Nationalism can transform our people the way ‘christianity’ did, but to our betterment and survival, not to enslave us to the ruling class WASPs who betrayed the White race for a hand full of trinkets and the ability to retain their positions and snobbery or enslave us to the darkies in their never-ending neediness or the jews in the infinite jealousy and hatred of our kind.
White Nationalism is my religion. I worship the White race, the actually-existing concrete entity of living White bodies. Not some abstraction, but the Thing Itself.
Join me.
Okay, but I don’t see how we get from insisting upon some simple standards of decency to “culling the herd.”
🙂
I have often used Samuel Huntington’s taxonomic spectrum of friends-allies-rivals-antagonists-enemies in order to sort things. Greg’s thoughtful essay adds a very helpful set of conditions, using actual effects into the mix while remaining crystal clear about who is us and who is them.
Part of my hesitation about including non-White allies has been watching White conservatives use Blacks like Thomas Sowell or Larry Elder in order to continue the Naxalt illusion that a post-racial kumbaya America is possible. But with an unwavering division of us and them based wholly on biokinship, White Nationalists can assess friend and enemy in a more agile and adaptive way: Lipton Matthew is not us, but he is friendly. Renee Good was us, be she was our enemy.
I am reminded of Thomas More’s lines in A Man For All Seasons: “God made the angels to show Him splendor, as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind.”
Thanks, I decided to add some tables to the piece to better illustrate and explore the different options.
I love the More quote. Thanks for that.
This article is comprehensive, clear, and thoroughly thought through.
I’d like to address Whites drawing the friend / enemy distinction against each other on national or religious rather than racial grounds. Of course I have in mind the bitter and bloody Russo-Ukrainian War, but rather than addressing that directly I want to put all conflicts like this in the context of relations between the nations of the formerly United Kingdom (to include Ireland).
We should strive for perspective, clarity, and single-mindedness, remembering that we are racial before we are national, and remembering that our good is the good of our White race and it is not at root about whose flag flies over some battlements. (Or whose Bibles are better.)
Unfortunately wars, massacres, and serious injustices have a powerful tendency to suck us into multi-generational grudges and hatreds that do us great harm. If the root of the grudges was real and the recitation of events and periods like “the rough wooing” is just telling the truth, this does not help the case. If the English rehearse their bitter memories of the Irish and vice versa, or if it’s the Scots and the English, or the Welsh or the Cornish or whatever, this is all purely bad. It is better to let serious injustice go, just do nothing about it, than to draw the ultimate friend / enemy distinction against each other.
Nothing good will happen if we see the White English replaced by non-Whites in London and say, “serves the English right for [insert grievances here].”
Human psychology sucks us into these oppositions and makes us react emotionally, but we should strive with conscious deliberation to keep that to a minimum. Sometimes just hitting “cancel” rather than “send” is a meritorious act.
What we do not want is the Cromwell type, the man who may have formidable qualities but who gives himself easily to dogmatic and implacable hatreds of his fellow Whites, the kind of man who made himself a textbook case of “the enemy” in the writing of Carl Schmitt, who did evil to the Irish, and who may have thought that his life had no special bearing on what was good for Whites as a race but in fact did vast and lasting harm, because he set no limits on what he would do to beat fellow Whites he saw as enemies.
Thanks for this.
Being a White Nationalist, I want all whites to be friends. Given that outlook, white history is a pretty grim and depressing tale of whites victimizing and killing whites, often over very silly things. Thus I find it odd and distasteful when old conflicts between white peoples are celebrated. White Nationalists really can’t afford to live in the past.
Hamburger Today: January 18, 2026 … Renee Good is not the enemy… She’s a White person who’d taken a bad path and needed the guidance of a genuinely pro-White culture to help her with her choices…
If Renee Good isn’t worth the concern of White Nationalists, then who else isn’t? And who gets to set the standards? Counter-Currents? National Alliance? Who?…
Why would I want to be part of movement where ‘movement leaders’ can decide I’m a White that deserves to die?
—
You wouldn’t, Wimpy.
You exaggerate. You’ve made clear that you believe in a “big wn tent” — that any White is a “white nationalist” if he, or in Ms. Good’s case, she, can be convinced that the White race is worth preserving, thus worth fighting for.
The National Alliance has set stricter standards for membership than has Counter-Currents, but that’s OK. We’re different. You are a top five commenter at C-C but are not eligible for NA membership because you have made clear tat you disagree with NA standards.
On another note. I made the following comment earlier tonight, here: https://counter-currents.com/2025/12/the-counter-currents-2025-year-in-review/
Comments had not been closed there, and it showed up under the topic, but did not appear in “recent comments” for some reason:
—
Will Williams: January 19, 2026 at 3:11 am
…continued, as promised, if two weeks late, from Dr. Thomas Dalton’s The Steep Climb (p. 395):
… I trust that we can see the similarities here. 9 And yet Carlson is supposedly an exemplary member of “the Right.” Sadly, he is not alone; the above description applies to a large majority of the nominal Right. This precisely why the alleged Right is a fake right and why so many populist conservatives are fake conservatives.
If Carlson and others were true right-wingers, and true conservatives, they would display the characteristics I cited above. They would be openly and explicitly anti-minority, anti-egalitarian, explicitly “racist” (or “racialist”), anti-Semitic, pro-environment, anti-technology(and not just anti-Big Tech), and perhaps even anti-democratic. They might be anti-capitalist, knowing that the disruption caused by unrestrained free-market capitalism, God forbid, they might even be a little socialist! That would be not so much patriotic — which implies a kind of naive acceptance of the ruling class and the existing political order — but rather truly nationalist, in the sense of defending one’s own race and ethnicity, which is, after all, the true basis of a “nation”. 10
Where, then, are the true conservatives? Where lies the true Right? It is almost impossible to find, even in the big wide world of the Internet. We can be thankful for organizations like The Occidental Observer, The Unz Review, and National Vanguard** who are willing to call a spade a spade. Thankful for individuals like Kevin MacDonald, and Andrew Anglin, William White Williams and David Duke, who are willing to speak openly and intelligently about the Jewish Question.*** Thankful for the small circle of leading Holocaust revisionists, who work relentlessly to undermine the keystone of Jewish mendacity. 11 Without such individuals we would be lost. With them, we have hope.
The Way Forward
In sum, the popular Left-Right divide in American politics is a fake dichotomy, constructed by and serving the interests of a Jewish elite and their well-paid Gentile lackeys. When people focus all their attention and energy on this contrived distinction, they are distracted from, and thus overlook, the true and deeper causes of social crisis in this country. The fake Right and the fake Left both serve their Jewish masters. Only by moving beyond this superficial divide can we get to the root of things…. (emphasis added)
For more of this chapter and the next, “America Must Die — So That the People Can Live,” purchase Dr. Dalton’s The Steep Climb, here:
https://cosmotheistchurch.org/product-category/books/thomas-dalton/
Footnote:
11. Among whom I would include Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, and Jurgen Graf. Any discussion of Holocaust revisionism that does not mention these men is not worth its salt — and probably deliberately deceptive.
** Clarification: National Vanguard is mistakenly called an organization here, but in reality is the online magazine of its organization, the National Alliance. This is a common mistake due to its domain, natvan.com (founded, along with natall.com, by William Pierce in 1995), having been changed 20 years ago when Kevin Strom, who controlled the domain name at the time, broke away from Erich Gliebe’s NA and formed a splinter organization that he named National Vanguard. Kevin’s National Vanguard group became defunct by 2007. Nationalvanguard.org has officially belonged to the current National Alliance since 2014 when I became NA Chairman.
*** I’m honored to be named by Dr. Dalton, along with David Duke and Kevin MacDonald as one of few Whites who “speak openly and intelligently about the Jewish Question.” However, I can do without being compared to nutty Nazi Andrew Anglin and the racial Jew Ron Unz, thanks.
I want every living White to become a White Nationalist on the basis of ‘White people caring about White people because they are White people and no other reason.’
You don’t. For me, what I propose is actually a new racial consciousness for Whites whose downstream effects cannot be predicted except to note that Whites would not engage in sadism or sadistic ideation against other Whites.
What would NA be without being able to look down on all the Whites who don’t meet your criteria?
Basically, I think you’re running a club.
You cannot reach out to White people where they are because you’re too busy demanding they come to you (and, of course, pay their membership dues).
You mock my view as ‘big tent wn’, but that implies there’s some really successful ‘little tent wn’ that forms a viable alternative.
Is there? How did that ‘little tent wn’ keep Renee Good for being kiilled by another White?
Where were your National Alliance activists trying to talk them down from harming each other?
You want a club. You’ve got a club. But White people need something more.
It’s not 1920s Germany. You’re not Adolf Hitler. You’re not creating a frei korps. You’re just running a club.
How did that ‘little tent wn’ keep Renee Good for being kiilled by another White? She was ‘killed by another White by obstructing and agitating federal agents without which she’d still be alive. She wasn’t on her way to Starbucks and took a wrong turn. I don’t know why it’s so hard to see her unpleasant face as an enemy who gladly wants everyone on here to die and for that reason alone makes her an enemy. Nor should we lionize the ICE agent who, I remind myself, would unhesitatingly arrest or do worse to us the second they’re given the order.
Hamburger Today: January 20, 2026 I want every living White to become a White Nationalist on the basis of ‘White people caring about White people because they are White people and no other reason.’
You don’t…
—
Correct.
—
What would NA be without being able to look down on all the Whites who don’t meet your criteria? Basically, I think you’re running a club… You’ve got a club. But White people need something more… You’re just running a club.
—
Call the National Alliance what you will, Wimpy. We start as a club of like-minded elite Whites, a vanguard group of which you’re ineligible to join. You’re not an enemy of NA but you are no friend.
You’re a foil for us here on C-C. That’s all.
—
You mock my view as ‘big tent wn’, but that implies there’s some really successful ‘little tent wn’ that forms a viable alternative… Is there? How did that ‘little tent wn’ keep Renee Good for being kiilled by another White? Where were your National Alliance activists trying to talk them down from harming each other?
—
You’ve defined yourself as “big tent,” sort of like the Democrat Party or the GOP. Consider this definition of Big Tent from the Political Dictionary:
… Speaking to a group of Democratic donors in California, Obama warned against limiting the reach of the party:
We will not win just by increasing the turnout of the people who already agree with us completely on everything. Which is why I am always suspicious of purity tests during elections. Because, you know what, the country is complicated.
On the other hand, some politicians argue that having a big tent means that a party can lack focus.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) has sometimes criticized the Democratic party for being too inclusive.
In January of 2020, Ocasio Cortez grumbled to New York Magazine that “Democrats can be too big of a tent.”
She complained that even the term “progressive” had been watered down and had lost its meaning.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus should impose some kind of rules about who could join, Ocasio Cortez said, but instead “they let anybody who the cat dragged in call themselves a progressive. There’s no standard.”
It can be hard for pundits to agree on the practical definition of “big tent.”
Is the Republican party a big tent party right now? Journalists periodically get excited about the Republican Party’s growing tent, especially when the party appears to veer away from social conservatism.
In 2003, the New York Times wrote that the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California was a sign that the party was, indeed, opening up. Citing the long-time Republican consultant (((Frank Luntz))), the Times wrote that A Schwarzenegger victory would send a strong message that the Republican Party is a tent big enough to include a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights Hollywood superstar who has acknowledged manhandling women and smoking marijuana.
Use of “Big Tent” in a sentence
The “big tent” philosophy of the political party allowed for a broad coalition of supporters, encompassing a wide range of ideologies and viewpoints, and was credited with the party’s success in the national election.
Critics of the “big tent” approach argue that it can lead to a lack of cohesion and clear messaging within a political party, as the attempt to appease various factions might result in compromised principles or diluted policies.
The party leader’s “big tent” strategy, aimed at building alliances with diverse interest groups, led to groundbreaking legislation that satisfied a majority of stakeholders, showcasing the potential effectiveness of inclusive politics…
So, building a big tent is good in the two-party, multiracial mass democracy electoral system for electing leaders, but serious White racial nationalists rebuke that system and look to its elite, uncompromising race-thinkers — like William Pierce, for example — to lead our people in a new, more radical and revolutionary direction of strict racial separation/preservation.
Make up your mind, Wimp — is NA just a club or is it just a little tent?
We in NA see ourselves as an elite, focused vanguard movement. You care about Renee Wood, NA doesn’t. She was just another distraction.
You are not capable of understanding what William Pierce founded for his people, but others at C-C are, so those are the few Whites here that I try to reach. Good luck to you; may the best strategy prevail.
People like Renee Good represent the definition of ” race traitor.” She was a dysgenic lesbian. She was anti-White and in favor of our forced destruction, even willing to drive hours away from her home to protest in favor of it. She got exactly what she deserved. Homosexuals including lesbians amount to roughly 60% of registered sex offenders. I can almost guarantee that her children are happy she’s dead as well.
The ICE agent that killed Good isn’t much better of a person. The agent, Jonathan Ross, in 2014 married a Filipino immigrant and is currently trying to get his sub-human in-laws into the country. He doesn’t deserve to go to prison for killing Good, but something far worse for being a race traitor as well.
Wimpy’s promotion of forgiveness and egalitarianism only harms the White race. We need winners not traitors like Good and Ross. As Dr. Pierce said in his radio broadcast entitled Special Treatment, ” We’re going to have to forget about the exceptions. We’re going to have to look at everything in black and white, with no shades of gray.” Dr. Pierce wished to recruit the elite of the elite. Whites that felt a higher calling to their race and refused to let it die out. Those that ultimately devote themselves to our racial struggle must be pure in spirit and mind. Historically its been those kinds of people that have elevated our societies, not the destructive forces like Good or Ross.
Whites that are vehemently anti-White don’t deserve a thing.
And how does your promotion of sadism and race-hatred advance the White race? Aren’t you a ‘race-traitor’ as much as you think Renee Good is? Don’t you hate other members of your own race? People in C-C like to talk about ‘petty nationalism’, but what about ‘petty white nationalism’? Where’s the vision of a path for *all* Whites?
This is why I think the association of ‘white nationalism’ with ‘the right’ must end. ‘The right’ is not the proper home for any kind of ‘racial renewal of the White race. It’s too steeped in snobbery and sadism against other Whites to really do the work of a popular revolutionary movement to save the White race.
Dillon Rau: January 21, 2026 People like Renee Good represent the definition of ” race traitor.” She was a dysgenic lesbian. She was anti-White and in favor of our forced destruction, even willing to drive hours away from her home to protest in favor of it. She got exactly what she deserved. Homosexuals including lesbians amount to roughly 60% of registered sex offenders. I can almost guarantee that her children are happy she’s dead as well.
The ICE agent that killed Good isn’t much better of a person. The agent, Jonathan Ross, in 2014 married a Filipino immigrant and is currently trying to get his sub-human in-laws into the country. He doesn’t deserve to go to prison for killing Good, but something far worse for being a race traitor as well.
Wimpy’s promotion of forgiveness and egalitarianism only harms the White race. We need winners not traitors like Good and Ross. As Dr. Pierce said in his radio broadcast entitled Special Treatment, ” We’re going to have to forget about the exceptions. We’re going to have to look at everything in black and white, with no shades of gray.” Dr. Pierce wished to recruit the elite of the elite. Whites that felt a higher calling to their race and refused to let it die out. Those that ultimately devote themselves to our racial struggle must be pure in spirit and mind. Historically its been those kinds of people that have elevated our societies, not the destructive forces like Good or Ross.
Whites that are vehemently anti-White don’t deserve a thing.
Dillon, how I’ve wished I’d discovered Dr. Pierce’s teachings in my late teens as you did.
You mention his “Special Treatment,” (found at nationalvanguard.org) as a must read, but your mention of his saying that those we want “must be pure in spirit and mind” jumps out at me, and can be found in “William Pierce, Prophet” at nationalvanguard.org. That’s extracted from his book, Who We Are, written in the 1970’s — before, I dare say, most who gather at C-C were born. There, Dr. Pierce showed us clearly the perilous position of our race today:
...All that is really important is that a portion of the race survive, keep itself pure physically and spiritually, continue propagating itself, and eventually prevail over those who threaten its existence, even if this take a thousand years; and to ensure this outcome is the urgent task of the racially conscious minority of our people in these perilous times.
The duration of the task will be decades, at the least, and perhaps centuries. History has a very great inertia; a historical process of long duration may culminate suddenly in a single, cataclysmic event, but every major development in the history of the race has had deep roots and has grown in soil thoroughly prepared for it by preceding developments. The course of history now, so far as our race is concerned, is steeply downward, and to change its direction will be no overnight matter, nor will this be accomplished by any gimcrack scheme which promises success without first building a foundation for that success, block by carefully laid block.
The workers at the task will be only a tiny minority of the race. Any program which envisages an “awakening of the masses” or which relies on the native wisdom of the great bulk of our people — which is to say, any populist program — is based on a false vision and a false understanding of the nature of the masses. No great, upward step in all of our long history has ever been accomplished by the bulk of any population, but always by an exceptional individual or a few exceptional individuals. The masses always take the path of least resistance: which is to say, they always follow the strongest faction. It is important to work with the masses, to inform them, to influence them, to recruit from among them; but they must not be counted on for determinative, spontaneous support until after a small minority has already, by its own efforts, built a stronger force than that of any opposing faction.
The task is inherently fundamental, and it will be accomplished only through a fundamental approach. That is to say, those who devote themselves to it must be pure in spirit and mind; they must understand that their goal is a society based on quite different values from those underlying the present society, and they must be committed wholeheartedly and without reservation to that goal; they must be prepared to outgrow all the baggage of superstition and convention inherent in the present society. Thus, the task is not one for conservatives or right wingers, for, “moderates” or liberals, or for any of those whose thinking is mired in the errors and in the corruption which have led us to the downward course, but it is a task for those capable of an altogether new consciousness of the world.
The task is a biological, cultural, and spiritual one as well as an educational and political one. Its goal has meaning only with reference to a particular type of person, and if this type cannot be preserved while the educational and political aspects of the task are being performed, then the goal cannot be achieved. If the task cannot be completed in a single generation, then there must exist, somewhere, a social milieu which reflects and embodies the cultural and spiritual values associated with the goal, and serves to pass these values from one generation to the next. …This requirement may be difficult of fulfillment, but it is essential. What should be envisaged, then, is a task with both an internal, or community-oriented aspect, and an external, or political-educational-recruiting aspect.
…The task set out here is a very large one, and accomplishing it will require greater will, intelligence, and selflessness than demanded from the race in any previous crisis. The danger we face now, from the enemy within our gates as well as the one still outside, is greater than the one we faced from the deracinated Romans in the first century, the Huns in the fifth century, the Moors in the eighth century, or the Mongols in the 13th century. If we do not overcome it, we will have no second chance.
But the task of survival has always been a demanding one, just as it is an unrelenting one. We have always met its demands in the past, or we would not be here today. There is no fundamental reason why we cannot overcome the present threat to our survival, horrendous though it be, and live to face new threats in the future.
What we must do, however, is understand that all our resources in the coming struggle must come from within ourselves; there will be no outside help, no miracles….
In what world did I promote “ sadism” or “ race-hatred ?” Seems like some people like to project their inner thoughts onto others. I do not wish for violence, I rather deplore it for the most part. But part of being a man is recognizing what must happen, not because it’s convenient or joyful but because it is necessary. Good, Ross, and the countless individuals like them need to be dealt with permanently in order to have a brighter, and Whiter world. I’d love to know how I’m a race traitor for caring for my race. I hate anyone that is working against the self interest of the White race. They are fundamentally defective people. Today these defective people embrace homosexuality, race mixing, etc. A thousand years ago they embraced other degenerate lifestyles and if we don’t do anything about these people today in the next thousand years our people won’t even be here.
I’m not a White Nationalist so you can describe the issue with your “movement” all you like. To me White Nationalism is simple conservatism but instead of focusing on fiscal policy and who’s on what committee, they like to talk about race in nice little cookie cutter terms, in order not to offend anyone.
You say “ popular revolutionary movement.” I’d like to quote from the one man who raised a successful revolution against the enemies of our race and won. “ A revolution cannot be carried out by a party of ten million. In such a movement, one no longer has extreme activity but rather the broad masses of the middle – and hence, inertia.” -Mein Kampf Volume 2 Chapter 9.6
In other words a mass movement can never be revolutionary.
This cause is not for everyone. It’s not for the traitors or cowards. It’s not for those like you that just type away online and refuse to stand up. It’s always funny, these “ phone booth führers” seem to have all the answers yet can’t do a damn thing out of their own yellowbellied wimpyness. The motto of the National Alliance is very simple, but incredibly powerful. It’s something Whites need to start embracing, “ Do Right and Fear No One.”
It’s amazing how many former Alt-Right stalwarts would now fit into the “Subjective Friend, Objective Enemy” category: Andrew Anglin, TRS, etc. Or maybe they’re just Subjective Enemies?
Absolutely correct.
The only thing worse than a crank who accidetally sabotages us is an energetic and enterprising crank.
You’re a foil for us here on C-C. That’s all.
Don’t hurt yourself patting yourself on the back, Will.
Don’t quote your preferred dictionary definition of ‘Big Tent’ then pretend like that’s what I mean by playing along with your ‘big tent’. Remember, you brought in the phase ‘big tent’ not me. I just pointed out that your ‘little tent’ hasn’t accomplished much for Whites in all the years its been in existence. Under Dr. Pierce there was more credibility there but, even so, I think he’d admit today that 1930s style NSDAP freikorps organizing hasn’t moved the needle for White well-being in the USA and that, maybe, just maybe, blaming the audience because the message isn’t getting through might not be the best approach.
It doesn’t matter what I call your group – ‘little tent’ or ‘club’ or anything else – what matters is that you’re only working for your group, not for the race. You’re an elite that does no good for anyone but yourselves. At least the National Vanguard produces useful reporting and essays. I don’t have to agree with the NA’s preferred solutions or methods to agree with many Vanguard authors’ diagnoses.
You are not capable of understanding what William Pierce founded for his people, but others at C-C are, so those are the few Whites here that I try to reach.
Which founding? National Alliance or the Cosmotheist Church? Both?
If so, I’m pretty sure I do understand them, and I’m pretty sure that my criticisms of NA will make sense to anyone who doesn’t want to warm themselves in the cold comfort of an ‘elite vanguard’ while the White race suffers.
If Renee Good is White, she’s one of my people. Hell or high water. What you’re saying is that anyone White who isn’t member of your club is nothing.
I save that kind moral nullification for non-Whites.
The ugly truth that you’re skirting is that decades of effort by your ‘elite vanguard’ hasn’t helped confused White people who side against their own kind.
And, sadly, Cosmotheism isn’t going to do it either.
Something needs to work.
Hiding in your holler and patting yourself on the back isn’t cutting it so far.
You can claim your limited success at keeping NA alive is the only success you care about.
But it should give anyone who actually cares about what’s happening to White people considerable pause that your goals are so small and so utterly disinterested in White suffering.
Our “debate” about strategy has ended, Wimpy.
Declare yourself the winner. A few others — ones I care about — know better.
Indeed a wise decision Sir William; unless ye wish upon thyself a vanquishing and a further stern talking-to from “Hamburger Today”!
Has it been a ‘debate’? It seems to me that it was a clarification of where I stand versus where you stand. Anyone reading this will decide whether the values I’ve articulated seem more strategic than the one’s you represent.
As for, the people you ‘care about’, well that’s the whole difference in our values in a nutshell. You’re not a ‘White Nationalists’ you’re simply an elitist. Which, honestly, doesn’t seem like any kind of ‘nationalism’ at all. Even Uncle Adolf didn’t make that mistake. He know that the ‘common folk’ were just as important NSDAP political, economic and cultural success as his genetic elite. The point of the elite was to provide good guidance to the common German, not to supersede them. That was plan I think would have failed, but at least it was a plan to use ‘the elite’ to deliver value to the common folk.
From what I can see, you don’t even want to try to deliver value to the common Whites of the country in which you live. I really don’t see how your club can even be related to NS.
foil – noun: someone or something that serves as a contrast to another.
—
Vainovalkeat: January 24, 2026 Indeed a wise decision Sir William; unless ye wish upon thyself a vanquishing and a further stern talking-to from “Hamburger Today”!
Surely, Greg or others at C-C must know who Mr. Hamburger Today is in real life. It’s like debating a shadow for me to engage him. so enough! Let him define what a white nationalist is, without question.
In this case it’s too bad an image of Wimpy cannot be posted on C-C, but here’s an explanation of the cartoon character from the 1930s for those who may be unfamiliar:
I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today
From Popeye cartoons. Line often uttered by Popeye’s portly friend Wimpy. Of course, “Tuesday” would never come, and so Wimpy constantly secured himself a free lunch. Thus the line is used to jokingly indicate that one would like to “borrow” something without any real intention of ever paying you back.
You fellows seemed to be having a “verbal joust”, thus my use of archaic stereo-typical language.
I must say, that I completely agree with you on the topic as opposed to “Hambuger T”. I would not put up with a shit-house relative behaving like a nut-case and ruining everything for everyone in a family situation; let alone someone from my “extended racial family” being a bigger nut-case that wants her own extended, if you will, “Kin” dead if they transgress against her recently acquired ideological standards.
Vainovalkeat: January 25, 2026 I must say, that I completely agree with you on the topic as opposed to “Hambuger T”. I would not put up with a shit-house relative behaving like a nut-case and ruining everything for everyone in a family situation; let alone someone from my “extended racial family” being a bigger nut-case that wants her own extended, if you will, “Kin” dead if they transgress against her recently acquired ideological standards.
—
Thanks, V. Our “extended racial family” requires a hard, but necessary cull of nutcases. It’s not difficult once our standards are known.
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.