I’ve been following the White positive sphere for some time now and I think that a lot of people are starting to come to terms with the various threats that face us as a people: demographic replacement, economic decline, institutional racism against us, ubiquitous anti-white attitudes in media and academia.
One response to the perceived threats against us as a people is to prep. These are the guys that will buy guns and canned food and try to be ready for some sort of apocalyptic end times scenario. Alex Jones feeds into this attitude by selling emergency survival food.
Others will say: our nations and our cities are ruined. There is crime and drugs everywhere and our civilization is close to collapse. They’ll say that our civilization is so debauched and so full of immorality that they can only choose to leave. So they buy a small house out in the countryside and run away from civilization. Roosh V. would fit into this category. He became a catholic and ran away to the countryside to get away from what he considered a degenerate and immoral mainstream America.
The third type of response that I see often is the people that say “we just have to get big and strong and then nobody will mess with us”. The youtuber and internet personality “The Golden One” Marcus Follin from Sweden is an example of this type. He knows that Sweden is under threat – their country has been invaded, rape is out of control, cities like Malmo are on the edge of bankruptcy and everywhere he looks it is evident that his country is teetering on the abyss.
My question is: are these good strategies to deal with the complex challenges that we face today? That is: is stocking up on guns and canned food, running away to the countryside, or getting big and buff and taking steroids a good way of dealing with the existential threats that we face as a people?
My answer is: not really.
One of the roots of our existential nightmare is that we have allowed a totalitarian system of speech codes to be put in place called “political correctness” — speech codes that guide discourse within well defined and rigorously policed boundaries. The speech codes are designed to guide our civilization in a direction that will dispossess us and lead to the utter destruction of ourselves as a people.
Political correctness is not something that happened by accident and contrary to what a lot of people naively believe — political correctness only has a thin veneer of humanitarianism. It is created with deeply hostile intentions and it is created for strategic reasons. Think of it like a game of chess: creation of speech codes and ideological taboos is just one chess move that is made toward us being checkmated as a people.
Where do those speech codes come from? They come from intellectuals that write books and those books are the ideological justification for limiting speech — with the reason typically being that certain types of speech is harmful and dangerous.
Then you push for hate speech laws, create groups like the ADL that can sniff around to try to find people that are breaking the speech codes, and then create a militant boots on the ground type group like Antifa that can physically assault anyone that breaks the speech codes. Intellectuals that are not “PC” will often meet antifa terrorists outside their conference buildings — ready to violently impose their definition of “anti-hate” and “anti-violence”.
Those are the components of political correctness: ideological justification, hate speech laws, anti-hate organizations, and organized street violence.
The logic that we are given regarding PC speech codes concerning race and identity is that Nazis were a racialist movement that was against Jews, white racialism and discussion of Jewish power led to the holocaust mass murder of six million, therefore White group identity and criticism of Jewish power were the precursors to the holocaust and are therefore by extension dangerous.
So, we’re not allowed to have group identity or criticize Jews because the holocaust happened. We can’t criticize any aspect of the narrative because according to the Jewish definition of racism that would be racist. That means that we have an original sin that is baked into law that is used as a justification for denying us group rights.
Does anybody understand where I am going with this?
To make the case for group rights you have to make a direct refutation of the narrative that Whites should not be allowed group rights or group identity because of the holocaust.
You don’t need to question the holocaust narrative. You can just say “I refuse to accept that the holocaust is a rational justification for denying Whites group identity and protecting Jews from criticism”.
Nobody says that Jews should not have group rights because the Stern gang terrorized Palestinians after the creation of Israel.
So, the definition of racism and the laws that are used to institutionalize speech codes against racism are illegitimate.
This is not to say that you are against hate. You’re saying “I reject the idea that White group identity is hate. I also reject the idea that criticizing white power is okay, but criticizing Jewish power is not okay.”
This institutional inequality in the way that hate defined and applied should make it obvious why it is Jews themselves that made the definition, enforce it with the ADL, and sick groups like Antifa on the “Nazis” — the dangerous, genocidal White racists that refuse to abide by speech codes that privilege one group over another.
With an ideological refutation of the hegemonic Jewish definition of racism we can play the same game by redefining racism. We can say that anyone that wants to deny us the right to group identity and rights in the name of “anti-racism” or who calls us “Nazis” and by doing so links us to violence and mass murder — is a racist and wants to deny us group rights and group identity because they hate us and want to weaken us so that we will not exist as a people.
We Need Intellectuals and Propagandists
Let me repeat that: we have to take the position that it is racist to call us Nazis so as to link White identitarians to mass murder in order to delegitimize us. We can say that calling us Nazis (or fascists) is a racist canard because no other race is told that they cannot have group identity because it is dangerous.
We could even go further and say that linking White identity to mass murder is a type of “hate libel”. And we would say that that libel is racist and harmful and is itself a type of hate speech.
I will repeat: the definition of hate perpetuates institutional inequality against us and to break out of our oppression we have to redefine hate such that all ethnic groups are held to the same standard. And, anyone that attempts to deny us peaceful group identity by linking it to holocaust mass murder (that we are not even allowed to question the historical veracity of) is racist, and any organizations and institutions that attempt to apply that definition of racism are by definition illegitimate.
We need to write books and propaganda that give an intellectual justification for our position that political correctness and the concept of hate speech is rooted in a definition of hate that is intrinsically biased against us.
So, we need to create intellectual justifications for the delegitimization of the current definition of hate and all of the groups like ADL and Antifa and even hate speech laws themselves that are designed to institutionalize that unequal definition.
Real equality is where we all play by the same rules. Taking part in discourse so that we can overthrow the system that oppresses us can only be done by intellectuals. It’s not going to happen by taking steroids or filling your basement with canned sardines. It’s not going to happen by moving out to the countryside to wait for the apocalypse.
We need intellectuals. We need journalists, writers, novelists, political commentators. We need an intellectual elite that can use the realm of ideas to legitimize our group interests and shape discourse in a way that is beneficial to ourselves as a people. We need people that are reading, and thinking, and writing books. Even if they are not mainstream we can create our own parallel intellectual sphere so that we can begin to create counter narratives that advocate for our own group interests with a unified voice, so that we can one day be emancipated as a people.